Dooyeweerd and Van Til?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I know that these two great thinkers, who have both influenced me, were at one time friends but later after Dr. Knudsen went to study with Dooyeweerd (at Van Til's encouragement) the two men began to have differences. I have Frame's account of it. He states that Knudsen and Van Til had a good relationship but that Knudsen was "caught in the crossfire". I have Van Til's festrift with the interactions of these men but Im wondering if there are any books (papers?) written on the relationship between these men?

I also have Knudsen's book "Roots and Branches" which is an amazing collection of essays. But has anyone dug into the history of these men (Dooyeweerd and Van Til primarily) and their changing thought?
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
My interest in Dooyeweerd is this, his metaphysics is the best I've read. But I blend it with the "metaphysics" of the later Wittgenstein's philosophy. There is different "aspects", not substances, of reality. And various ways, language games, to talk about them. And an apologetical method, Van Til, to defend the faith. Throw in a little William James and thats my philosophy.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Dooyeweerd didn't need the Bible for his philosophy. Van Til did. I don't say that as a criticism Dooyeweerd said philosophy should be controlled by the Bible but not derived from it. While I reject bibliclism as much as the next guy, I don't know how this would work, and later Dooyeweerdians were never that interested in fleshing it out.

This is Bahnsen's more critical take from his Van Til Reader:

“The verbal teaching of God’s revealed word is subordinated to some controlling authority outside of itself—and that actually runs contrary to the Bible’s own verbal teaching (Col. 1:18; 2 Cor. 10:5). The philosopher is placed in the privileged position of laying down for the exegete how the Bible may and may not be used, how its teachings must be broadly conceived, and what the Bible can and cannot say. Reason becomes a vestibule for faith (believing truths of theology). Philosophy is thereby rendered rationally autonomous, even if the philosopher’s “heart is gripped” by the power of God’s word.[iii]”
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Dooyeweerd didn't need the Bible for his philosophy. Van Til did. I don't say that as a criticism Dooyeweerd said philosophy should be controlled by the Bible but not derived from it. While I reject bibliclism as much as the next guy, I don't know how this would work, and later Dooyeweerdians were never that interested in fleshing it out.

This is Bahnsen's more critical take from his Van Til Reader:

“The verbal teaching of God’s revealed word is subordinated to some controlling authority outside of itself—and that actually runs contrary to the Bible’s own verbal teaching (Col. 1:18; 2 Cor. 10:5). The philosopher is placed in the privileged position of laying down for the exegete how the Bible may and may not be used, how its teachings must be broadly conceived, and what the Bible can and cannot say. Reason becomes a vestibule for faith (believing truths of theology). Philosophy is thereby rendered rationally autonomous, even if the philosopher’s “heart is gripped” by the power of God’s word.[iii]”
Yeah I loved their interaction in "Jerusalem and Athens" and Frame's interaction with them. I just wondered if anyone had written a definitive story on their relationship. That could be great PhD stuff.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Freshman
“The verbal teaching of God’s revealed word is subordinated to some controlling authority outside of itself—and that actually runs contrary to the Bible’s own verbal teaching (Col. 1:18; 2 Cor. 10:5). The philosopher is placed in the privileged position of laying down for the exegete how the Bible may and may not be used, how its teachings must be broadly conceived, and what the Bible can and cannot say. Reason becomes a vestibule for faith (believing truths of theology). Philosophy is thereby rendered rationally autonomous, even if the philosopher’s “heart is gripped” by the power of God’s word.[iii]”
Sounds similar to Ramus's critique of (Aristotelian) metaphysics.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Graduate
There's been a bunch of critiques of Aristotle's metaphysics over the years. Most of us simply don't use him anymore.
I’ll guess as a non-expert. Aristotle’s metaphysics is kept alive through Thomism.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Would you apply that to the Person? Are there two aspects of Jesus?
No aspects are of the world and theoretical thought, not people. We "function" within the aspects. Does Christ have two natures, yes but nature's are human ideas and concepts.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I thought you didn't believe in substance metaphysics.
Good one . I don't have to buy in completely to something to find it useful and necessary to describe a great mystery. If I could do it with my phone I would but Jared Oliphint gave a wonderful critique of James Dolozel along these lines.
Hes no Dooyeweerdian like i am but he recognizes the problem with tying oneself to a particular metaphysics as the Christian metaphysics.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Good one . I don't have to buy in completely to something to find it useful and necessary to describe a great mystery. If I could do it with my phone I would but Jared Oliphint gave a wonderful critique of James Dolozel along these lines.
Hes no Dooyeweerdian like i am but he recognizes the problem with tying oneself to a particular metaphysics as the Christian metaphysics.

The problem, though, as Bruce McCormack pointed out, is that Chalcedon (and all the councils) did tie themselves to this particular metaphysics. The tweaked it in spots but much of hte debate beween Cyril and Nestorius dealt with parsing the shades of meaning of substance, prosopon, and hte like.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
The problem, though, as Bruce McCormack pointed out, is that Chalcedon (and all the councils) did tie themselves to this particular metaphysics. The tweaked it in spots but much of hte debate beween Cyril and Nestorius dealt with parsing the shades of meaning of substance, prosopon, and hte like.
That is a good point but it doesn't deal with my useful for this not for everything else point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top