# Reforming Apologetics (Fesko)



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

Fesko, J. V. Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019.

There is no way to write a review of this book that minimizes the potential for a literary bloodbath. I will start by stating the thesis in the most minimal of terms. This allows me to divide the review in three parts: 1) how the Reformed orthodox viewed prolegomena and natural theology; 2) overlap between classic Reformed and Van Tillian methods; 3) disagreements with Van Til.

Side bar: I’ve read James Anderson’s series of reviews on this book. Anderson agrees with much of Fesko’s presentation of natural law and common notions. He does a good job outlining Fesko’s position.

The hero of this book is the Puritan Anthony Burgess. From Burgess, Fesko presents an eloquent and compelling account of the importance of the book of nature and “common notions.” The law of nature is the common notions which are on our hearts (Fesko 15). For Burgess, the boundary of the law of nature is “the moral law delivered by Moses at Sinai” (16). 

Aquinas: the principles of natural law are the same for all people. The conclusions they draw are not (Aquinas, ST Ia-IIae, qu. 94, quoted in Fesko 34). As Fesko, commenting elsewhere on Turretin, notes, “Immediate principles admit, but the noetic effects of sin due to the fall corrupt mediate principles” (43).

Although the chapter on Calvin explains Calvin’s views, it serves an equally important function: it rebuts the “Christological monism” that tempted historians and apologists for the last 200 years. That’s where people seek a unifying principle and deduce the rest of doctrine from it. This really only works with German idealism. In short, Calvin did not see Christ as the unifying principle of all theology and then deduced everything from him.

Following Richard Muller and others, Fesko notes that scholasticism was simply a method. Calvin's critical comments apply to the Sorbonne theologians, not to the scholastic method itself. It involved lectio, meditatio, and quaestio/disputatio. It was a classroom format. You can find elements of it in Calvin. Contrast the Beveridge translation of 1.16.9 with the Battles translation and you can see Calvin use scholastic terminology and methods.

I am not going to spend much time on Fesko’s analysis of Calvin. The literature is overwhelming. I do not think Calvin is a Thomist, yet it is obvious that Calvin is not saying what Van Til thinks he is saying.

Regarding Thomas Aquinas, Fesko’s main complaint is that Van Til gave nearly zero evidence that he actually read Thomas. Perhaps he did. That does not come out in his writings. We will cut a few moves off at the pass. According to presuppositionalists, Thomas is wrong for trying to synthesize Aristotle with Christ. However, it is not clear why Thomas is wrong for using concepts from Aristotle, yet it is fine for Van Til to use even more dubious concepts from Kant. 

Regarding some of Thomas’s arguments, Fesko notes they are quia, not propter quid. In other words, they reason from effect to the cause, not cause to the effect. This is important because we cannot know God in his essence; therefore, we cannot reason from God to the world (78ff). 

My favorite chapter is the one on worldview. There is a sense in which worldview talk is legitimate. If by it one means a way of viewing the world, then there is no big problem. That is not how it is used in the literature. Historic worldview theory (what Fesko labels HWT) seeks to deduce our understanding of reality from a single principle and provide an exhaustive (or near enough) explanation of reality (98). Not surprisingly, Van Til embraces HWT. It provides “the true interpretation of human experience” (Van Til, CA, 38, quoted in Fesko 106). This aspect of Van Til’s is fairly uncontroversial, so I will forgo the rest of the quotations. The problem is that if HWT is true, then there really cannot be any common notions between believer and unbeliever.

James Anderson, though, has demonstrated that Van Til held to common notions, at least in theory. Van Til rejected this later on (My Credo, JA, 21). There he moved to common ground, by which he meant the image of God.

Conclusion of the chapter: if one holds to HWT as defined above, then there is no legitimate place for natural revelation and common notions. Moreover, Scripture itself does not say that men will have unique knowledge regarding creation. God specifically tells Job there are a number of things that he will not know (Job 40:4).

I am tempted to skip the section on transcendental arguments. Fesko does not disagree with them in theory. He says they can be useful when you find the rare unbeliever who has a coherent worldview. 

He includes a chapter on Dooyeweerd. I predicted in 2005 that there would be a return to Dooyeweerd’s thought in the Reformed world. It was a strange prediction, as Dooyeweerd is often incomprehensible. It turned out to be true, though.

To some extent for Van Til, but largely for Dooyeweerd, historic Christian thought has been plagued by the nature-grace dualism. This occurs when man absolutizes one of the modal spheres, usually the temporal one. Fesko counters this charge by noting a) Dooyeweerd mistakes duality for dualism, b) provides little analysis with the key sources, and c) uses a similar methodology to Adolf von Harnack.

Against this dualism, Dooyeweerd suggests the biblical ground motive of “creation, fall, and redemption.” Here we run into a problem. Dooyeweerd had elsewhere criticized Van Til for being too rationalist in getting his ideas from the Bible. For Dooyeweerd, we cannot use the bible as an object of theology. The problem, one among many, of which Dooyeweerd seems unaware, is that he got his biblical ground motive from the Bible!

Moreover, it is not true that Thomas Aquinas (and by extension the WCF) held to such a dualism regarding body and soul. For Thomas, the soul in-forms the body. It is the form of the body. It is not a ghost in the machine. It is one organic unity. Dooyeweerd mistook Thomas for Descartes.

And Dooyeweerd does not apply the same criticism to Calvin. Calvin specifically praised Plato on the soul (ICR, 1.15.16)! Calvin is not this pure font of only biblical theology. Even worse, Calvin said it was okay to start with the knowledge of man. The ordo docendi is not the same as the ordo essendi.

When we say that Dooyeweerd used the same methodology that Harnack did, we are not saying that he was a liberal who held the same beliefs. Rather, both believed that pure Christiant thought was corrupted by Greek philosophy. 

In his concluding chapter on epistemology, Fesko shows how Van Tillians and classical Reformed can work together. Fesko’s comments on covenant sound very Van Tillian. Man’s covenantal origin allows us to embrace the book of nature.

With Van Tillians, we agree that epistemology is about wisdom (Fesko 198). Man submits to God’s authority, remembers his law, and responds with praise. We see a good example of this in Psalm 19. 

Forgetting God’s law is the opposite of knowing. It is the same as disobedience. Van Til could have written this section.

There is one category confusion, though, that many Van Tillians make.They confuse axiology (the theory of value) with epistemology. An unbeliever will almost always have the wrong axiology. That does not mean he will have the wrong epistemology. 

Conclusion

This book should not be seen as an attack on Van Til. The chapters on historic Reformed methodology are beyond dispute. The Reformed used the book of nature and believed in common notions. Nor is this book uncritical of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas was wrong on the donum superadditum. Finally, the real criticisms of Van Til should be appreciated for what they are. Van Til did not engage in serious historical analysis. That does not mean the rest of his project is wrong. Fesko even thinks the Transcendental Argument has its place (although I have my concerns).

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2 | Funny 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 7, 2022)

Would you suggest this as a good intro?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

arapahoepark said:


> Would you suggest this as a good intro?



Not for classical apologetics itself. The best intro is Sproul's _Defending Your Faith_.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2022)

It would be the alleged use of Kant by Van Til that would be the most disputed (and already debunked many times) claim.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> It would be the alleged use of Kant by Van Til that would be the most disputed (and already debunked many times) claim.



Depends on how one says CVT used it. That he used Kantian transcendental arguments is beyond dispute. We are not saying, at least neither I nor Fesko, that CVT held to other Kantian claims: noumena/phenomena, antinomies, etc.I actually think he is more influenced by FH Bradley and Bernard Bousanquet. I actually respect Bradley as a philosopher. CVT is much closer in form, if not substance, to British Idealism than pure Kantianism.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2022)

Jacob, it is most certainly NOT beyond dispute that Van Til used Kantian transcendental arguments. Lane Tipton is the foremost expert on Van Til in the Reformed world. Watch his lectures on this very topic (on the Reformed Forum). Just because they both used the word "transcendental" does not mean Van Til used Kantian transcendental arguments.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2022)

Van Til's version of transcendental predication (that the Triune God's revelation in nature and Scripture is the pre-requisite of all knowledge) could not possibly be more antithetical to Kant's transcendendal idealism, which posits that the human mind is what makes all objects understandable. Kant never even admitted the theoretical possibility of God's revelation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Jacob, it is most certainly NOT beyond dispute that Van Til used Kantian transcendental arguments. Lane Tipton is the foremost expert on Van Til in the Reformed world. Watch his lectures on this very topic (on the Reformed Forum). Just because they both used the word "transcendental" does not mean Van Til used Kantian transcendental arguments.



I'm not trying to say CVT was Kantian just because he used a similar argument. In any case, Kant got shades of that argument from Aristotle. All TAs operate on the question "What are the presuppositions that make y possible?"


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Van Til's version of transcendental predication (that the Triune God's revelation in nature and Scripture is the pre-requisite of all knowledge) could not possibly be more antithetical to Kant's transcendendal idealism, which posits that the human mind is what makes all objects understandable. Kant never even admitted the theoretical possibility of God's revelation.



I know that. I am saying the outward form of transc. arguments are the same, not the content.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

All TAs employ the following:

X is the precondition for Y.
We know that Y is the case.
Therefore, X.

Anyone who has read and listened to Bahnsen can fill in the relevant blanks.

Fesko is not saying Van Til is wrong for using TAs. Fesko even thinks TAs can be useful. I don't, but he does. Tipton might be the foremost expert on Van Til, but Stern is the foremost expert on TAs.


Transcendental Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I know that. I am saying the outward form of transc. arguments are the same, not the content.


This is not what you said before. You said VT used Kantian transcendental arguments. You mentioned nothing about the distinction between form and content. That's like saying eating and map-reading are similar because they both use the word "fork." Not helpful at all. 



RamistThomist said:


> All TAs employ the following:
> 
> X is the precondition for Y.
> We know that Y is the case.
> ...



I would never use this form of argumentation, since it is the "begging the question" fallacy. The conclusion is simply a restatement of the first premise. TAs employ quite a different form of argument: X is the precondition for Y. Only the Christian worldview provides X. Therefore all other worldviews are incorrect. I'll take Bahnsen over Stern any day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> This is not what you said before. You said VT used Kantian transcendental arguments. You mentioned nothing about the distinction between form and content. That's like saying eating and map-reading are similar because they both use the word "fork." Not helpful at all.



Consider my follow up as a clarification.


greenbaggins said:


> I would never use this form of argumentation, since it is the "affirming the consequent" fallacy. The conclusion is simply a restatement of the first premise. TAs employ quite a different form of argument: X is the precondition for Y. Only the Christian worldview provides X. Therefore all other worldviews are incorrect. I'll take Bahnsen over Stern any day.



I didn't say it was affirming the consequent. That's not the criticism. That's not Stern's criticism, either. If one is explaining the preconditions of intelligiblity, then it isn't affirming the consequent. Michael Butler dealt with that in the Festschrift to Bahnsen.

Granted, what I did above was a very simplified version of the TA, but it isn't any different from what Bahnsen used in CVT: R&A.

P1: Without the Christian God, there can be no consistent intelligiblity.
P2: There is intelligibility (logic, science, etc).
Ergo, the Christian God.

Nothing I've said would be contested among Van Tillians. I didn't expect in this thread to be explaining and promoting the TAG.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Consider my follow up as a clarification.
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was affirming the consequent. That's not the criticism. That's not Stern's criticism, either. If one is explaining the preconditions of intelligiblity, then it isn't affirming the consequent. Michael Butler dealt with that in the Festschrift to Bahnsen.
> ...


I didn't say affirming the consequent was your critique or Stern's. That is _my own_ critique of the way the argument was presented, and why_ I_ wouldn't use it. Your second example is actually a quite different form of the argument that amounts to a modus tollens argument, unlike the first version. Your second version looks like this: 

No X, No Y
Y
Therefore X

This form of the argument is definitely one that Van Tillians will use, and it is logical. The way you phrased the first one doesn't look like this.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2022)

Also, if idealism is defined as positing that objects conform to the mind, then Van Til has no relationship except an antithetical one with all forms of it, whether Kantian, Hegelian, or British.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2022)

On deeper reflection, the original form of the argument is actually a modus ponens. The word "presupposes" kind of threw me for a bit.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Also, if idealism is defined as positing that objects conform to the mind, then Van Til has no relationship except an antithetical one with all forms of it, whether Kantian, Hegelian, or British.



I agree. Van Til was not an idealist. But as he said, "If we are to speak to them and win them, it is necessary to learn their language. There is no possibility of avoiding this" (Defense of the Faith [1955 edition], 23).

I never said CVT was wrong for using idealist language. I use Aristotelian and Platonic language (as did most of the church). In fact, I never said he was wrong on the TA (to the degree he actually developed the argument). To be sure, I have some misgivings on how a TAG could work with the man on the street. It also functionally asks the unbeliever to first presuppose skepticism, and I am not sure that is wise. Nonetheless, I am not saying it is logically wrong.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

Example of idealist language: concrete universal.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2022)

Jacob, this is what you wrote in your OP: "According to presuppositionalists, Thomas is wrong for trying to synthesize Aristotle with Christ. However, it is not clear why Thomas is wrong for using concepts from Aristotle, yet it is fine for Van Til to use even more dubious concepts from Kant." You have now admitted that CVT did not use concepts from Kant. Would you care to revise your previous statement, then? Most scholars agree that Thomas did in fact use the actual concepts from Aristotle. CVT's theology is, however, completely antithetical to Kant, and is not idealist at all. Using a term like "concrete universal" doesn't make CVT an idealist. So the parallel doesn't exist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> You have now admitted that CVT did not use concepts from Kant. Would you care to revise your previous statement, then? Most scholars agree that Thomas did in fact use the actual concepts from Aristotle. CVT's theology is, however, completely antithetical to Kant, and is not idealist at all. Using a term like "concrete universal" doesn't make CVT an idealist. So the parallel doesn't exist.



Concepts in the sense of language and ideas. That is different from saying that Van Til used Kant's conclusions. Van Til certainly used Hegelian terms like "concrete universal."


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I know that. I am saying the outward form of transc. arguments are the same, not the content.





RamistThomist said:


> Concepts in the sense of language and ideas


Given that content and ideas are roughly synonymous expressions, I view what you say here in these two statements as contradictory. You do not understand CVT if you believe him to be an idealist, or in sympathy with them, or using idealist concepts. A superficial similarity in vocabulary does not mean that he borrowed ANY ideas from idealists. Look at the lectures by Lane Tipton and revise your opinion.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> You do not understand CVT if you believe him to be an idealist,



I do not believe him to be an idealist.


greenbaggins said:


> or in sympathy with them



I don't believe that either.


greenbaggins said:


> or using idealist concepts



Is God a concrete universal?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

I actually think the language of "concrete universal" has something going for it. It really gets at the One/Many angle. I just think it needs a lot of explaining. But Van Til got that from a very specific philosophical tradition. And not everything later idealism said was bad. They were responding to legitimate concerns.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I do not believe him to be an idealist.
> 
> 
> I don't believe that either.
> ...


Watch Lane Tipton for the answer. You haven't answered my charge of contradiction.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Watch Lane Tipton for the answer. You haven't answered my charge of contradiction.



I don't see myself as so much contradicting as the very nature of dialogue. We dialogue and have conversations to refine previous statements. You caught me in some ambiguity. That's fair. I wanted to refine my statement.

Yes, Van Til said the ontological Trinity is a concrete universal. I'm not actually disagreeing with him on that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2022)

I'll grant for the sake of argument that CVT wasn't idealist. I think I said that half a dozen times. I'll even grant that his idealist language doesn't mean anything. It's not an important part of the review, since Fesko doesn't actually disagree with CVT on the TAG.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I'll grant for the sake of argument that CVT wasn't idealist. I think I said that half a dozen times. I'll even grant that his idealist language doesn't mean anything. It's not an important part of the review, since Fesko doesn't actually disagree with CVT on the TAG.


Well I haven't read the book so I can't on it


RamistThomist said:


> Fesko, J. V. Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019.
> 
> There is no way to write a review of this book that minimizes the potential for a literary bloodbath. I will start by stating the thesis in the most minimal of terms. This allows me to divide the review in three parts: 1) how the Reformed orthodox viewed prolegomena and natural theology; 2) overlap between classic Reformed and Van Tillian methods; 3) disagreements with Van Til.
> 
> ...


Well several things in response, I will not be discussing the "Kant and Idealism" thing you already corrected yourself (and Lane already nicely dealt with it). My thanks to Lane for the source on Lane Tipton, it looks fascinating! I'll only say this I hope if anyone thinks TA's are only an Idealist thing they should go to the link provided by Jacob, my thanks to you for that, and anyone can see most (if not all, except Kant) of the philosophers quoted are analytical philosophers. For some reason Van Friessian (I hope I spelled his name right) was left out.

As far as Dooyweerd goes one can consult Robert Knudsen's lectures at WTS media archives (he gives a class on Dooyeweerd) and/or his collection of essays "Roots and Branches" for a sympathetic confessional perspective on Dooyeweerd. He actually studied with him. Being that I like Dooyeweerd I am no slave to his thinking or Van Til's I do agree with the criticism of him given in your review.

I have not read Fesko’s book, but the Reformed Forum did a review that everyone should check out, so I can't comment on the content of what your review says. Fesko is a scholar of historical and systematic theology so he knows his stuff. You claim it is beyond dispute, ok. One question though, since it is also beyond dispute that two of Van Til's biggest influences are Vos and Bavink, did they both get Reformed Orthodoxy wrong as well? Or could it be shown that Van Til misunderstood them? I don't know but you have hinted here and elsewhere that Van Til is out of step with RO.
Now on TA (I don't like TAG, it completely fuzzys everything up) the best of WTS refers to it by other more helpful names. Knudsen (Transcendental Perspective) and William Edgar (Transcendental Aproach) both have names that imply a method more than an argument. For Knudsen see the former book and for Edgar see his WTS lectures at the WTS media archives.
I also advise anyone who is confused on the logical structure of TA's should consult Don Collett's work on this. He has a "back and forth" on this with Frame. See Frame's website I'm sure we're all familiar with and his contribution to Frame's festrift as well as his essay "Van Til and Transcendental Arguments" in the book "Reason and Revelation: New Essays In Reformed Apologetics" edited by Lane Tipton and K. Scott Oliphant.
The logical structure given is this; in order for the predicate of true or false to be applied to proposition y, proposition x must be true. If proposition x is false than proposition y is neither true or false. That is my own way of saying it but an example.
Jake is either a good father or a bad father presupposes that it is true that he is a father. If he's not a father than it is neither true or false that is he good or bad at it (its meaningless). Thats an example of the proper logical structure to be employed by the "method" of TA's. I don't know if Fesko discusses these in the book but thats the correct way of looking at it.
As far as HWT goes I wonder if Fesko or yourself can account the prevalence of it in modern western culture? Everyone assumes it, even the person in the street. They use less technical names of course but everyone uses the ideas in ordinary language, you might even say its "common sense". I apologize for the length but I wanted to give plenty of resources to anyone who reads the book or this review to consult on the people and issues brought up. So if you wish to respond to the points or questions I posed, I apologize that they are sprinkled around all that.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2022)

Oh for the record my laughing response to your OP was not about the whole post only the "bloodbath" comment, it was funny.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Jun 8, 2022)

I've been wondering what the presuppositionalist/Van Tillian position is on the Reformed Scholastics.

How well does Van Til square with them?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> I've been wondering what the presuppositionalist/Van Tillian position is on the Reformed Scholastics.
> 
> How well does Van Til square with them?



The Reconstructionist Van Tillians are openly hostile the scholastics (and hence, the historic Reformed tradition).
The theonomic Van Tillians accept the scholastics, albeit uneasily.
The more mainline Van Tillians accept the scholastics.

And that's great. I just hasten to add that the Reformed scholastics used the classical arguments and Aristotelian causality (see Van Asselt).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Well several things in response, I will not be discussing the "Kant and Idealism" thing you already corrected yourself (and Lane already nicely dealt with it).



I still think he used idealist language. I merely conceded the other points for the sake of argument and to move the discussion forward.


jwright82 said:


> One question though, since it is also beyond dispute that two of Van Til's biggest influences are Vos and Bavink, did they both get Reformed Orthodoxy wrong as well? Or could it be shown that Van Til misunderstood them? I don't know but you have hinted here and elsewhere that Van Til is out of step with RO.



Vos in Ref. Dogm. 1 said we reason from effect to cause in the existence of God. Van Til's TA moves in precisely the opposite direction. 

Van Til said Bavinck was too Thomist and too scholastic. CVT didn't misunderstand Bavinck. He knew exactly what Bavinck was saying.


jwright82 said:


> As far as HWT goes I wonder if Fesko or yourself can account the prevalence of it in modern western culture? Everyone assumes it, even the person in the street. They use less technical names of course but everyone uses the ideas in ordinary language, you might even say its "common sense". I apologize for the length but I wanted to give plenty of resources to anyone who reads the book or this review to consult on the people and issues brought up. So if you wish to respond to the points or questions I posed, I apologize that they are sprinkled around all that.



I hinted at that. Depends on what one means by w-view. If it is simply a frame for looking at the world, then it's fairly obvious. Fesko reviews the literature from James Orr onward and notes that there it has a very different meaning.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 8, 2022)

Jacob, while this is certainly progress, I am still a little confused about something in your OP. You said, "According to presuppositionalists, Thomas is wrong for trying to synthesize Aristotle with Christ. However, it is not clear why Thomas is wrong for using concepts from Aristotle, yet it is fine for Van Til to use _even more dubious_ concepts from Kant (emphasis added)." The impression I got from this was that Van Til was less orthodox than Aquinas, at least on the point of integrating pagan philosophers. However, on every point I have pushed back on, you say you either agree with Van Til or are okay with what he said. Where does that leave your original statement? I guess the real problem I have with the statement in the OP is that in the first half of the comparison, you are going with presups in what they say about Aquinas, but in the second half of the equation, you don't do that, but rather go with your own analysis of CVT (which I argued is flawed). I don't know any Van Tillians who say that CVT borrowed ideas and concepts from Kant, let alone would give anyone a pass for doing so. This means that the hinted-at inconsistency is manufactured rather than real.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I still think he used idealist language. I merely conceded the other points for the sake of argument and to move the discussion forward.
> 
> 
> Vos in Ref. Dogm. 1 said we reason from effect to cause in the existence of God. Van Til's TA moves in precisely the opposite direction.
> ...


Well I haven't read the book. My point wasn't to start a debate in the book review section, that would be better in the apologetic method section. I also wanted to provide resources, as I said, for people to see the otherside of some of people and ideas brought up.
I'm glad you responded to Vos and Bavink, like Warfield and Kuyper, it seems he separated out their theology from their apologetics. Does Fesko, or you, think that theologically Van Til is out of step with Reformed Orthodoxy? If so does Fesko recon with the fact that Van Til got his theology from Vos, Warfield (I believe he studied under both), Kuyper, and Bavink? If so wouldn't that beg the question of whether they got Reformed Orthodoxy right?
I'm merely asking about the book, not trying to start a debate. Since he is trained in historical theology, and knows his stuff, you would think he would notice that question as requiring some sort of answer. So I think it would cripple his apparent (not saying he's saying this but it was implied in your review) argument of Van Til being being out of step with RO.
The worldview stuff and the common notions stuff I disagree with him on but this isn't the place debate only discussing the pros and cons of the book. On common notions one thing not clear, to me or I mave missed something, was whether or not he deals with Van Til having a different basis for common notions (us being made in God's image, common grace, and that we all think about the same stuff)?
On TA'S does he deal with Don Collett's work and hence the logical form that I got from him and layer out? Don I believe claims it was Strawson's formulation.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Jacob, while this is certainly progress, I am still a little confused about something in your OP. You said, "According to presuppositionalists, Thomas is wrong for trying to synthesize Aristotle with Christ. However, it is not clear why Thomas is wrong for using concepts from Aristotle, yet it is fine for Van Til to use _even more dubious_ concepts from Kant (emphasis added)." The impression I got from this was that Van Til was less orthodox than Aquinas, at least on the point of integrating pagan philosophers. However, on every point I have pushed back on, you say you either agree with Van Til or are okay with what he said. Where does that leave your original statement? I guess the real problem I have with the statement in the OP is that in the first half of the comparison, you are going with presups in what they say about Aquinas, but in the second half of the equation, you don't do that, but rather go with your own analysis of CVT (which I argued is flawed). I don't know any Van Tillians who say that CVT borrowed ideas and concepts from Kant, let alone would give anyone a pass for doing so. This means that the hinted-at inconsistency is manufactured rather than real.


I have to agree with Lane. It seems that this review at points was less about a book and more about your own analysis of Van Til and presupps. Thats a critical comment on the review unless you're echoing Fresko but happen to agree with him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The impression I got from this was that Van Til was less orthodox than Aquinas, at least on the point of integrating pagan philosophers. However, on every point I have pushed back on, you say you either agree with Van Til or are okay with what he said



I'll try to flesh it out:
1) Van Til spoke with an Idealist accent. That's not a criticism. He wasn't just reading the pure sweetness of Calvin one day and suddenly came to the TAG. He, like pretty much every other thinker in history, used the current terminology available to him. He specifically said he was doing that in Defense of the Faith.
2) I do think some of those terms are of limited value today; I grant that "dubious" might have been too strong.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2022)

After rereading the OP, if Fesko thinks a WV is a "view of reality composed from a single principle" he doesn't understand it it seems. Even Kant had what 10 to twelve categories (not one) that we build a WV from? Dooyeweerd had how many modal aspects with which we apply our religious ground motive (all of which have more than one) to build a WV? I'm just raising doubts as to how well he understands the subject matter here, if that's all he's saying. Again not trying to start a debate only asking questions to determine the value of the book. So far I'm not impressed with it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I don't know any Van Tillians who say that CVT borrowed ideas and concepts from Kant, let alone would give anyone a pass for doing so.



If there is little to no connection to Kant, then why did Bahnsen devote lectures to Kant in the context of the TAG?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> After rereading the OP, if Fesko thinks a WV is a "view of reality composed from a single principle" he doesn't understand it it seems.



That was true of 19th century W-view talk, particularly w/James Orr.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2022)

Weltanschaung was literally an intuition of the world from a single principle.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> That was true of 19th century W-view talk, particularly w/James Orr.


So it seems his book relies heavily on James Orr as being the standard for WV thinking? You know as well as I do that it was way more complicated than that. If thats how he is historically evaluating the whole thing that seems a bit shoddy to me. And he should know better, his book on the WCF is the standard of historical scholarship. 
So if historically he's using James Orr as the litmus test of understanding WV thinking to criticize most WV thinking that leaves a lot to be desired. Also if he claims that Van Til is out of step with Reformed Orthodoxy but doesn't deal with whether or not Kuyper, Warfield, Vos , and Bavink being either misunderstood or also out of step with Reformed Orthodoxy that's shoddy scholarship. It implies more of an "are to grind" mentality that affects the value of a good scholar. I know I'm throwing a lot of the same criticisms from different angles but I think they're legitimate for anyone to consider before reading this book.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Weltanschaung was literally an intuition of the world from a single principle.


Yes but how was it used? Did Dooyeweerd derive his WV from a single principle? Or Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer for that matter? Again I'm becoming less and less interested in this book outside of reading a friendly critique. Although with the apparent historical shoddy scholarship from a good historical scholar the smell of "axe to grind" is getting stronger.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Did Dooyeweerd derive his WV from a single principle?


 Regarding his biblical ground motive principle, maybe.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Yes but how was it used? Did Dooyeweerd derive his WV from a single principle? Or Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer for that matter? Again I'm becoming less and less interested in this book outside of reading a friendly critique. Although with the apparent historical shoddy scholarship from a good historical scholar the smell of "axe to grind" is getting stronger.



A book review is not an exhaustive analysis of each chapter. Fesko does the leg work you ask for. I didn't include it because the review had other things to talk about.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> A book review is not an exhaustive analysis of each chapter. Fesko does the leg work you ask for. I didn't include it because the review had other things to talk about.


Ok fair enough, you're right. Dooyeweerd's ground motive is usually 3, I've read 4 as well, so thats more than one. In fairness to you and the fact that this just a review I'll reduce questions to a few to move along.
These questions are meant to determine the value of the book alone. Does he say and/or imply that Van Til is "out of step" with classical Reformed Orthodoxy? If so does he deal with, even in a foot note, Van Til's reliance on the previously mentioned Reformed giants for his theology? Does he recognize and/or respond to the question of their Orthodoxy? Last is his historical analysis, regardless of complexity, reduce to WV being derived from a single principle?
All those questions are questions a historical theological scholar not only should be able to answer but answering or not answering them reflect upon the value of the book? If he does deal with all of them I look forward to reading the book if not I'll read one day maybe.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> If there is little to no connection to Kant, then why did Bahnsen devote lectures to Kant in the context of the TAG?
> View attachment 9178


Maybe because people keep on misunderstanding what CVT is trying to do and connecting him to Kant when CVT was perhaps the most trenchant critic of idealism in the 20th century.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Does he say and/or imply that Van Til is "out of step" with classical Reformed Orthodoxy?



As a whole, no. On certain points some things he said are harder to square with RO. For example, at one place CVT appears to embrace the idea of common notions, but elsewhere he seems to reject it.


jwright82 said:


> Last is his historical analysis, regardless of complexity, reduce to WV being derived from a single principle?



He acknowledges the differences in how the term is used.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Maybe because people keep on misunderstanding what CVT is trying to do and connecting him to Kant when CVT was perhaps the most trenchant critic of idealism in the 20th century.



I literally referenced Bahnsen's lectures. We aren't "connecting him to Kant," as though that suddenly made him bad. We are just noting similarities in terminology. If you are witnessing to 19th century academics in a German university, that's an excellent approach and I commend it wholeheartedly. 

I believe God is actus purus, and that's similar to some things Aristotle said. I'm fine with that. Am I an Aristotelian? Not really.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> As a whole, no. On certain points some things he said are harder to square with RO. For example, at one place CVT appears to embrace the idea of common notions, but elsewhere he seems to reject it.
> 
> 
> He acknowledges the differences in how the term is used.


Ok fair enough. On a lighter note I have focused in on a defensive question interacting with you here and elsewhere on the question of Van Til’s relationship to Reformed Orthodoxy. I've read many people, and reviews of this book imply it's here too, who put out the supposed dichotomy of VT/RO? But like the Calvin vs. The Calvinist thesis that Muller disproved. The same could be said here.
If one pits Van Til against only the classical Reformed Orthodoxy I'm sure some case could be made of significant differences, making it harder to dispel. Now I've read a couple of essays in "Reason and Revelation: New Essays In Reformed Apologetics" that seek to dispel that but few critiques, if any, take into account the intermediary thinkers and their relation to CRO. Reformed Forum has done some things on it. But unless the critic can answer and deal with those questions(yhe intermediary thinkers) than the whole argument falls apart.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alexander Suarez (Jun 8, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> But unless the critic can answer and deal with those questions(yhe intermediary thinkers) than the whole argument falls apart.



Some folks are starting to point out perceived issues that go back before Van Til, like Bavinck. See Rev. Marino for example here: 



.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

