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.
