Puritan Board Senior
The quoted text below comes from an Amazon book review of the new edition of CVT's Introduction to Systematic Theology. I have read many posts praising K. Scott Oliphint and seeing this statement that KSO undermines CVT's methodology has me confused, in a field that is rather confusing to a neophyte in theology/philosophy as it is. Can anyone opine on the validity of the statement ?
Many of the key elements of Van Til's apologetic methodology presented such as the Creator-creature distinction and God's Immutability have been denied by those who claim to be his successors in presupposition Apologetics (e.g. John Frame & K. Scott Oliphint), however Van Til did not tinker with the classical doctrine of God as they did, so they actually undermine Van Til's methodology rather than preserve it. Van Til presents a robust defense of the classical doctrine of God, closely following Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics (he cites Bavinck repeatedly throughout this book along with John Calvin) and nowhere argued for "covenantal attributes". Van Til clearly affirmed that God did not change in any way when He created the universe. Van Til does emphasize the importance of covenant theology and federal headship in Adam vs. federal headship in Christ, but not in the sense that K. Scott Oliphint advances in his position of Covenantal Apologetics which assumes a modified doctrine of God.