Lane G. Tipton and K. Scott Oliphint co-edited a great book called Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics. In the first essay, Richard Gaffin begins by giving some exegetical insights to a Vantillian interpretation of Scripture in order to give the Christian a plausible—notwithstanding Van Til's language of "certain proof"—substantive apparatus to defend the faith delivered once and for all (Jude 3). Here's the problem I have with using the term "Vantillian interpretation" because it tends to look like a system-laden, to say nothing of extra-biblical, formula. But we know from the New Covenant Scriptures (2 Peter 1:20) that this is not the case. Much like the previous debates that flanked most of Reformed orthodoxy in the past (I'm referring to the Clark-Van Til debates), biblical theologians have come to Van Til's defense. Dr. Gaffin would further assist the venerable Van Til by aghast to Van Til's concessions of certain remarks about his defense of the faith. For instance, G. C. Berkouwer decried Van Til's dogmatic assertions that his presuppositionalism carries exegetical insights—plenary insights—but without qualification. Van Til quickly conceded. But as I read in Dr. Gaffin's essay, that concession was premature on Van Til's part. Dr. Gaffin goes on to defend Van Til and shows great scholarly insights as to how Van Til could make such an assertion and remain qualified without the need to exegete a single passage. In the following pages, Dr. Gaffin goes on the fray and exegetes pertinent texts that would further expunge Van Til from incrimination—the incriminations of Dr. Berkouwer. This was an amazing first essay. I can't wait to read the sections on epistemology.
Book Cited
Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. "Epistemological Reflections on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16." Revelation and Reason: Essays in Reformed Theology (Ed. K. Scott Oliphint & Lane G. Tipon), 13-40.
1 comment:
To let you know, a professional philosopher from Liverpool has said that Van Til should not be considered a philosopher. He also stated that the above is the reason many Christian philosophers at that time respected and sided with Clark over Van Til. Clark was more lucid and had a better biblical basis than Van Til's.
In addition, Van Til's lack of exegesis has been a common criticism against Van Til and which Van Til admits to. Oddly, Van Til disagreed with some of the exegetical conclusions that his defenders came to while using Van Til's "system."
Post a Comment