# Reformed Forum's Review of Fesko's Book on Apologetics



## greenbaggins (May 31, 2019)

This is very well worth the listen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (May 31, 2019)

I just listened to it today, as well. I was astounded at the number of Van Til quotes taken so egregiously out of context. I hope Dr. Fesko honors their request to appear on their podcast.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Apologist4Him (Jun 1, 2019)

Maybe Fesko should be given the Oliphint treatment? Yes accountability, I think revisions of his work should be mandatory. An OPC minister, an educated professor/teacher, misrepresenting Van Til in a published work....is sad, moreso than from laymen in the OPC, and moreso than from those outside of the OPC. How much time and effort could be redeemed, if only by halting misrepresentation before she goes out the back door to talk to her friends.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 1, 2019)

Apologist4Him said:


> Maybe Fesko should be given the Oliphint treatment?



You mean let off on a dubious technicality? As if the two situations are even remotely similar. One person was accused of setting forth heterodox theology proper; the other is being accused of misrepresenting a dead theologian. The two things are not even in the same ballpark.



Apologist4Him said:


> Yes accountability, I think revisions of his work should be mandatory.



Before he has been given the opportunity to defend himself? From what I have noticed, Barthians, Van Tillians, Reconstructionist Theonomists, advocates of the New Perspective on Paul, and the Federal Visionists _always_ claim to have been misrepresented and that none of their critics has ever understood them. Is a fair critique of such opinions even possible without someone shouting "misrepresentation"? Also, I am not sure that you can ever take anything written by a believer in Paradox Theology at face-value.

I bought the book on Thursday and have neither had the chance to read the book nor listen to this review. However, demanding that someone be forced to retract and rewrite a book because he apparently misunderstood Cornelius Van Til seems a little draconian. Church discipline is not a tool for coercing everyone with whom we have a disagreement.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> However, demanding that someone be forced to retract and rewrite a book because he apparently misunderstood Cornelius Van Til seems a little draconian. Church discipline is not a tool for coercing everyone with whom we have a disagreement.



In which case everyone who is associated with the Trinity Foundation should be brought under church discipline!

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Apologist4Him (Jun 1, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> In which case everyone who is associated with the Trinity Foundation should be brought under church discipline!



My thoughts on the Trinity Foundation are echoed in the criticisms of TF found in this old PB thread: John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Jun 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You mean let off on a dubious technicality? As if the two situations are even remotely similar. One person was accused of setting forth heterodox theology proper; the other is being accused of misrepresenting a dead theologian. The two things are not even in the same ballpark.



By "let off" and "dubious" you mean Oliphint intended to teach heterodoxy? I do not believe Dr. Oliphint would ever intentionally teach heterdoxy, that he might err or misspeak etc. is common to all men. As to the commonalities, both are recognized teachers, both have written published works with controversy. It is a similar situation. The subject of controversy is different, but the situation is nearly identical. The question here is whether Fesko intentionally misrepresented or if he is mistaken and will retract or revise accordingly.

It seems rather obvious though grouping Karl Barth and Cornelius Van Til into the same category the pejorative nature of it so as to be purposely offensive.



Reformed Covenanter said:


> Before he has been given the opportunity to defend himself? From what I have noticed, Barthians, Van Tillians, Reconstructionist Theonomists, advocates of the New Perspective on Paul, and the Federal Visionists _always_ claim to have been misrepresented and that none of their critics has ever understood them. Is a fair critique of such opinions even possible without someone shouting "misrepresentation"? Also, I am not sure that you can ever take anything written by a believer in Paradox Theology at face-value.
> 
> I bought the book on Thursday and have neither had the chance to read the book nor listen to this review. However, demanding that someone be forced to retract and rewrite a book because he apparently misunderstood Cornelius Van Til seems a little draconian. Church discipline is not a tool for coercing everyone with whom we have a disagreement.



Apparently you spent no time with the content posted by the OP from the Reformed Forum, otherwise you would have read quotations from sources and or listened to them along with discussion.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You mean let off on a dubious technicality? As if the two situations are even remotely similar. One person was accused of setting forth heterodox theology proper; the other is being accused of misrepresenting a dead theologian. The two things are not even in the same ballpark.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope you share your thoughts when you finish the book. I may pick it up soon myself. It's hard to evaluate the podcast without having read the book yet yet--I suspect in many of the points addressed, such as common notions, where the RF guys take issue with the representation of Van Til, Dr. Fesko is not claiming that no semblance of the concept is acknowledged by Van Til, but rather that the concept is vitiated and rendered hollow, in Dr. Fesko's judgment, by Van Til's other teachings. Jeff Waddington does allude to this at one point, to his credit, to suggest that Dr. Fesko is not simply pretending Van Til didn't say things he said but rather that they are using the terms in different manners. Indeed, one of the difficulties with Van Til was that he was not a very systematic writer and it's sometimes difficult to tell how various teachings of his fit together or modify each other to create a cohesive whole.

So often the RF guys seem to present Van Til (and not just here) as being thoroughly orthodox and merely recontextualizing the preceding teachings of Reformed divines, while also at the same time representing a great step forward and correction of previous deficiencies in the Reformed tradition. I've always felt that if Van Til was primarily the former, then there are far clearer and more consistent writers for us to have recourse to, but if he's primarily the latter then we need to come to terms with and acknowledge the ways in which he did materially diverge from historical Reformed teaching (for right or wrong). I do hope that Dr. Fesko does take the RF guys up on their offer to continue the dialogue.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 1, 2019)

Apologist4Him said:


> Apparently you spent no time with the content posted by the OP from the Reformed Forum, otherwise you would have read quotations from sources and or listened to them along with discussion.



I have made it clear that I have not done that because I wanted to read the book for myself first.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 1, 2019)

Apologist4Him said:


> By "let off" and "dubious" you mean Oliphint intended to teach heterodoxy? I do not believe Dr. Oliphint would ever intentionally teach heterdoxy, that he might err or misspeak etc. is common to all men.



Whether he meant to teach heterodoxy or not is beside the point. The ground for dropping the case against him was a technicality. 



Apologist4Him said:


> As to the commonalities, both are recognized teachers, both have written published works with controversy. It is a similar situation. The subject of controversy is different, but the situation is nearly identical. The question here is whether Fesko intentionally misrepresented or if he is mistaken and will retract or revise accordingly.



The two situations are nowhere near the same. Advocating heterodox theology proper is a much, much more serious situation than being mistaken about what a dead theologian might have said.



Apologist4Him said:


> It seems rather obvious though grouping Karl Barth and Cornelius Van Til into the same category the pejorative nature of it so as to be purposely offensive.



I have noticed that Barthians and Van Tillians have certain similarities in how they defend Karl Barth and Cornelius Van Til. And, as it happens, I think that there are certain similarities in theological method between the two groupings - such as the undermining of natural theology and appeal to paradox. Recognising that point does not mean that the two groups are theologically identical anymore than recognising certain similarities between how Reconstructionists and NPP advocates defend their peculiar tenets.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 1, 2019)

No one is saying Dr Oliphint sought to promote heterodoxy. And if he was misinterpreted, that's entirely on him, since he used untested language from one category and applied it to another. This led him open to the charge of teaching mutability in God.

At worst, Fesko misinterpreted Van Til, which is understandable since it first requires a grasp of 19th Century Idealism.

The two situations are nowhere the same.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 1, 2019)

Here is a challenge to Van Tillians: name me a critic who you believe has accurately understood and fairly represented your opinions?

With theonomy, I believe that John Frame and Vern Poythress both understood and fairly represented the opinions of the theonomists whom they critiqued. Recognising that point does not mean that I agree (at least not entirely) with their critiques, but is a simple acknowledgement that they did not misrepresent those whom they criticised.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 1, 2019)

Also, if you are going to call for church discipline (even if it falls short of actual censure) against someone every time they have allegedly misunderstood or misrepresented someone in print, then where would it stop? Many Thomists believe that Scott Oliphint misrepresented Thomas Aquinas in his recent book on that subject. Others believe that Van Tillians misrepresent the Reformed tradition when they claim that their system is _the_ Reformed approach to apologetics and epistemology.

Are you seriously going to call for ecclesiastical investigations into these alleged misunderstandings? I think the church has more pressing things to occupy its time with in the current climate. Moreover, such a draconian approach would virtually render any scholarly inquiry and disagreement impossible for fear of one being brought up on charges for having misunderstood someone else.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 1, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I just listened to it today, as well. I was astounded at the number of Van Til quotes taken so egregiously out of context. I hope Dr. Fesko honors their request to appear on their podcast.



I can only imagine. How bad was it?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 1, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> I hope you share your thoughts when you finish the book.


@Reformed Covenanter

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 1, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> @Reformed Covenanter



Well, I would need to start it first. In fact, I have not even removed it and John Calvin's _Sermons on 2 Timothy_ from the wrapping since I bought them on Thursday afternoon.

Reactions: Amen 1 | Funny 2


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Here is a challenge to Van Tillians: name me a critic who you believe has accurately understood and fairly represented your opinions?
> 
> With theonomy, I believe that John Frame and Vern Poythress both understood and fairly represented the opinions of the theonomists whom they critiqued. Recognising that point does not mean that I agree (at least not entirely) with their critiques, but is a simple acknowledgement that they did not misrepresent those whom they criticised.



“...when your principles are so vague and are used so dialectically that you can prove *anything* by means of them (depending upon your predilection), then those principles are as good as ‘proving’ *nothing*.” Bahnsen on Poythress’ Theonomy 

And for that matter, “On page XV of the Introduction Poythress warns his readers that technical terms he uses ‘have a good deal of vagueness and imprecision about them;’ and that ‘my *definitions* should be read sympathetically and not pressed for mathematical precision.’” Gordon Clark on Poythress’ Clarkianism 

I’m merely pointing out that Poythress is not always recognized as accurately representing positions with which he disagrees - if, indeed, using unambiguous language is a necessary condition for fair and accurate critique.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 1, 2019)

Van Til is often misunderstood. In a conversation I had with Alvin Plantinga, he told me that Van Til believed that unbelievers can’t know anything. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 1, 2019)

RWD said:


> “...when your principles are so vague and are used so dialectically that you can prove *anything* by means of them (depending upon your predilection), then those principles are as good as ‘proving’ *nothing*.” Bahnsen on Poythress’ Theonomy
> 
> And for that matter, “On page XV of the Introduction Poythress warns his readers that technical terms he uses ‘have a good deal of vagueness and imprecision about them;’ and that ‘my *definitions* should be read sympathetically and not pressed for mathematical precision.’” Gordon Clark on Poythress’ Clarkianism
> 
> I’m merely pointing out that Poythress is not always recognized as accurately representing positions with which he disagrees - if, indeed, using unambiguous language is a necessary condition for fair and accurate critique.



Where does Greg Bahnsen say that Vern Poythress misrepresented him? That is not what the above quotation says. Is GLB not critiquing the hermeneutical method of VSP? Also, note that in my earlier post I stated that *I* believed that both he and John Frame fairly represented theonomy even though *I* would not agree with all of their critiques. For one thing, I disagree with Vern Poythress on the penalties pertaining to the first table of the law. Others may disagree, which they are free to do if they think the evidence is to the contrary.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 1, 2019)

Going back to the point about church discipline, in another thread recently some of us were of different minds concerning precisely what John Calvin taught concerning the Sabbath. I do not think there is a huge difference in substance between Calvin and the Westminster Assembly, others take a different view and think Calvin's position was significantly different. May we not just ascribe that divergence to an honest disagreement about what Calvin taught without resorting to draconian methods in order to get those with whom we differ to retract?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## bookslover (Jun 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Many Thomists believe that Scott Oliphint misrepresented Thomas Aquinas in his recent book on that subject.



Richard Muller (although he is not a Thomist) believes this. He also believes that Oliphint misrepresents Aquinas because his mentor, Van Til, also misrepresented him.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 1, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Richard Muller (although he is not a Thomist) believes this. He also believes that Oliphint misrepresents Aquinas because his mentor, Van Til, also misrepresented him.



I was thinking of Richard Muller when I wrote the above comment, as he wrote several reviews of Scott Oliphint's book. 

While I am someone who would fall into the "Reformed Thomist" camp (though it would be more accurate to call it a Reformed appropriation of aspects of Thomism), many of the Reformed scholastics were highly critical of Thomas Aquinas on specific points as well. Nonetheless, the very first sentence of the Westminster Confession is enough to establish the place of natural theology within Reformed orthodoxy: "Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will, which is necessary unto salvation." (1.1)


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Where does Greg Bahnsen say that Vern Poythress misrepresented him? That is not what the above quotation says. Is GLB not critiquing the hermeneutical method of VSP? Also, note that in my earlier post I stated that *I* believed that both he and John Frame fairly represented theonomy even though *I* would not agree with all of their critiques. For one thing, I disagree with Vern Poythress on the penalties pertaining to the first table of the law. Others may disagree, which they are free to do if they think the evidence is to the contrary.



Daniel,

The quote I provided is from No Other Standard - Theonomy and Its Critics. Bahnsen dedicates Appendix B to “Poythress As A Theonomist.”

And although Bahnsen expressed passing gratitude for Poythress’ efforts in comparison to others and, also, for Poythress’ theonomic sympathies - Bahnsen spent most of the time critiquing Poythress for “unreliable reasoning,” “lack of adequate logical, textual controls,” “arbitrariness and inaccuracy,” and “capricious use of principles.”

So, I think it’s fair to say that since Bahnsen thought that Poythress approached the theonomic thesis with (a) unreliable reasoning, (b) logical lapses, (c) arbitrariness, (d) inaccuracy and (e) capriciously, then it would stand to reason that Bahnsen also believed that Poythress “misrepresented” the theonomic thesis. After all, how could Bahnsen think Poythress represented Theonomy fairly given such severe objections?

Now I suppose it’s _theoretically_ possible that Bahnsen thought Poythress mispresented _theonomy_ but not _Bahnsen’s_ theonomy, but then we’d be left to ask, who’s theonomy was Poythress aiming to criticize if not _Bahnsen’s_?

I believe Poythress has showed great promise and did not make the outlandish remarks and reckless criticisms as some of his contemporaries. But in the end, I agree with Bahnsen. Poythress employed flawed reasoning throughout his critique. In doing so, he necessarily misrepresented theonomy. That said, I have no problem extending that misrepresentation to a misrepresentation of Bahnsen. How couldn’t it be?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 1, 2019)

RWD said:


> Daniel,
> 
> The quote I provided is from No Other Standard - Theonomy and Its Critics. Bahnsen dedicates Appendix B to “Poythress As A Theonomist.”
> 
> ...



Ron, thanks for providing the fuller context of the remarks. Even if we grant that Greg Bahnsen thought Vern Poythress misrepresented him, the rest of us may be forgiven for not taking Dr Bahnsen's response to a critic at face-value. From what I have read of Dr Poythress and John Frame on the subject, they were fair, thoughtful, and generally irenic critics whose criticisms were not wrong in every particular. 

For my part, I agree more with Dr Bahnsen than Vern Poythress on the subject in question, but I am not convinced that the latter misrepresented the former. While it is a long time since I read _No Other Standard_, I do think it is fair to say that Dr Bahnsen was too quick to dismiss Dr Poythress' concerns about his understanding of πληρῶσαι in Matthew 5:17.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Ron, thanks for providing the fuller context of the remarks. Even if we grant that Greg Bahnsen thought Vern Poythress misrepresented him, the rest of us may be forgiven for not taking Dr Bahnsen's response to a critic at face-value. From what I have read of Dr Poythress and John Frame on the subject, they were fair, thoughtful, and generally irenic critics whose criticisms were not wrong in every particular.
> 
> For my part, I agree more with Dr Bahnsen than Vern Poythress on the subject in question, but I am not convinced that the latter misrepresented the former. While it is a long time since I read _No Other Standard_, I do think it is fair to say that Dr Bahnsen was too quick to dismiss Dr Poythress' concerns about his understanding of πληρῶσαι in Matthew 5:17.



I think we all think GLB placed too much emphasis on Matthew 5. And, I’d like to reaffirm that GLB was seemingly quite grateful for Poythress’s sincerity. Poythress by GLB’s standards did quite an about-face on the matter. I agree. Most of GLB’s opponents, even today, come across as disingenuous. Either they’re utterly misinformed or else they prefer to engage caricatures. Their abuse of 19.4 is deplorable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 2, 2019)

RWD said:


> Their abuse of 19.4 is deplorable.



Who’s abuse? The critics or theonomists? And why?


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 2, 2019)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Who’s abuse? The critics or theonomists? And why?



The desperate critics (as opposed to the more sincere ones). Those who’d interpret “general equity” as applying to ecclesiastical censures.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 2, 2019)

So which non-Van Tillian represented Van Til correctly?


RWD said:


> Their abuse of 19.4 is deplorable.



I'll grant that point. When I was a theonomist at seminary, an adjunct prof come in and while he was supposed to be teaching on the person of Christ, he started yelling at how theonomists wanted to stone the Virgin Mary. I'll leave it at that.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 2, 2019)

I don't know what it's like now but there was a time one couldn't be in the same room with a Theonomist and not be held suspect. My old church was not theonomic but did hold to the orig unAmericanized WCF, and it was fear of theonomy that was one fact that kept the church out of the Presbyterian Reformed Church. I'll edit to say that we did have a thonomist leaning deacon at the time who was one of the Tyler ARC excommunicants and had all the papers and documents of that controversy (often thought someone needs to get to him and perserve those or do a thesis at least on it before its all lost; maybe something positive could come out of it; OTOH, fading into the dustbin of history might not be bad either). But the church's position was not theonomic. One thing positive from Bahnsen's TICE is that it did lead to an interest in the views at the time of the Westminster Assembly (Bahnsen was unaware of key pieces if I recall rightly), witness in 1990 the appearance of Ferguson's Assembly of Theonomists and I also published the first new edition since the assembly of Gillespie's Wholesome Severity (Naphtali Press Anthology vol. 4). 


BayouHuguenot said:


> So which non-Van Tillian represented Van Til correctly?
> 
> 
> I'll grant that point. When I was a theonomist at seminary, an adjunct prof come in and while he was supposed to be teaching on the person of Christ, he started yelling at how theonomists wanted to stone the Virgin Mary. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 2, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't know what it's like now but there was a time one couldn't be in the same room with a Theonomist and not be held suspect. My old church was not theonomic but did hold to the orig unAmericanized WCF, and it was fear of theonomy that was one fact that kept the church out of the Presbyterian Reformed Church. I'll edit to say that we did have a thonomist leaning deacon at the time who was one of the Tyler ARC excommunicants and had all the papers and documents of that controversy (often thought someone needs to get to him and perserve those or do a thesis at least on it before its all lost; maybe something positive could come out of it; OTOH, fading into the dustbin of history might not be bad either). But the church's position was not theonomic. One thing positive from Bahnsen's TICE is that it did lead to an interest in the views at the time of the Westminster Assembly (Bahnsen was unaware of key pieces if I recall rightly), witness in 1990 the appearance of Ferguson's Assembly of Theonomists and I also published the first new edition since the assembly of Gillespie's Wholesome Severity (Naphtali Press Anthology vol. 4).



All very true. Most of the theonomists really weren't familiar with Puritan and Reformed scholastic sources. Neither were many of their critics. I quoted WCF 19.4 one time and someone said that was theonomy. In any case....

I never wanted to stone the Virgin Mary, though.

I sort of lean towards Poythress's view at this point, but it isn't an issue I fight over.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 2, 2019)

RWD said:


> The desperate critics (as opposed to the more sincere ones). Those who’d interpret “general equity” as applying to ecclesiastical censures.



That’s interesting. 

This might be a side topic, but how do they interpret “body politic” and “judicial laws” (both literally in section 4) as relating to the church... unless they’re papist or erastian.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 3, 2019)

Andrew P.C. said:


> That’s interesting.
> 
> This might be a side topic, but how do they interpret “body politic” and “judicial laws” (both literally in section 4) as relating to the church... unless they’re papist or erastian.



They acknowledge the laws in view originally pertained to a particular sphere. That’s not the dispute. They go on to say that those laws now are fulfilled by church censure. Of course, that doesn’t preserve in any sense the laws in view but instead obliterates them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So which non-Van Tillian represented Van Til correctly?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So which non-Van Tillian represented Van Til correctly?


It's impossible, for unless you presuppose VanTillianism, you cannot understand or evaluate VanTillianism. The rest of us are just working with borrowed capital.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 7


----------



## mvdm (Jun 4, 2019)

I'd agree that the issue with Fesko's book is not one of discipline, but simply evaluating the quality of his historical work. Seem to recall Fesko was criticized previously for cherry picking/misrepresenting Dr. Mark Garcia's work on union with Christ. Perhaps this is a methodological pattern with Dr. Fesko?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 4, 2019)

mvdm said:


> I'd agree that the issue with Fesko's book is not one of discipline, but simply evaluating the quality of his historical work. Seem to recall Fesko was criticized previously for cherry picking/misrepresenting Dr. Mark Garcia's work on union with Christ. Perhaps this is a methodological pattern with Dr. Fesko?



Didn't Cornelius Venema take Garcia to task as well for reading Gaffin into Calvin? I don't know if Fesko's work there was faultless, but he certainly wasn't the only one that felt that Garcia overstated his case.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 5, 2019)

Who wanted to take, Fesko I assume, to church courts for misrepresenting Van Til? Or maybe I'm reading the earlier posts wrong. If that's the case it's ridiculous. We can all get all along like any good family, albeit with disagreements ranging from polite to scary ( you ought to see my family, loving but tense at times ). 
I kinda want to hear someone's review on it before I judge it, to be fair to Fesko. Than I might get it.

On a second point I think Frame, who is critical of Van Til, did get him right even in most criticisms. Which means us Vantillians need good but accurate critiques to help us grow. Maybe Fesko will provide it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 5, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't know what it's like now but there was a time one couldn't be in the same room with a Theonomist and not be held suspect. My old church was not theonomic but did hold to the orig unAmericanized WCF, and it was fear of theonomy that was one fact that kept the church out of the Presbyterian Reformed Church. I'll edit to say that we did have a thonomist leaning deacon at the time who was one of the Tyler ARC excommunicants and had all the papers and documents of that controversy (often thought someone needs to get to him and perserve those or do a thesis at least on it before its all lost; maybe something positive could come out of it; OTOH, fading into the dustbin of history might not be bad either). But the church's position was not theonomic. One thing positive from Bahnsen's TICE is that it did lead to an interest in the views at the time of the Westminster Assembly (Bahnsen was unaware of key pieces if I recall rightly), witness in 1990 the appearance of Ferguson's Assembly of Theonomists and I also published the first new edition since the assembly of Gillespie's Wholesome Severity (Naphtali Press Anthology vol. 4).



I'm way off topic here but it is fascinating to me from several different vantage points the way Theonomy and its somewhat related cousin Christian Reconstruction, and other associated worlds of the 1970-2000's really fell off the face of the Earth. 

Is it because, as I surmise, Bahnsen died "without heirs" in an intellectual sense? (Obviously his son David is quite popular these days in _National Review_ circles). And because so much of the Theonomy stuff got eaten up in the (unrelated) Federal Vision tsunami?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 5, 2019)

I'm just guessing, maybe, at least one factor also, a lot of folks who may had early been somewhat comfortable with theonomy with the growing literature and particularly of puritan writings, simply settled into identifying with the WCF, with maybe a broader view of general equity. Air went out of the balloon of a separate identification.


Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I'm way off topic here but it is fascinating to me from several different vantage points the way Theonomy and its somewhat related cousin Christian Reconstruction, and other associated worlds of the 1970-2000's really fell off the face of the Earth.
> 
> Is it because, as I surmise, Bahnsen died "without heirs" in an intellectual sense? (Obviously his son David is quite popular these days in _National Review_ circles). And because so much of the Theonomy stuff got eaten up in the (unrelated) Federal Vision tsunami?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2019)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Is it because, as I surmise, Bahnsen died "without heirs" in an intellectual sense? (Obviously his son David is quite popular these days in _National Review_ circles). And because so much of the Theonomy stuff got eaten up in the (unrelated) Federal Vision tsunami?



That's exactly it. Gary North doesn't publish on theology anymore. Ken Gentry has promised his commentary for almost two decades now. The other second generation theonomists who could write now write Federal Vision stuff.

One of Bahnsen's disciples who was going to take his place got in trouble for racial views.

Rushdoony's people don't actually write new material (and one can make the argument that neither did Rushdoony after 1980) and the _Faith for all of Life _magazine is a joke.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 5, 2019)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I'm way off topic here but it is fascinating to me from several different vantage points the way Theonomy and its somewhat related cousin Christian Reconstruction, and other associated worlds of the 1970-2000's really fell off the face of the Earth.
> 
> Is it because, as I surmise, Bahnsen died "without heirs" in an intellectual sense? (Obviously his son David is quite popular these days in _National Review_ circles). And because so much of the Theonomy stuff got eaten up in the (unrelated) Federal Vision tsunami?



It is interesting, I wonder if part of it has to do with the revival of interest in Reformed confessional and high orthodoxy periods. The second half of the 20th century certainly, and perhaps the whole 20th century with a few outliers, witnessed a loss of familiarity with the historic Reformed theological corpus. Between translation efforts of works in Latin or Dutch, the availability of scanned texts online that had been out of print for centuries, and the work of historical theologians like Muller, I wonder if theonomists or would-be theonomists either just found better ways in the older approaches to church-state relationships or left orthodoxy altogether (for FV, for instance). When theonomy could plausibly claim to be bearing the torch for the Reformation it had a lot of appeal. I don't think that it has that anymore.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 6, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's exactly it. Gary North doesn't publish on theology anymore. Ken Gentry has promised his commentary for almost two decades now. The other second generation theonomists who could write now write Federal Vision stuff.
> 
> One of Bahnsen's disciples who was going to take his place got in trouble for racial views.
> 
> Rushdoony's people don't actually write new material (and one can make the argument that neither did Rushdoony after 1980) and the _Faith for all of Life _magazine is a joke.


I didn't realise it was that bad for them. I was almost a theonomist once.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I didn't realise it was that bad for them. I was almost a theonomist once.



Joel McDurmon was the only one publishing theonomic material, as far as I can tell. It wasn't anything beyond the standard stuff. Then he did the whole "cherem principle" thing and then became a SJW.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 6, 2019)

Good stuff y'all. 

Yeah McDurmon was fired/"quit" from American Vision for his SJW moves.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 26, 2019)

Apologist4Him said:


> By "let off" and "dubious" you mean Oliphint intended to teach heterodoxy? I do not believe Dr. Oliphint would ever intentionally teach heterdoxy, that he might err or misspeak etc. is common to all men. As to the commonalities, both are recognized teachers, both have written published works with controversy. It is a similar situation. The subject of controversy is different, but the situation is nearly identical. The question here is whether Fesko intentionally misrepresented or if he is mistaken and will retract or revise accordingly.
> 
> It seems rather obvious though grouping Karl Barth and Cornelius Van Til into the same category the pejorative nature of it so as to be purposely offensive.
> 
> ...


I liked most of your post but I agree linking Barth and Van Til together is offensive, most of all to him. So why it "seems obvious though" to "group the two together" is primia facia absurd, given the two books written against Barth. If I misunderstood than please correct.


----------



## Andrew35 (Jun 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I liked most of your post but I agree linking Barth and Van Til together is offensive, most of all to him. So why it "seems obvious though" to "group the two together" is primia facia absurd, given the two books written against Barth. If I misunderstood than please correct.


Leaving aside the accuracy of the comparison, I gotta say, personally I'm struggling to see what's so offensive about this.

It reminds me a bit of the observation on GK Chesterton: i.e. he may have been one of the strongest and most piercing cultural critics of Modernism... but that doesn't change the fact that, when you read his novels, he was a thoroughgoing Modernist himself, in many ways.

We are all, in one way or another, people of our times. Our POVs are in many interesting ways, closer to our contemporaries we criticize than to our heroes we revere.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 27, 2019)

Andrew35 said:


> Leaving aside the accuracy of the comparison, I gotta say, personally I'm struggling to see what's so offensive about this.
> 
> It reminds me a bit of the observation on GK Chesterton: i.e. he may have been one of the strongest and most piercing cultural critics of Modernism... but that doesn't change the fact that, when you read his novels, he was a thoroughgoing Modernist himself, in many ways.
> 
> We are all, in one way or another, people of our times. Our POVs are in many interesting ways, closer to our contemporaries we criticize than to our heroes we revere.


To compare two thinkers as "obvious together" implies at least enough of an overlap to make it obvious. To compare a guy to someone whom that person vehemently criticized down to the deepest pressupossitons, seems odd to say the least. What do they in common that puts them on same page? Machen utilized modern scholarship in his critique of liberalism, does that make him on the same page as them?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> To compare two thinkers as "obvious together" implies at least enough of an overlap to make it obvious. To compare a guy to someone whom that person vehemently criticized down to the deepest pressupossitons, seems odd to say the least. What do they in common that puts them on same page? Machen utilized modern scholarship in his critique of liberalism, does that make him on the same page as them?



There are similarities and differences. Both think that since natural man is fallen, he can't use natural theology. Barth's main target, though, was the analogia entis, which he called Antichrist. I think he was a bit silly on that point.

Van Til never really did a systematic analysis of key natural theology thinkers. Sure, he ran Paley and Butler through the ringer. Even his critique of Thomas doesn't actually analyze key passages from Thomas.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 27, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There are similarities and differences. Both think that since natural man is fallen, he can't use natural theology. Barth's main target, though, was the analogia entis, which he called Antichrist. I think he was a bit silly on that point.
> 
> Van Til never really did a systematic analysis of key natural theology thinkers. Sure, he ran Paley and Butler through the ringer. Even his critique of Thomas doesn't actually analyze key passages from Thomas.


Are there enough similarities to link the two together in any significant way?
So they both criticized natural theology and they should be lumped together? That seems odd to me.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Are there enough similarities to link the two together in any significant way?



Convoluted writing style? I don't think they are all that similar. They both have inadequate arguments against natural theology, but I certainly don't think CVT is a Barthian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jun 27, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Both think that since natural man is fallen, he can't use natural theology.



This doesn't seem to square with Van Til himself, and is certainly not nuanced enough. Even just a cursory perusal of Van Til works (all of which I own) shows him saying over and over again that he is not opposed to natural theology, but to natural theology _apart from special revelation_.

For example, Van Til says:

The distinction between revealed and natural theology as ordinarily understood readily gives rise to a misunderstanding. It seems to indicate that man, though he is a sinner, can have certain true knowledge of God from nature but that for higher things he requires revelation. This is incorrect. *It is true that we should make our theology and our ethics wide enough to include man’s moral relationship to the whole universe. But it is not true that any ethical question that deals with man’s place in nature can be interpreted rightly without the light of Scripture.*

—Cornelius Van Til, _Christian Theistic Ethics_, Logos Edition., vol. 3, In Defense of Biblical Christianity (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1980), ch. 2.​
And it is also important to mention that Van Til makes a crucial distinction between natural _theology_ and natural _revelation_:

I have never denied that there is a common ground of knowledge between the believer and the unbeliever. I have always affirmed the kind of common ground that is spoken of in Scripture, notably in Romans 1 and 2, and in Calvin’s Institutes. As creatures made in God’s image man cannot help but know God. It is of this revelation to man through “nature” and through his own constitution that Paul speaks of in Romans.

—Cornelius Van Til, _A Christian Theory of Knowledge_, Logos Edition. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1969), ch. 10.​
So, what Van Til is after is an attempt to build any kind of theology, natural or otherwise, apart from the presupposition of the self-attesting Christ as God in Scripture. He is not saying that we cannot derive any knowledge of God through nature, but that such knowledge, which depends on interpretation, will never be right, or known _to be_ right, apart from the sure and firm revelation from God himself in his Word. I am not sure what there is to object to about this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 27, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There are similarities and differences. Both think that since natural man is fallen, he can't use natural theology. Barth's main target, though, was the analogia entis, which he called Antichrist. I think he was a bit silly on that point.
> 
> Van Til never really did a systematic analysis of key natural theology thinkers. Sure, he ran Paley and Butler through the ringer. Even his critique of Thomas doesn't actually analyze key passages from Thomas.





Taylor Sexton said:


> This doesn't seem to square with Van Til himself, and is certainly not nuanced enough. Even just a cursory perusal of Van Til works (all of which I own) shows him saying over and over again that he is not opposed to natural theology, but to natural theology _apart from special revelation_.
> 
> For example, Van Til says:
> 
> ...


Good post. Everyone should read "Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics", particularly Jeffery k. Jue's article "Theologia Naturalis: A Reformed Tradition". It is great.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 27, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Even just a cursory perusal of Van Til works (all of which I own) shows him saying over and over again that he is not opposed to natural theology, but to natural theology _apart from special revelation_.



That depends. If that is the case, then there is no difference between Thomas Aquinas and Van Til, since Thomas never thought of doing natural theology apart from special revelation. In Summa Theo. II-2 he somewhere says we begin by faith.

I grant that you might find Neo-Thomists like Kreeft arguing such, but he is out of the tradition on that point.


----------

