Brief rundown of FV theology?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the connection with neo-Calvinism is to the point. It is the neo-Calvinist antithesis which creates a theoretical association between CVT, theonomists, and the FV. After that they go their separate ways. Neo-Calvinism is hyper-covenantal, and leaves no room for a neutral sphere by means of secular-sacred or nature-grace distinctions. Everything is "religious." For CVT the antithesis was apologetical. This was an evangelical focus because his main concern was the gospel. For that reason he does not appear to go to the extremes of theonomists and FVers. Theonomists took this in the direction of law, society, and politics. As there is no "secular" state, the state must be redeemed by God's social order. For the FV the emphasis falls on church, ministry, and sacraments. As all cultural expression is religious and must be redeemed, the church must bring its redeeming rituals into all cultural forms and thereby transform the culture.
 
I confess I am no Van Til expert and do not know the places in Van Til's thought where he argued for paradox and then systematized theology in that direction. Where I have understood Van Til clearly is the distinction between Theology of the Ectype and Theology of the Archetype. It's another way of stating that man is a creature and God is God. God knows certain things in Himself and man's knowledge is always analogical. God's knowledge of things is comprehensive, our knowledge is limited to what we can apprehend from that which God reveals to us in general and special revelation. This Ectypal theology is always a creaturely accommodation and never gives man univocal (the same kind) of knowledge as God's but it is sufficient to create a systematic apprehension of the truths that creatures are able to apprehend. A perfect theology of the ectype is always going to be clouded by sin (which is why we have debates on what the Scriptures teach) but even when all sin is finally removed and man is not clouded in his understanding, he will still be a creature. He will never have nor can he ever attain God's knowledge of things.

I want to add that this is not an invention of Van Til. This is classic Reformed orthodoxy on man as the creature dependent upon but distinct from the creature. Clarkianism is a departure from this fundamental hermeneutic in the Reformed tradition (and I should say that they didn't invent this but carried this conviction forward from their theological forebears as they didn't recast all theology).

God's knowledge of something being qualitatively different than our own is not an excuse for playing the Paradox card whenever it suits us. Barth, for instance, picked up on this Creator-creature distinction and concluded that theological understanding could never be a historical or textual understanding of a text revealed to us. The only way a person could understand God's Revelation, in the neo-orthodox tradition, is the encounter with the text where the text becomes the Word of God in the moment. The propositions or the events could not convey any truth in the naked text itself. This is not Reformed.

At the other end of the spectrum is the rationalist view where the text is merely a collection of logical syllogisms that need to be worked out using the laws of logic. This denies the supernatural work of the Spirit in which the external testimony of the Word and the internal testimony of the Spirit work together to cause the reader to apprehend and believe the breathed-out Word of God.

The FV advocates seem to make the error of pitting Revelation against itself where the concept of Covenant creates a set of ideas that can be held in paradoxical tension with the system of doctrine that emerges from the text. This is an inappropriate use of the theology of the ectype. The Word of God is written for and accommodate to creatures. It is not a theology that has irreconcilable contradictions in which we appeal to some higher theology of the archetype where the tension is resolved because, if true, then it is never resolved. Why? Because we're always limited to creaturely apprehension. We are to labor in the Word to properly understand, by the Spirit, what the text teaches and what the good and necessary consequences of that text teach as well. If our Covenant theology that emerges from our exegesis creates a fundamental contradiction with the system of doctrine that comes by way of GNC from the text then we haven't achieved some sort of "higher principle". Rather, we have simply not done proper exegesis to begin with.

I need to make it clear that I side with CVT on archetypal/ectypal, analogical knowledge, and the like. I understand what he means by "paradox" and "apparent contradiction" (though the latter was a very poor use of words). And I suppose it isn't his fault that FVers did horrible and ignorant things with those terms.

I just get annoyed when I see whippersnappers say, "Oh the trinity--how can there be 3 and 1? It's paradox, brother." Well, there is a paradoxical element to this, but we can at least try to give an answer on the terms of person and nature, for example.
 
You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder

The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.

I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?

Here is a publication of the papers that formed the foundation of the colloquium:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0994796307/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_8FX3vb0E18SVV

The colloquium itself and the Q&A session expressed that while there may be different "accents" (including that of Schilder) in our federations re: covenant theology, we essentially hold to a common understanding within the bounds of the confessions. Even Dr. Godfrey publicly affirmed at the close of the colloquium that the covenant theology found in our federations is very "close". Hence, it is somewhat disturbing to continue to read this old FV tag on Schilder (and by extension, to the Can RC) perpetuated, without accounting for the thoughtful and painstaking work our ecumenical committees have done to actually understand one another and lay that smear to rest.

What you call a "smear" hasn't been answered by that book. I looked up every reference to Schilder in that book, and NOWHERE does it address Schilder's undifferentiated covenant membership formula "Alles of Niks." Basically, what I saw there was that Schilder is hard to understand and even harder to translate, due to his impenetrable Dutch. I called Ron Gleason about Schilder's formulation on this, and he agrees with me that Schilder's covenantal formulations are problematic. He had to deal with it in Holland (where he ministered to Schilder's daughter), and also in a CanRC that he pastored over here. The book you referenced only references Schilder's own work once, and that was not on the question of covenant membership. The colloquium spent far more time on justification and on the covenant of works than on covenant of grace membership. So, your claim is not born out by the evidence.
 
I need to make it clear that I side with CVT on archetypal/ectypal, analogical knowledge, and the like. I understand what he means by "paradox" and "apparent contradiction" (though the latter was a very poor use of words). And I suppose it isn't his fault that FVers did horrible and ignorant things with those terms.

I just get annoyed when I see whippersnappers say, "Oh the trinity--how can there be 3 and 1? It's paradox, brother." Well, there is a paradoxical element to this, but we can, at least, try to give an answer on the terms of person and nature, for example.

I can understand this. I think I was trying to formulate the idea that ectypal theology is not an excuse to formulate a theology with actual contradictions and then claim it is a paradox because the resolution to the problem is found in the mind of God. It is also not appropriate to go the direction of rationalism and deny the Creator/creature distinction and assume that we can arrive at all knowledge possible through logical syllogism.

I think what you're expressing above is sort of a lazy theology that has the appearance of Godliness. There is a lot of pious-sounding language around bad theology and what you're expressing is that some are just laid back about the implications of their ideas. They think they are being pious because they've convinced themselves of some theological concept that they believe is in inextricable tension or contradiction with another part of theology. The resolution is not to simply claim that there is no resolution but to actually investigate things further. It's sort of like the pacifist who appeals to the "trajectory" of the New Testament being about Christ bringing peace and that we see most clearly the attitude of God in the person of Christ. They haven't even begun to grasp the nature of the Hypostatic union and that the Son's human and divine will are not in competition with one another. They have further not grasped that the Divine Logos' will is of unity with the Father and the Spirit. Thus, whatever the LORD willed in the Old Testament is representative of Christ's will.

You don't have to be a rationalist and insist that our understanding of things is univocal with the Godhead. You simply have to use the ordinary means of understanding the text and the good and necessary consequences of what that entails and this involves work and not a "...I'm too lazy to study the Trinity so I'll just throw something out that Jesus represents God's heart, brother."

So my larger point, which I'm struggling to express, is that I was trying to say what Matthew was saying that I'm not sure we can blame CVT for introducing paradox as an excuse for the FV. It's probably an unfortunate word but I see Van Til as guarding the notion that man's knowledge is creaturely. I think those who read Van Til can take a word and miss the whole point and then run in a direction he never intended - using the idea that man's knowledge is creaturely (or analogical) as an excuse to formulate some idea of Covenant that is in contradiction with Reformed systematic theology but saying that it's held together by paradox. This is illegitimate.

Am I making any sense?
 
I need to make it clear that I side with CVT on archetypal/ectypal, analogical knowledge, and the like. I understand what he means by "paradox" and "apparent contradiction" (though the latter was a very poor use of words). And I suppose it isn't his fault that FVers did horrible and ignorant things with those terms.

I just get annoyed when I see whippersnappers say, "Oh the trinity--how can there be 3 and 1? It's paradox, brother." Well, there is a paradoxical element to this, but we can, at least, try to give an answer on the terms of person and nature, for example.

I can understand this. I think I was trying to formulate the idea that ectypal theology is not an excuse to formulate a theology with actual contradictions and then claim it is a paradox because the resolution to the problem is found in the mind of God. It is also not appropriate to go the direction of rationalism and deny the Creator/creature distinction and assume that we can arrive at all knowledge possible through logical syllogism.

I think what you're expressing above is sort of a lazy theology that has the appearance of Godliness. There is a lot of pious-sounding language around bad theology and what you're expressing is that some are just laid back about the implications of their ideas. They think they are being pious because they've convinced themselves of some theological concept that they believe is in inextricable tension or contradiction with another part of theology. The resolution is not to simply claim that there is no resolution but to actually investigate things further. It's sort of like the pacifist who appeals to the "trajectory" of the New Testament being about Christ bringing peace and that we see most clearly the attitude of God in the person of Christ. They haven't even begun to grasp the nature of the Hypostatic union and that the Son's human and divine will are not in competition with one another. They have further not grasped that the Divine Logos' will is of unity with the Father and the Spirit. Thus, whatever the LORD willed in the Old Testament is representative of Christ's will.

You don't have to be a rationalist and insist that our understanding of things is univocal with the Godhead. You simply have to use the ordinary means of understanding the text and the good and necessary consequences of what that entails and this involves work and not a "...I'm too lazy to study the Trinity so I'll just throw something out that Jesus represents God's heart, brother."

So my larger point, which I'm struggling to express, is that I was trying to say what Matthew was saying that I'm not sure we can blame CVT for introducing paradox as an excuse for the FV. It's probably an unfortunate word but I see Van Til as guarding the notion that man's knowledge is creaturely. I think those who read Van Til can take a word and miss the whole point and then run in a direction he never intended - using the idea that man's knowledge is creaturely (or analogical) as an excuse to formulate some idea of Covenant that is in contradiction with Reformed systematic theology but saying that it's held together by paradox. This is illegitimate.

Am I making any sense?

I think we are on the same page.
 
You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder

The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.

I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?

Here is a publication of the papers that formed the foundation of the colloquium:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0994796307/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_8FX3vb0E18SVV

The colloquium itself and the Q&A session expressed that while there may be different "accents" (including that of Schilder) in our federations re: covenant theology, we essentially hold to a common understanding within the bounds of the confessions. Even Dr. Godfrey publicly affirmed at the close of the colloquium that the covenant theology found in our federations is very "close". Hence, it is somewhat disturbing to continue to read this old FV tag on Schilder (and by extension, to the Can RC) perpetuated, without accounting for the thoughtful and painstaking work our ecumenical committees have done to actually understand one another and lay that smear to rest.

What you call a "smear" hasn't been answered by that book. I looked up every reference to Schilder in that book, and NOWHERE does it address Schilder's undifferentiated covenant membership formula "Alles of Niks." Basically, what I saw there was that Schilder is hard to understand and even harder to translate, due to his impenetrable Dutch. I called Ron Gleason about Schilder's formulation on this, and he agrees with me that Schilder's covenantal formulations are problematic. He had to deal with it in Holland (where he ministered to Schilder's daughter), and also in a CanRC that he pastored over here. The book you referenced only references Schilder's own work once, and that was not on the question of covenant membership. The colloquium spent far more time on justification and on the covenant of works than on covenant of grace membership. So, your claim is not born out by the evidence.

Surely you recognize that saying Schilder's formulation is "problematic" is different from saying his theology is a "pillar for the FV". From folks who are able to penetrate his Dutch- including those attending the colloquium- Schilder did differentiate covenant membership using the terms "legal/vital", as opposed to the terms "inward/outward".
 
Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.

It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).

Agreed. They lean heavily on this.
 
Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.

It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).

Agreed. They lean heavily on this.

Even more, one can have strong reservations about Van Til's apologetics while appreciating his preaching and lecturing.
 
You have to throw in there Klaas Schilder

The colloquium at the URC Synod 2014 between Canadian Reformed seminary professors and Mid-America professor Dr. Cornelis Venema laid this canard to rest.

I don't have access to this information. However, from what I've read, Schilder's formulation "Alles of Niks" did not allow for differentiated covenantal connections. What was the argument at the URC Synod?

Here is a publication of the papers that formed the foundation of the colloquium:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0994796307/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_dp_8FX3vb0E18SVV

The colloquium itself and the Q&A session expressed that while there may be different "accents" (including that of Schilder) in our federations re: covenant theology, we essentially hold to a common understanding within the bounds of the confessions. Even Dr. Godfrey publicly affirmed at the close of the colloquium that the covenant theology found in our federations is very "close". Hence, it is somewhat disturbing to continue to read this old FV tag on Schilder (and by extension, to the Can RC) perpetuated, without accounting for the thoughtful and painstaking work our ecumenical committees have done to actually understand one another and lay that smear to rest.

What you call a "smear" hasn't been answered by that book. I looked up every reference to Schilder in that book, and NOWHERE does it address Schilder's undifferentiated covenant membership formula "Alles of Niks." Basically, what I saw there was that Schilder is hard to understand and even harder to translate, due to his impenetrable Dutch. I called Ron Gleason about Schilder's formulation on this, and he agrees with me that Schilder's covenantal formulations are problematic. He had to deal with it in Holland (where he ministered to Schilder's daughter), and also in a CanRC that he pastored over here. The book you referenced only references Schilder's own work once, and that was not on the question of covenant membership. The colloquium spent far more time on justification and on the covenant of works than on covenant of grace membership. So, your claim is not born out by the evidence.

Surely you recognize that saying Schilder's formulation is "problematic" is different from saying his theology is a "pillar for the FV". From folks who are able to penetrate his Dutch- including those attending the colloquium- Schilder did differentiate covenant membership using the terms "legal/vital", as opposed to the terms "inward/outward".

The actual work of Schilder's that the book quotes is available here. Schilder never uses the term "vital" in that entire speech. Furthermore, in the third to last paragraph, he clearly lumps together the covenant before and after the Fall as being the same covenant. He outright denies that the substance of the covenant is made with the elect. The quotations that the book was thinking about are irrelevant to the "Alles of Niks" issue. Covenant members are either faithful or unfaithful in Schilder's theology, precisely what the FV has been saying all along. The decoupling of covenant from election is the nub of the problem.

It would, of course, be anachronistic to call Schilder FV. However, that speech confirms everything I have thought about his covenant theology as being a precursor to the FV's view of covenantal membership. This is not to say that Schilder holds Arminian views with regard to the non-elect, or that he necessarily believes that baptism unites a person to Christ (although he speaks very strongly of baptism here):
If a believer thinks "I am baptized, but of what use is that to me; it could have been a mistake, and not a real baptism (only some drops of water)", then he will never have rest. But what is promised and demanded you may consider as something that you have coming to you, as a right, and that gives certainty.

I know that the Canadian RC has always highly respected Schilder. However, I continue to believe that his covenant theology is off. FV writers do quote him as being influential in their own formulations (I think Norman Shepherd is the link here, but I can't remember right off). NOthing you have said, Mark, has convinced me otherwise. Furthermore, your claim that Schilder makes a distinction between "legal/vital" is demonstrably false. Schilder talks about "legal" in his speech, but he makes no such distinction between legal and vital.
 
Paradox Theology also appears to be a significant factor in the development of the Federal Vision.

It does not surprise me that denominations that tolerated Paradox Theology have found it very hard to deal with the FV. I have heard FVers say we are justified by faith alone, but we are also justified on account of good works. When the obvious contradiction is pointed out to them, they have sought refuge in irreconcilable paradox. Of course, such Paradox Theology would never have arisen had it been understood that we believe the Bible partly owing to 'the consent of all the parts' (WCF 1.5), which cannot be true if the Bible contains irreconcilable paradoxes. Moreover, the Westminster divines rejected irreconcilable paradox when they confessed that the Bible was a logically consistent book from which 'good and necessary consequence' deductions can be made (1.6).

Agreed. They lean heavily on this.

Even more, one can have strong reservations about Van Til's apologetics while appreciating his preaching and lecturing.

Whether they understand Van Til on the issue of paradox is, of course, open for debate. My understanding of Van Til on this point is that there are things which we cannot understand, being finite creatures. If God has revealed it, however, that means we must believe it, whether we understand it or not. I do not believe that Van Til understood any of these types of things to be ultimately contradictory.

What is interesting about this (and just occurred to me reading this) is that the FV's embrace of paradox is eerily similar to the Roman Catholic Church's additive theology. In Rome, they never throw anything "good" away. So they wind up with loads of contradictory theologies that can all be reconciled by the nebulous and all-embracing category of "tradition." This makes it very hard to debate a Roman Catholic, of course, because there is always an answer to everything, even if it is not a coherent answer.
 
Scott Clark shows the pathway between Schilder and the FV fairly clearly in his article published in the CPJ, which is available online here. But, no doubt, that is only another part of the smear campaign against Klaas Schilder. John Barach notes the connection, as does Norman Shepherd.
 
NOthing you have said, Mark, has convinced me otherwise.

I have no illusions of convincing you.

Furthermore, your claim that Schilder makes a distinction between "legal/vital" is demonstrably false.

Strange that you conclude the absence of this clear distinction in one speech means it must be demonstrably absent in the rest of Schilder's works.

I do not assume that. You misrepresent my position. You gave sources. I read them. They do not say what you think they say. If there is evidence of something else in Schilder's work, then put me in touch with those sources. You will not convince me by mere assertion, which is what you seem to be doing right now. You will have to do better than that if you want your charge against me of smearing Schilder to stick. You claimed that legal/vital was in the sources you gave me. It was not. Show me where they are.
 
What is interesting about this (and just occurred to me reading this) is that the FV's embrace of paradox is eerily similar to the Roman Catholic Church's additive theology. In Rome, they never throw anything "good" away. So they wind up with loads of contradictory theologies that can all be reconciled by the nebulous and all-embracing category of "tradition." This makes it very hard to debate a Roman Catholic, of course, because there is always an answer to everything, even if it is not a coherent answer.

A friend of mine said he was reading one of John Henry Newman's books in which he was supposed to have argued that we needed an infallible external authority to tell us what irreconcilable paradoxes we should believe or reject. If it is true that Newman said that (I would have to investigate it further) then I can see why - apart from the obvious similarities concerning justification - so many FVers have made the jump to Rome.
 
If it is true that Newman said that (I would have to investigate it further) then I can see why - apart from the obvious similarities concerning justification - so many FVers have made the jump to Rome.

I don't know if Newman said it, but it is a standard line among convertskii. It only makes the problem worse, though. as the history of post-Vatican II has shown, this is fraught with danger. If the Bible requires an infallible interpretation, then the supposed infallible encyclical or council would also need an infallible interpreter. Whoever this might be, his interpretation--also infallible--would require yet another infallible interpretation, and so on .

An infallible x needs an infallible y-interpretation. Yet, how do I know I am interpreting y-interpretation correctly. So now I need an infallible interpretation y (z), which is itself functioning as an infallible intepretation of x. So now I need an infallible interpretation of z.

Of course, the honest convertskii see this and realize that one must own up to an infinite regress or acknowledge the knowing subject in the reception of truth (the dreaded "subjectivism" charge!). I have a few friends that simply went nihilist or atheist on this point.
 
Whether they understand Van Til on the issue of paradox is, of course, open for debate.

I have a hard-job believing that they understand the people from whom they claim to get their ideas. Still, I have yet to see it proved that they misunderstood Cornelius Van Til. Conversely, I think it is reductionist to blame the whole FV movement on CVT.

My understanding of Van Til on this point is that there are things which we cannot understand, being finite creatures. If God has revealed it, however, that means we must believe it, whether we understand it or not.

I agree that there are doctrines in scripture that are supra-rational, but not contra-rational. There are some things that are deep mysteries that we cannot fully understand; but scripture contains nothing that is irrational.

I do not believe that Van Til understood any of these types of things to be ultimately contradictory.

I have heard some Van Tillians argue that there are some things that appear contradictory to us, but are not contradictory to God. The problem, however, with affirming irreconcilable paradoxes is how do we know which irreconcilable are ultimately irrational (and to be rejected) and which irreconcilable paradoxes are ultimately rational (and to be accepted)? What has precluded many Paradox Theologians from embracing the FV is a commitment to orthodox instincts, and the face of the FV does not fit alongside such instincts. But it is hard to see how they reconcile their rejection of the FV's contradictions with their own commitment to irreconcilable paradox.
 
The problem, however, with affirming irreconcilable paradoxes is how do we know which irreconcilable are ultimately irrational (and to be rejected) and which irreconcilable paradoxes are ultimately rational (and to be accepted)?

Well noted. It ultimately comes back to a conflation of archetypal and ectypal theology. The "irreconcilable paradox" arises because ectypal theology is made "incomprehensible," whereas ectypal theology is already accommodated to human limitations for the purpose of making the truth knowable. There would be no irreconcilable paradox if theology was confined to the ectypal.

Knowledge is one of the constituent parts of faith.
 
It ultimately comes back to a conflation of archetypal and ectypal theology. The "irreconcilable paradox" arises because ectypal theology is made "incomprehensible," whereas ectypal theology is already accommodated to human limitations for the purpose of making the truth knowable. There would be no irreconcilable paradox if theology was confined to the ectypal.

Knowledge is one of the constituent parts of faith.

That point about ectypal theology articulates something that I have been thinking about for a while, but have not been able to articulate. Thanks. If what you have said is correct, it would appear that while the Clarkians err in denying the archetypal/ectypal distinction the Paradox Theologians err in the opposite direction by confusing archetypal and ectypal theology. Thus they would appear to fall into the very pitfall that they are often seeking to avoid.
 
I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source: they just don't know much about the post-Reformation heritage and certainly little to nothing of Patristic and medieval reflection. Of course, this isn't entirely their fault. Baker Academic doesn't feel the need to keep Beardslee, Heppe, and Muller in print. Banner of Truth is more likely to print another piety treatise (valuable as it is) and many others are going to writeYet One More Book on the Five Points.

I lost interest in theonomy when I started reading and studying Oliver O'Donovan.

Which of O'Donovan's books did you find particularly helpful, Jacob? I've never read any.
 
Scott Clark shows the pathway between Schilder and the FV fairly clearly in his article published in the CPJ, which is available online here. But, no doubt, that is only another part of the smear campaign against Klaas Schilder. John Barach notes the connection, as does Norman Shepherd.

So does David Engelsma in his book on the Federal Vision.
 
If what you have said is correct, it would appear that while the Clarkians err in denying the archetypal/ectypal distinction the Paradox Theologians err in the opposite direction by confusing archetypal and ectypal theology. Thus they would appear to fall into the very pitfall that they are often seeking to avoid.

That is a fair conclusion from an analytical point of view, taking in the ideas with their consequences. To what degree this is a conscious thing in the different theologians would be difficult to say.
 
Do your homework. Look for reliable sources that know how to read Dutch.

This sort of reminds me of Van Til's defense of Shepherd's theology.

(Note when reading the quote below that Bavinck had not as yet been translated into English, and was little known to the English-speaking world.)

If you were to look in the Westminster Library for Norman Shepherd's Master's thesis, you would find a masterful work. He knows, as Dr. Clowney said, he knows the Dutch, he knows Herman Bavinck, he knows the men of there [sic]. And part of the difficulty was that he was speaking about things that others did not understand. In the nature of the case, how could a PCA man even have heard of Bavinck? Or of the solidity with which that man has developed the concept of the teaching of Scripture with respect to Justification by Faith alone.

The interview may be read here (note--the church whose website I am linking to is steeped in the Federal Vision, and I do not endorse its theology).

Would you consider Shepherd to be a "reliable source that knows how to read Dutch?" Cornelius Van Til did.
 
Last edited:
Would you consider Shepherd to be a "reliable source that knows how to read Dutch?"

Given he is at the center of the FV problem, no I wouldn't rely on him to explain Schilder's legal/vital distinction, any more than I would rely on some reckless non-Dutch reading polemicist.
 
Would you consider Shepherd to be a "reliable source that knows how to read Dutch?"

Given he is at the center of the FV problem, no I wouldn't rely on him to explain Schilder's legal/vital distinction, any more than I would rely on some reckless non-Dutch reading polemicist.

What about Cornelius Van Til? Or David Engelsma?

If you have something from CVT or DE discussing Schilder's legal/vital distinction, pass it along and perhaps I can answer.
 
I think some of the reactions to FV and theonomy perhaps spring from a similar source: they just don't know much about the post-Reformation heritage and certainly little to nothing of Patristic and medieval reflection. Of course, this isn't entirely their fault. Baker Academic doesn't feel the need to keep Beardslee, Heppe, and Muller in print. Banner of Truth is more likely to print another piety treatise (valuable as it is) and many others are going to writeYet One More Book on the Five Points.

Desire of the nations
Bond of imperfect
I lost interest in theonomy when I started reading and studying Oliver O'Donovan.

Which of O'Donovan's books did you find particularly helpful, Jacob? I've never read any.

Deesire of the nations
Bonds of imperfection
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top