# Understanding Cornelius Van Til



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 21, 2016)

Highly Recommend this helpful video from K. Scott Oliphint on Van Til

[video=youtube;zNn16CYOna8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNn16CYOna8[/video]


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 22, 2016)

Thanks for this, Benjamin. I often find myself wishing that Oliphint would have communicated more on this level in his seminary classes.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 22, 2016)

Thanks for posting this, Benjamin. It's excellent.

There are many ways I feel like a complete amateur in theology because of the number of interlocking disciplines that are involved.

That said, it is very gratifying to me that Oliphant's presentation of how to understand Van Til is what I've been saying for about five years now ever since I read his contribution in the book, The Infallible Word. I've always understood Van Til as explaining Reformed theology using the language of philosophy but not with the intent of establishing some sort of new philosophy. It is my experience that some of Van Til's disciples have tried to "systematize" Van Til using a philosophy that is not fundamentally grounded in the same Archetypal/Ectypal distinction. This tends to try to move from a human philosophical realm _toward_ theology instead of moving from ectypal theology and then communicating that truth using the tools of philosophy.

It's not that I despise the philosophical discipline but I personally think it's best suited to understand the sundry methods that fallen man tends to grope in blindness to describe the world. Human philosophy will never begin with Ephesians 2 or Romans 8 and acknowledge the death of man and his need to be freed from bondage in order to see, hear, and understand.

Understood correctly, a "presuppositional apologetic" has to realize that it cannot philosophically communicate wisdom. It cannot give Light. It cannot give Life.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 22, 2016)

Thank you for this video. Slowly but surely am I getting Van Til's categories straight in my head. I'm going to be watching this several times.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 23, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> It is my experience that some of Van Til's disciples have tried to "systematize" Van Til using a philosophy that is not fundamentally grounded in the same Archetypal/Ectypal distinction.



Though I have found Dr. Oliphint to be a tad lacking on the doctrine of impassibility which I believe touches on the Archetype.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2016)

Van Til helped me understand what Hegel was saying! I don't mean that in a flippant way. Van Til explained Hegel (and all deficient metaphysics) using Hegel's "Being Experiment." Close your eyes and think about nothing but Being. Now think about nothing. You probably thought about the same thing. A formally empty concept of Being is "The Nothing."

However, I don't think you can really understand Van Til's critique of philosophy if you don't first understand what guys like Hegel and Kant were saying. That's why Van Til is hard. He is talking about hard stuff.


----------

