I disagree.
Hey, that's the first time I've seen the "can of worms" used. Excellent!
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.
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."
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.
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.
1: I am a premillennialist, so your utopian comment doesn't come close to touching my position.
My statement was merely intended to show the silliness of laying out consistency tests.
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.
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).
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/
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 ChristHas 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/
The main problem I have with the site is that they have been promising to update it for almost 2 years now!
