วีดีโอ

What, the danger that people might discover the gospel?

Thom Notaro's "Van Til and the Use of Evidences" is unfortunately neglected. I was converted partly through the influence of Sproul, but found Sproul insufficient for undergraduate philosophy classes. My pastors gave me Van TIl's Defense of the Faith in 1995, and it was my lifeline. In my opinion, the fundamental insight of Van Til, that sums up his whole system, is that man's problem is not fundamentally an intellectual problem, but a heart problem. Therefore, apologetics and evangelism (preaching) are always going to go hand and hand. You can give theistic proofs and argue all manner of details, but the fundamental issue of apologetics is always going to come back to prolegomena, to authority, to exposing the rebellion of the heart and calling for the submission of faith. Sure, other arguments can be used, but this is the fundamental problem and therefore, the fundamental issue of apologetics, and thus evangelism and preaching. I was in a discussion with Powlison and Paul Tripp one time, where they said CCEF's model of counseling was fundamentally based on Van Til (and Vos). One of the most practical outworkings of Van Til is in counseling. You can counsel over all manner of details, but the fundamental issue in counseling is always going to come back to an issue of the heart.

Analytic philosophy promotes materialism. Epistemic materialism is the philosophical precursor to theological liberalism. That continental philosophy is a more extreme reduction to the secular does not excuse this. The critique of overly rationalistic Moderatism is almost as old as since Presbyterianism has been at large. William Cunningham/others less read by popular audiences who sought to prove the fundamental incompatibility of ways these ideologies promote synthesis and undermine the faith have yet to get there listen.

I think Mathison is correct, Van Til's rhetoric is in part responsible for igniting the acrimonious exchanges of the past. Something I notice is much contemporary criticism of his rhetoric & misconstrual of history were first put forward by Gordon Clark in the 1940's. I'm convinced this rhetoric of compromising reformed theology wasn't just hyperbole, but engendered by a clear understanding that his method required an either or, that Van Tilian apologetics was much more than a defense of the christian faith, but by way of epistemology an all encompassing philosophy. This generates the "tension" of how much historic doctrine needs to be brought into conformity. There's nothing inherently wrong with this epistemological approach as a christian philosopher in my opinion, but if maintaining a tradition is also paramount, this is a hard place to be if your insights are unique. As a subscriber to the West Conf, he was duty bound to mediate the two, even if his unique principles might push against confessional boundaries. Being grounded like that is definitely the safer way for a christian thinker.

You need Eli Ayala of Revealed Apologetics on this show. A Vantilian

To salvage the label "Van Tillian", Dr. Anderson broadens it so wide that everyone from Warfield and Kuyper to perhaps Dr. Mathison himself, are Van Tillians! All that's required, says Anderson, is that one think Reformed Theology entails an epistemology which, in turn, entails an apologetic method. What Dr. Anderson doesn't say is that he specifically and self-consciously rejects Van Til's unique epistemology and (perhaps less explicitly) also rejects his unique metaphysic. This said, I, even I, the much-maligned "Van Tillian purist" am willing to grant that Dr Anderson is a Van Tillian - just not for the reasons he cites here. Rather, Dr. Anderson is the Van Tillian Leonidas, standing virtually alone in the Thermopylae Gap against the never-ending hoards of anti-Van Tillian Persians. (The actor playing Leonidas even had a Scottish accent! :D ) For his work maintaining the Van Til Info archive, alone, Dr. Anderson deserves an honorary "Van Tillian" title and our eternal gratitude. (His work on paradox is absolutely vital for practical application of presuppositionalism in the field. I could go on but will stop with these examples). There are many of us who think Van Til's unique epistemology and metaphysic deserve to be expounded and stated with analytic precision; we're not going to get that from Dr. Anderson. Moreover, I'm very worried his upcoming book-length treatment of these issues will further muddy the waters (hopefully Dr. Anderson is very clear and explicit in distinguishing between an explication of Van Til's position and his own creative attempts to fill in gaps or clarify opaque areas). ----- Ask yourselves, gentlemen, what was Van Til's view of "abstract objects". Do you know? Is it well-known out there? (Some I've asked about it are naive enough to assume Van Til had no view at all of abstract objects!). Read Shao Kai TSENG's chapter on the "Concrete Universal" in his book on Hegel in the Great Thinkers series to get started. Then dip into Dr. Knudsen's material on Dooyweerd and Vollenhoven to really get into the weeds of Van Til's metaphysics. A picture will develop. Will it be a picture compatible with the Lord of Non-Contradiction? Will it be compatible with Dr. Welty's Theistic Conceptualism? What was Van Til's doctrine of Transcendental Implication? He definitely got the gist of it from Bradley. James Anderson has no role for transcendental implication in his epistemology, though it seems vital and central to Van Til's. In this interview, he hand-waves it away as a sort of "contextualizing" of facts in God's sovereign decree - it certainly is that for Van Til, but so much more. Given the inherent ambiguity of every data-set, we must have recourse to a divine "summation" ...which entails an internalist sort of deductive appeal to the "self-attesting Christ of Scripture" for Van Til. And as a final gripe, consider all this talk of "knowledge" vs "true knowledge" etc. As good analytic thinkers, we ought to ask what's really going on here for Van Til. To be technically precise, we ought to say unbelievers have "true beliefs which are, nevertheless, unjustified" ... or, perhaps, we might even go so far as to say unbelievers have "warranted, true, beliefs, yet these beliefs remain unjustified for them." Or, more accurate, I think we can say that, for Van Til, unbelievers had true beliefs which are presumptively-justified: the unbeliever's belief that the sky is blue would be rationally justified if he would make the correct appeal to the Word of Christ... I think this handful of issues begins to highlight a bit of Van Tillian nuance that is almost never brought forward and, if considered, would show that being a Van Tillian (yes - spelled with two LL's; it was good enough for Frame!) ...is more than just a methodological window-dressing. There are real metaphysical and epistemological models on the line.

I appreciate the good faith conversation. These debates often end up being a mission to refute rather than understand the opposing position, and I think the opposite was the case here. I think, however, there are a few points where Dr. Matthison is still missing Van Til. 1. The way Dr Matthison speaks about the absolute antithesis is misleading. He speaks of Van Til "qualifying" the antithesis with common grace. This gives the impression that Van Til starts with an absolute irreconcialble antithesis and back tracks or waters it down by adding common grace afterwards. However, I don't think its accurate to view the antithesis as the central dogma of Van Til's thought. The shared metaphysical situation established by the doctrines of creation and the image, the in-principle epistemological antithesis and supression of the truth created by the fall, and the restraint of the antithesis by common grace and the remaining image in the wider sense must be understood together as flowing out of Van Til's systematic theology. There isn't one facet the controls the other. 2. With regard to the exclusitivty claim, Van Til's wholistic view of knowledge comes into play. It's true that for Van Til, there are facts the as far as they go are agreed upon by Christians and non-Christians. But the non-Christian is situating those facts within a non-Christian worldview, which, due to the ethical hostility he has to God, is ultimately bent to supress the knowledge of God. The non-Christian then, insofar as he is consitent with his ethical hosility, will not reason from the facts which are on one level shared to a true, Christian conclusion. For example, the law of cause and effect is shared by most people as observed from reality. For the Christian, its founded on the providential care of God over his creation. For the non-Christian, it may just be a brute fact of an impersonal universe that we have discovered by scientific investigation or believe in by common sense or must employ due to the nature of our mind. If we attempt to use the law to argue to the necessity of a first cause, the non-Christian may appeal to our limitations as humans or to the mystery of the universe, which are fundamentally appeals to autonomy, to deny that there must be a first cause. Or he may, by the workings of common grace and felicitous inconsistency, accept the conclusion. Van Til is concerned to be absolutely consistent, and so rather than allowing for the possibility of the non-Christian denying a seemingly neutral shared fact and further supressing the truth, he wants to force the argument to first principles. That is why Van Til is so adamant on method; it is possible, and really often is the case that the Spirit works through the classical arguments, but only the presuppositional method lays bare the fundamental conflict.

Is there or will you be doing a review of the covenant theology book by Dr Sam Renihan ?

At some point Van Tilians need to move on from regurgitating to applying Van Tilian thinking in all area of theology including Bibliology, Reforming hermeneutics, etc.

Great to see you three together, combining your libraries. That is not an easy thing to do!

Presup >>>>

Mathison should be embarrassed at this level of shoddy scholarship. One would think he would have watched Bahnsen's many explanations of Van Til's apologetics. Mathison made clear in the first 20 minutes he didn't understand the main premises of Van Til's work. Disappointing. At least I don't need to waste money on his book. He should have interacted more often with James Anderson, who does understand Van Til.

I'm a James Anderson enjoyer, though I have become less presuppositional over time

KDY spends an hour and fifteen moderating well (although JA is the only one asked to defend himself) until KM explains his actual plan for talking to unbelievers, and KDY is like "Nah, you should use a Van Til approach instead". :) But overall I thought this was a helpful video. I've actually been spending the past month slowly reading Van Til (Common Grace & the Gospel) (and even some articles from JA's website!). So I'm obviously biased, but I think that a charitable reading of CVT is such a blessing for Christian faith and apologetics.

Rousas John Rushdoony By What Standard

Good job James!!! Well put.

Howdy professor!

Fantastic discussion!

Thanks for this. Id love to see one of the guys from Reformed Forum come on and have this conversation with Mathison or Fesko.

Keith seems to be hung up on "this is the only method that's valid."

Appreciate all three for doing this.

I'm totally enjoying DeYoung's "Daily Doctrine" ~ stored my huge systematic theology & using this now

So thankful for RC Sproul. The Gospel, Holiness of God, Covenant theology, Law-gospel distinction, Imputation, The Sovereignty of God, Ordo Salutis, Doctrines of Grace, the Trinity - a faithful preacher of Reformed doctrine - and I am a changed man for it! I often thank God for him and take great comfort that he is now part of the general assembly and the church of the firstborn enrolled in heaven. One day, I look forward to meeting him, a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Excellent seminar.

Clearly Reformed always like the mailman. Always delivers on time

This was a good interview. I sat under Dr. Nichols’s teaching at LBC when he started there in the mid 1990’s.

Thank you for sharing these videos with us. Are there any versions of this video in which we can see the marker board?

❤❤thank you

Great!

Awesome organization 👏🏻

Daily doctrine, what a great idea. . .t y for writing it.

I get so tired of hearing the name John Piper as if he is a guru of somekind that sycophants worship and follow around as if brain dead. Piper is a compromising semi woke coward and overrated thinker who endorses and associates with all sorts of false Christians and is a pro Charismatic delusion proponent. How do people like this become so popular? As DeYoung here they are more suited as high school teachers not Pastors and men of God. Kevin has also denounced his whiteness and privilege as dp most of his cohorts in ministry who are affiliated with the Gospel Coalition wokers. Has Kevin repented of all the lies he put forth against Doug Wilson and the infamous Moscow mood? This fairy looking weasel and his pathetic attempt to look cool and young in order to impress todays youth is a disgrace before God and real men. What a terrible representation of Christianity. That goes for DA Carson Mark Dever and the rest. Sad though there are no Whitefields today. In stead we get the clowns of so called reformed celebrity evangelicalism. Boys standing only where men ought to be. God have mercy on us.

You stated that after Bunyan would be a Owen lecture given by Greg Salazar, I was wondering where is that one?

You stated that after Bunyan would be a Owen lecture given by Greg Salazar, I was wondering where is that one?

Please more of these! :)

Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University Jonathan Edwards [1722], The "Miscellanies": (Entry Nos. a-z, aa-zz, 1-500) (WJE Online Vol. 13) , Ed. Harry S. Stout [word count] [jec-wjeo13]. -- 169 -- n. DAMNATION OF INFANTS. One of these two things are certainly true, and self-evidently so: either that it is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments, or else that those infants that are saved are not saved by the death of Christ. For none are saved by the death of Christ from damnation that have not deserved damnation. Wherefore, if it be very just, it is but a foolish piece of nonsense, to cry out of it as blasphemous to suppose that it ever is [just], because (they say) it is contrary to his mercy. Now such I ask, whether it is contrary to his mercy to inflict punishment upon any according to their deserts, and whether it was contrary to God's mercy to damn the fallen angels. There was no mercy showed to them at all. And why is it blasphemous to suppose that God should inflict upon infants so much as they have deserved, without mercy, as well as [upon] them?MS: "as they"; the reference is to the fallen angels, whereas the preceding "they" refers to infants. If you say, they have not deserved it so much, I answer: they certainly have deserved what they have deserved, as much as the fallen angels; because their sin is not accompanied with such aggravating circumstances, so neither shall their punishment be so aggravated. So that the punishment of one is every whit as contrary -- 170 -- to God's mercy as [that of] the other. Who shall determine just now much sin is sufficient to make damnation agreeable to the divine perfections? And how can they determine that infants have not so much sin? For we know they have enough to make their damnation very just. Edwards Yale Edu /archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4xMjo0OjEud2plby41NjQ4NTI=

I look forward to reading it. But, I wish Carl would do the book on Phillip Rieff that he started that developed into "Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self".

You did so good presenting Jonathan Edwards, I can't wait to meet him! 😅🙏🏻🙌🏻

Amen

I absolutely loved this. Thank you so much.

I don't know if Haitian migrants ate pets in Ohio but I have seen first hand accounts of locals saying all this stuff. Whether it was wise, judicious, Christian to run with these accounts is open to question. Don't though call it outright invention, a political lie like those told on the left (1619 project style). It was not that.

Critical theory, like other attacks on our culture and history, succeeds until confronted with 'compared to what'?

A History of the great thinkers? Oh how dreadful. Yes, let's get away from that. Bloody hell! Our problems are not from a surfeit of great thinkers and literature - which as a society we are, let's be honest, basically ignorant of.

You know technically there are 2 Bavincks...Herman and nephew Johan Herman.

This is such a great interview.

Evangelicalism is the rediscovery of the Christian Gospel as the center of the church's life and ministry as opposed to the manmade rules and ritual that dominated most of church life from after the first century church and since for everywhere the doctrines of grace did not or has not reached. It is defined by both doctrine and practice together sure, but first by belief in the essentials of the good news and in keeping with the most obvious biblical foundations as its shared basis. In this insistence upon Gospel truth and biblical foundations it has always been more about finding who is excluded only first by way of what the bible says of who is not, and not who is welcome only by what religion and religious preference finds excluded. I hope our generation is not taking that direction for granted by an overly specific definition that does not take how the bible's authority transcends the authority of human tradition seriously. In keeping with the teachings of Jesus, and teaching of the bible in whole, it's always been about statements of obvious essentials, with an emphasis on a simplicity that encourages unity among faithful churches (the substitutionary atonement of the Cross, human sinfulness, the importance of supernatural conversion/the Holy Spirit's work in making the Christian life possible, belief in the authority of the bible as God's Word to be preached). I celebrate grounding the belief in the importance of the confessions of the church in church history, and I also think there is a redundancy in thinking we must prove what was an awakening to the fullness of the Christian Gospel in the Protestant Reformation, as if it was present to the patristic and medieval church that had not yet developed. In good efforts to prove a continuity to the church's history throughout the church age and a shared appeal to the confessions and creeds, I think it is also important for those of us who take seriously how we do and do not define the Evangelical consensus as Evangelical to consider what Evangelicalism is by more than what it is not. As a return to something that was lost that God made alive again. To not take how the bible's authority was for most people in most of the church's history buried to common people in favor of tradition seriously is to not take the bible's authority seriously in church history. That is why Evangelical conviction has always held an insistence upon the new thing that God is doing that makes it so important. The creeds and confessions help us endure this challenge in our generation looking to the past for what it can provide, and not for what it can't. As an aside, I think in the moment where many are taking the apologetic route of attempting to answer technical political objections, we are in danger of belittling the church's right to its own establishment without respect to any political party or direct decisions about policy. It is very possible to hold the authority of the bible as the single authority for the basis of the rule and the life of the church, while admitting an indirect use for civic social theories as of temporal or civic uses by its congregants when in public life outside the church. In fact, it is much easier as Christians to limit our expectations of social dogmas to civic life than be told (by theologians?) we must test the expectations of our own religious establishment against the state's ever-changing value of what it means for the church to be separate. Are we to ignore this implies social theory is sufficient for doing what every Christian knows only the bible can for defining the church and its relation to the wider world? The church wants to be separate from the state because the church wants to be holy, it's the state that likes to blur the lines and that false religion has often helped aid. Though the protestant reformers didn't have a fully developed doctrine of the separation of church and state like we enjoy in America, they were invaluable to history in insisting upon a distinction between church and state in interest. In many respects that is a conversation we're still having as nations. I'm hearing a lot about the social imagination, why do we assume that Christians cannot understand the teachings of Locke or Kant have had a lesser consequence for good than the bible? As if they could compete in the resource of their own power? It would be blaspheme for the Christian to think so! It is not a political opinion for me to say that that the commands of Jesus and the sermon on the mount have a greater influence in inspiring what is good of our society than anything else, it is something I know, something I am absolutely certain of. Because I am an Evangelical and because that doesn't mean a political fad but is theologically defined. It is that government requires so much that it wants to ignore of Christian virtue, that is not a reason why we should be forced to compare the doctrine of our theology so closely to social theory in its effects. I hope any insistence otherwise does not obscure how simple Evangelicalism's foundations are, because one of the reasons Evangelicalism is so beautiful in diversity right now in October of 2024 is because it is so simply set upon Jesus Christ as Lord.

I like Andrew's historical referents for Evangelicals. Much of what has distorted the term in America is a function of sociologists/political pollsters/media reductionism.

A friend shared this with me from an email today, from Matthew Henry's the Pleasantness of the Religious Life. I wanted to share it here also because of how different it is from what the voices in our day say the purpose of religion and our work must prove. How ours is better than the old and dying secular quasi-religions. The hegalian presumption that equates spirit with something more like hype is disgusting, and the presumption that it is necessarily winning out when it is in truth so much at Christianity's expense is no less than despicable. How have we agreed with our need to be remythologized with such a wealth of spirituality to draw from except that we do not care to listen? Lord help me. God bless! Very much indebted to your teaching the history of the church and fear I have watched the series about evangelical history recently posted too quickly because I wish I could receive the encouragement without end. It's the beauty of the faith that I heard so loudly is to our advantage in this discussion. Thank you! And again God bless! "Now what is it that we have to do in religion but to praise God? We are taken into a covenant with God, that we should be to him "for a name, and for a praise"; are called "into his marvelous light," that we should "show forth the praises of him that called us". And how can we be more comfortably employed? They are therefore "blessed that dwell in God's house, for they will be still praising him". [...] For we cannot do ourselves a greater honor, or fetch in a greater satisfaction, than by "giving unto the Lord the glory due unto his name". It is not only a heaven on earth, but it is a pledge and earnest of a heaven in heaven too; for if we be here "everyday blessing God," we shall be "praising him for ever and ever;" for thus all who will go to heaven hereafter, begin their heaven now (p. 59) [...] Now sum up the whole, and then tell me whether religion be not a pleasant thing indeed, when even the duties of it are so much the delights of it; and whether we do not serve a good Master, who has thus made our work its own wages, and has graciously provided two heavens for those that never deserved one (p. 72)."

The arrogance of Rosaria is pretty stunning. I've asked her repeatedly why she believes that Yahweh is real, and she gives no response. She mailed me her first book, but still she can't explain why she believes that Yahweh exists and spoke our universe into existence. If Yahweh doesn't exist, then sin doesn't exist.

I'm all for thinkers processing their ideas publicly, however I think because of the political implications and consequences of critical theory, it would be better off elsewhere. That's my opinion. Many of the critical theorists themselves only passive adopters of the agenda that they would have been better to admit was woefully inconsistent. Why leading theologians would feel they should do the same for any benefit to the church I have no idea. Consider JI Packer as an example, had a degree in philosophy from the best school in the world, was a part of a tradition Presbyterians would differ with about church/state relations, yet never wrote about philosophy directly for a popular audience, why? The answer to that rhetorical question goes far beyond any of the thinkers mentioned in this video obviously or anything else I am going to say in this comment including Marx. That said, I'm concerned by the boogeyman effect around Marx as Dr. Trueman mentioned yet in addressing that I think C.S. Lewis in the Abolition of Man still does the best job in confronting it. Church leaders should obviously feel free to address the implications of ideology in their specific contexts also, I think we've been reminded what is popular and what is true can often be very different things in this world. I just don't think we should overrate him as a thinker just based the influence he had, part of what this book is trying for I would think. I'm not sure anything that was said that takes the fact his influence starts with intellectuals seriously enough. Seeking and desiring knowledge unwisely and therefore expecting of non-intellectuals a completely unworkable rationalism, what many are talking about as the fault of "elitism" is in the 2024 American public square more a result of this hyper-critical, neo-puritanical snobbery. I think these guys are giving Marx too much credit by talking about him as so important. I do believe there is a ministry in pulling down ideological strongholds and am thankful for the work being done in this area around that. But also, important theologians should acknowledge why we don't need such a depth of exploration for confronting critical theory as is required by academics such as Dr. Trueman who thankfully do that job for the church. Marx mischaracterized history on exactly the point of expecting the utopian fancy, then blamed the church/religion while attempting to leverage what it inspired of real virtue in our shared past as a function of the future ideologically. Marx then required of others (not himself) the other extreme, the view of history that the church/religion was never involved enough in the affairs of the state. This is a purposeful misreading of medieval history and in its influence has led to a mischaracterization of American history. Europe during his lifetime was attempting to process exactly the opposite more than anyone especially modern philosophers wanted to admit. This begs the question who has been mooching off of who? Almost no one thought there was anything so normal as for religion and the state to be of the function of a city state as the medieval world did. So much that the state afterward continued to dabble in the affairs of religion and too often used modernity as an excuse to take this license as normative, desperately abusing philosophy to prove some congruence in such a practice. Even sometimes as defining to reason, but in Marx's case certainly of history, and then to define the state so purely by economic concern. That allowed the revolutionary abuses Marx/others required to retain any plausibility whatsoever, but was all built upon the lie God was silent and that in the bible God did not speak of the differences of interests between the two. And the lie that Christians have never taken the state serious enough, when that is simply not true of church history. And the opposite of abuse of a union between the two is what the Protestant Reformation has had to attempt to teach the world to avoid (which I think these guys were attempting to touch on). Though modernity has in many places used philosophy to pretend it had outpaced that concern and post-modernity can only prove far worse in the end. Where are we looking to for answers to these questions? That question becomes very important very quickly. It's more important than ever that we are sure it is not only ourselves with secularism and secular philosophies. There is nothing easier than claiming to be experts just because we're cynics, I want to pray for Carl about that as I have needed prayers for that now more than ever. As he said, pessimism is too easy and betray us even as we speak of Christian virtue and charity.