Introduction to the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лип 2020
- In this episode, we discuss a new online course wherein Dr. Lane G. Tipton teaches a thorough introduction to the theology and innovative apologetic method of Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), a pioneer in a distinctly Reformed approach to defending the faith.
This course investigates the context, structure, and significance of Van Til’s theology and apologetics. It is designed to introduce students to the main influences and fundamental concerns of Van Til’s theological approach to apologetics. Topics include a general introduction, Trinity, image of God, covenant, revelation, worldview, antithesis, common grace, and idealism. Special attention is given to the programmatic deep structures of Van Til’s thought, distinguishing his views from Roman Catholicism, Barth, and Evangelical approaches to theology and apologetics.
This is Christ the Center episode 656 (www.reformedforum.org/ctc656)
Greetings from China mainland! Thanks and praise be to God that you could teach us the reformed courses on UA-cam, what a blessing!
Van Til was not a Reformed. He was a heretic that rejected Sola Scriptura for the heresy irreconcilable paradox. In short, Van Til believed that the Bible is filled with contradictions that no one could understand nor harmonize--he even went as far as to demand his students to not even try to reconcile any discrepancies they found in the Bible.
Van Til also rejected Sola Fide, as he taught human free will and justification by faith and works with his unBiblical notions of common grace and the so-called free offer of the Gospel (basic Arminianism). Van Til and Greg Bahnsen both publicly defended the heresy of Norman Shepherd who was fired for teaching justification by faith and works at Westminster Seminary (where Van Til was hired to teach!). Norman Shepherd's heresy would go on to help create the heresy of Federal Vision. Van Til is one of the main reasons homosexuals are now being ordained in the PCA, while the OPC is apostate (see the Kinnaird Trial held in the OPC).
legitimate
facebook.com/groups/489336621174684/?ref=bookmarks
@@RedBeetle 🤡
It's so ouching these lads recall so fondly where and when they met! Usually we remember our girlfriends and wives, though.
I found a free PDF download of "Theodicy" and it was the first thing I've read from Van Til. He destroyed every other ideology. Loved it.
do you have the link?
@@ianguerra5486 no I don't, I Googled it.
I 've read he was a real jerk to his colleagues, and he is almost solely responsible for the split in the scholarly study of Christianity.
Can not wait! Van Til is a dope theologian, more pastors need to dive into van til.
D. Martin well maybe not to you, but to those in the urban community, hip hop culture, etc. they know what it means, and how if derives reverence and worship to the person. Dope, is like saying awesome or great. Unless you feel like God isn’t trying to save people in those communities?
Van Til may have been on dope when he wrote his heresy of irreconcilable paradox--or maybe he was simply insane. Van Til's rejection of Sola Scriptura by claiming all the teachings of Scripture are apparently contradictory and that these apparent contradictions could not--nor should not be harmonized--placed him firmly outside of the Reformed camp. His notions that the Bible is filled with actual contradictions (after all, an irreconcilable paradox is just the philosophical way of saying 'contraction') are acceptable in dialectical theology, but not Biblical theology.
See my fully cited book:
"Double-Think: Refuting The Satanic Teachings Of Cornelius Van Til"
Visit The Presbyterian Research Center on Facebook for legitimate Reformed theology:
facebook.com/groups/489336621174684/?ref=bookmarks
RedBeetle oh brother I wish we were all so sanctified on earth to where all our thoughts and ideas were as perfect as yours, but sadly we are all sinners both in thought and deed, and I’m sure we think heretical things daily and I’m glad that It’s God that saves and not good theology or perfect doctrine, but the gospel of Jesus. Therefore I’m sure God can overlook those errors and see a man after His own heart. We don’t praise van til for the things he got right, but where The Spirit illuminated truth in his teaching.
@@RedBeetle 🤡
I really wish there was less banter or at least put a time mark for when you actually start talking about the topic that you posted on.
For those in a hurry, this one really gets into the meat at 38:00 minutes in.
I was about to end 5 minutes in. Thank you very much
Reading The defense of the faith; just getting to know Van Til and loving it
Admiring Van Til and his work, good and dope.
Thank you!!
As an "introduction" to Van Til's Theology and Apologetics I found this a little disappointing. The first half is not really an Introduction to Van Til for the rest of us as much as it is how THEY became Introduced to Van Til. Once they do begin the discussion, Lane jumps right in to some pretty heavy philosophical descriptions. If you are thinking they might break this down for you as an "Introduction" usually does, you could be left in the dust instead. Viewers would do well to have some philosophical studies behind them before trying to digest this. It's still a great discussion and I appreciate any studies of Van Til but I think there are other simpler introductions available.
Here are some of the courses or part of Bahnsens courses on UA-cam. The last one is the Basic Training full course.
Myth of Nuetrality
ua-cam.com/video/L9Jc5b56NtUu/v-deo.html
Arbitrary Arguments
ua-cam.com/video/2hS-2G4G10A/v-deo.html
Reasoning with the Unbeliever
ua-cam.com/video/6RBz-zAWoKk/v-deo.html
Basic Training Defending the Faith (full 5 hour course)
ua-cam.com/video/chCcyGL-K-s/v-deo.html
Wondering which commenter here is Darth Dawkins?
Here is a philosophical critique of the video:
The video presents an in-depth discussion of the theology and apologetics of Cornelius Van Til from a Reformed perspective. While the speakers clearly have extensive knowledge of Van Til's work, the presentation lacks critical analysis and debate. A more philosophically robust discussion could be developed in several ways:
1. Examine Van Til's epistemology more closely. The speakers take a mainly positive view of Van Til's "presuppositional" approach, but other philosophers have raised serious concerns about presuppositionalism, arguing that it begs the question or commits the fallacy of a false dichotomy. Engaging with these critiques would strengthen the philosophical rigor.
1. Consider perspectives from outside the Reformed tradition. The speakers approach Van Til solely from within their own theological framework. Discussing interpretations and appropriations of Van Til in other Christian traditions (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran) would provide meaningful context and debate.
1. Analyze the internal consistency of Van Til's views. While the speakers provide an overview of Van Til's thought, they do not really delve into whether all aspects of his theology and apologetics cohere. A philosophical analysis could probe potential tensions or contradictions in greater depth.
1. Compare/contrast Van Til with other influential thinkers. The speakers make passing references to figures like Barth, but a more robust discussion could explore how Van Til's thought converges or diverges from major philosophers and theologians on issues like natural theology, the relationship between faith and reason, etc.
1. Consider objections from non-Christian perspectives. The critique is focused on internal Christian debates over apologetics. Bringing in non-Christian viewpoints (e.g. from Judaism, Islam, Marxism) could strengthen the conceptual analysis and meet Van Til's thought on its own presuppositional turf.
In summary, while the video provides helpful background, a more philosophical approach could incorporate rational critique, internal logical consistency, comparative analysis, and engagement with competing worldviews. This would sharpen and deepen the evaluation of Van Til's contribution to theology and apologetics.
Van Til during his lifetime was a confrontational and aggressive philosopher who believed that he could counter many objections to his vein of presumption apologetics by framing his christian interlocutors as less than. As in his argument was that his theological critics weren't submitting themselves to the word of god. It was easy for him to yell down his critics in such a manner. He famously had to reassure visiting experts that he wasn't a ranting angry demon.
would a reformed man say they were the true catholic? Any response would be greatly appreciated
Yes, we confess in the Nicene Creed that "we believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church." We believe that we confess the real and catholic faith.
D. Martin thank you for your reply
Van Til's theology has helped many people in Presbyterian churches find their way back to the Roman Catholic Church. This is because Cornelius Van Til's teachings were NOT Reformed--but Satanic. That's right, Van Til rejected Sola Scriptura by teaching the heresy of irreconcilable paradox. Van Til taught that all Bible's teachings were irreconcilably paradoxical and that none of his students should ever try to communicate the teachings of the Bible clearly (see Van Til's retarded book, if you can call that a book, "Introduction To Systematic Theology").
Van Til and Greg Bahnsen's public defense of heretic Norman Shepherd demonstrated that they both taught justification by faith and works. Shepherd was fired from Westminster Seminary, Pennsylvania (where Van Til taught) for this heresy. Shepherd was not disciplined by any church, however--and he was allowed to go back to the Christian Reformed Churches (Dutch Reformed--CRC) and finish his work.
The heresy of Shepherdism continued to be taught at Westminster Seminary and would go on to help develop the heresy of Federal Vision, which has also led many so-called Presbyterians back to the Roman Catholic Church. Those influenced by Van Til's satanic thought have been: Douglas Wilson (Federal Vision), Andrew Sandlin (Federal Vision..defender of Norman Shepherd), James White (heresy of Lordship Salvation), Gary North, Gary Demar, Ken Gentry, Steve Schlissel (Federal Vision), Robert Sungenis (a Roman Catholic apologist that took an MA from Westminster Seminary, Pennsylvania...wonder what he was taught?), and so on.
Learn more by getting my book:
"Double-Think: Refuting The Satanic Lies Of Cornelius Van Til"
thebp.site/239833
Catholic and Roman Catholic are not the same thing.
I need to know if someone knows .
Scripture is the clothing of the naked revelation of God . Van til. Prelude to authority inerrancy of scripture by Benjamin b warfield .
Does any one know what this mean and infers about reality itself
Van Til believed in a tripartite man. When you split up the non-material into two, you inevitably have problems. One side takes the intellect; thus, the other side is mystical and irrational.
His theology is in one sense orthodox. But in another inexplicable way he slouches into irrationalism.
Would love to see Camden debate the Lutherans actually 😁
All of Van Til's followers attack Sola Fide with their Lordship Salvation heresy.
Van Til's view on "trinity" is neither creedal nor biblical so until you ,gentlemen, address that , critics of Van Til will continue no matter what your wishful thinking of Van Til is
How so?
@@billhesford6098 van til's position that God is ONE person and THREE persons in the same sense is nonsense and nowhere to be found in the first 7 ecumenical councils(that's where the "trinity" comes from)...his students(van til's) tried to explain away this glaring issue but all failed miserably.For full disclosure, i no not ascribe to the teachings of the 7 ecumenical councils.
@@martalog121 Where does van Til say that?
@@billhesford6098 in his "Introduction to Systematic Theology"
@@martalog121 I have read that book a couple of times. I can't recollect where van Til writes, "God is ONE person and THREE persons in the same sense." He certainly did not believe that. Can you please point me to his error - it is a longish book? I can find 3 persons with the one essence or one being easy enough.