# Van Til site: Christianciv.com



## RamistThomist (Dec 13, 2007)

Christian Civilization

excellent analysis of van til. Slight Reconstructionist slant, which is to be expected since the CRs are the most consistent van tillians.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2007)

Good stuff Jacob.


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 14, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Christian Civilization
> the CRs are the most consistent van tillians.



 I disagree.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 14, 2007)




----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2007)

Sorry, that was tongue in cheek, even though some respected critiques of Christian Reconstruction have said the same thing in different words. I won't push it beyond that.


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 14, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


>



Hey, that's the first time I've seen the "can of worms" used. Excellent!


----------



## SouthernHero (Dec 14, 2007)

Wow, that's an awesome site.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2007)

I guess my point was this:

If you agree with Van Til that the Bible speaks to all of life authoritatively (_Defense of the Faith, page 7_, and you agree with the central Van Tillian premise of no neutrality, then you sound very much like a Christian Reconstructionist.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 14, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I guess my point was this:
> 
> If you agree with Van Til that the Bible speaks to all of life authoritatively (_Defense of the Faith, page 7_, and you agree with the central Van Tillian premise of no neutrality, then you sound very much like a Christian Reconstructionist.



Van Tillian epistemology (i.e. we can have no true knowledge of anything independent of God) leads us back to the Biblical blueprints for law, politics, education, welfare, economics etc. Therefore, one who truly embraces Van Tillian epistemology and combines it with a postmillennial faith, will be a Christian Reconstructionist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > I guess my point was this:
> ...



I just go back to the van til quote in _Defense of the Faith_, page 7. I ask non-theonomic van tillians to read it aloud. There are a few modern Reformed theologians who keep saying they can be van tillian and "neutral." I keep responding with "I can show you the page where Van Til explicitly repudiates that."


----------



## MW (Dec 14, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > I guess my point was this:
> ...



Not if you happen to also believe that the Bible wasn't written to provide a blueprint for law, politics, education, welfare, economics, etc., but only to equip the man of God to do God's will in whatever sphere of life providence leads him into. But I do think it's true that if you combine VanTillian epistemology with a utopian faith and a somewhat romantic notion of American's Christian past that you willl more than likely be a Christian Reconstructionist.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 14, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



Since I believe that there will always _some_ be unsaved men and non-Christian nations, nor do I have a romantic notion of America's Christian past, nor do I believe that Biblical blueprints will be _perfectly_ applied in this life, then I am not a utopian.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



1: I am a premillennialist, so your utopian comment doesn't come close to touching my position.
2: Even if the bible's purpose wasn't to be a "blueprint" (I never said it was), it can still provide good guidance on matters of law, economics, monetary policy, sex, etc.
3: As to the "romantic American Christian past," that, too, is a non-starter (since Daniel isn't American). Anyway, we can argue quotations and sources on America's Christian past and I am comfortable of the truth of my position. But even assuming I am wrong (and I dont think I am), my original comment still stands.


----------



## MW (Dec 14, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Since I believe that there will always _some_ be unsaved men and non-Christian nations, nor do I have a romantic notion of America's Christian past, nor do I believe that Biblical blueprints will be _perfectly_ applied in this life, then I am not a utopian.



 My statement was merely intended to show the silliness of laying out consistency tests.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Since I believe that there will always _some_ be unsaved men and non-Christian nations, nor do I have a romantic notion of America's Christian past, nor do I believe that Biblical blueprints will be _perfectly_ applied in this life, then I am not a utopian.
> ...



It is not silly when it points out contradictions in someone's ethical position.

P1: I am a van tillian.
P1a: Van Til denied neutrality.
P2: I believe in neutrality.
--------------------
There is a contradiction between P1 and P2.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Dec 14, 2007)




----------



## MW (Dec 14, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> It is not silly when it points out contradictions in someone's ethical position.



That's true, Jacob; but to say that non-neutrality consistently leads to Christian Reconstruction is far-fetched.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > It is not silly when it points out contradictions in someone's ethical position.
> ...



I don't think it is far-fetched. Ok, we'll compromise. It doesn't lead to Christian Reconstruction, but in the current Reformed scene such a person is using language that sounds eerily like Christian Reconstruction (and for the record, I don't really consider myself CR).


----------



## ReformationArt (Dec 14, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Has your eschatological view changed? When looking up this topic in past threads, I found a post where you say you're postmil: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/van-til-s-millennial-position-2579/


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2007)

ReformationArt said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Yes, this summer I became historic premillennial--but I don't press it beyond that. I am a premillennialist in terms of Revelation 20 (won't debate that here) but I sound kind of postmil in terms of apologetics and cultural engagement. But yes, Russell Moore of SBTS changed my millennial position in his book, _The Kingdom of Christ_


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 14, 2007)

interesting site - I posted some of the content on chritsianskepticism.org, thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> interesting site - I posted some of the content on chritsianskepticism.org, thanks!



The main problem I have with the site is that they have been promising to update it for almost 2 years now!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 14, 2007)

I bet it is the problem of desire vs. priorities!


----------

