Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Why we deleted the article "Why I am not a Van Tilian"



by Steve C. Halbrook

I have decided to delete the article, Why I am not a Van Tilian, from Theonomy Resources, because I am reconsidering what Cornelius Van Til meant when he said that "all teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory." This statement by itself could easily be interpreted to say that the Bible is an incoherent mess, but perhaps, in light of context, he meant something different. I'm not sure yet.

This is not to say that none of his followers haven't taken Van Til's statements about paradox to dangerous levels (although they themselves may have misunderstood him). In any case, I'm not abandoning Gordon Clark's important contributions, but am seeing the possibility of reconciling Van Til and Clark--at least to some degree. Perhaps more will be said later.

9 comments:

Donald Herrera Terán said...

Thanks for sharing, Steve. I'm trying to understand this in the same way you are. English is not my home language so I have some difficulties to make myself understood. Keep on sharing your discoveries. Blessings.

Anonymous said...

if you want to know about van tills theology and about that statement john robbins has lectures about van till and his theology on trinityfoundation.org

Anonymous said...

James Anderson of RTS might be consulted. From his page on the Seminary website: "Dr. James Anderson comes to RTS from Edinburgh, Scotland, and specializes in philosophical theology, religious epistemology, and Christian apologetics. His doctoral thesis at the University of Edinburgh explored the paradoxical nature of certain Christian doctrines and the implications for the rationality of Christian faith. His research and writing has also focused on the presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til."--Chuck

Anonymous said...

James Anderson wrote the book *Paradox in Christian Theology*.
--Chuck

Anonymous said...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56556977/Biblical-Christianity-is-Reasonable

"We can be sure it was not Clark‘s intent, but in his writings he defended Van Til‘s alleged proof of
God‘s existenceas this author understands Clark‘s works. The irony here is that some of
Van Til‘s best-known champions, like Greg Bahnsen, mocked in Clark‘s work the very building blocks of the TAG proof that Van Til said was possible – though Van Til never provided it."

Daniel Ritchie said...

Thanks for this post (sorry I missed it earlier). Like yourself, I am not a self-confessed Van Tillian for various reasons, nevertheless, I do think that the above quote has been taken out of context by some hyper-Clarkians and taken to dangerous extremes by some hyper-Van Tillians. Perhaps it is better simply to just be presuppositionalists, as too much Clarkianism or too much Van Tillianism could lead to us making extra-confessional matters a mark of orthodoxy, which is always a risky business.

Steve C. Halbrook said...

Daniel,
I'm with you about just being presuppositionalists--as far as I am concerned, I just want to take the best from Van Til, and the best from Clark, and avoid the errors from both.

von said...

Do you have the fuller quote?

Steve C. Halbrook said...

Von,
The fuller quote should be accessible online, via a Google search; I believe John Frame has an online piece that sheds light on the context.