|
I found these comments by Rob Mitchell interesting:
[quote:0117055c8d] Just re-reading Van Til's *Christian Apologetics*. Van Til clearly
elucidates an optimistic view of the spread and eventual triumph of the
Gospel here on earth. However I don't think we can find a shoehorn to
force Van Til's view into the template of what is now known as Theonomic
Postmillennial Reconstructionism.
One problem is the slipperiness of terms. Was Van Til a Theonomist? If
you are asking if he agreed that the moral precepts elucidated in the
Old Testament are applicable for the Christian, the answer is yes. If
you mean that he would apply all of Old Testament case law, the answer
is unclear, but I think it is a reasonable conjecture to say no.
Was Van Til Postmillennial? I think his writings make it clear he did
not see the thousand year kingdom of Revelation 20 as literal. He would
hold that the chiliad is the period in which we live now, i.e. that time
between the ascension and the Parousia. In that strict sense he was
Amillennial, though many Postmillennialists would share the same view.
Was Van Til a Reconstructionist? Once again, he was optimistic in his
view of the spread of Christianity. But I did have the opportunity to
speak with a classmate of Bahnsen's who was present at an exchange
between Van Til and Bahnsen a couple of years before Van Til went home
to be with the Lord. CVT lovingly and gently, but at once firmly, told
Bahnsen, "Greg, you're going in the wrong direction."
On the basis of this I think Van Til, were he with us today, would be
appreciative of much of the work done in the Reconstructionist camp, but
would stop short of wanting to wear the label. I think his position
would best be described as optimistic amillennialism.
This is hardly a scholarly development of that opinion, but I think
research would back up this view.
-- Rob Mitchell [/quote:0117055c8d]
VanVos
|