Goodcheer68
Puritan Board Sophomore
Oops
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If this is your serious and genuine response to being addressed for such harsh language against brothers and sisters in the Lord, then my outrage is beyond justified.
Cornelius Van Til should be treated as all scholars should be treated - praise and use the good stuff he wrote and criticize the things he wrote where you think he went wrong. Any scholar's published writings are fair game for both sides.
One thing Van Til should be admired for is that he was one of the first scholars writing in English (as far as I know) to criticize Karl Barth in print at book-length (The New Modernism, 1946).
On the other hand, Van Til is now undergoing criticism for his approach to apologetics, as I noted in my OP with both Richard Muller's review article and John Fesko's new book.
Like every other writer, Van Til can and should be admired for his achievements - but, like every other scholar, he is not beyond criticism.
That book by Fesko looks awesome. Does he take a straight forward classical apologetics line? I've never heard him on this topic. I've always been sceptical of him because of his involvement with Westminster Seminary California.
I've just started reading the book, so I don't have an answer to your question yet. Fesko, by the way, is leaving Westminster Seminary in California for Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi.
Sounds good. Is RTS solid?