Reformed Apologetics

[@Gisbertus_Voetius]

25:30 / 29:30 If we want to possit something that all men have in common we could come up, at best I think, with a pretheoretical concept of something like „thoughts are occuring“. Everything is already bound in your worldview; As soon as we speak about the pretheoretical „transcendentals“ we are answering the question what „thoughts are occuring“ exactly is. I don’t see at this point if we can ever get out of worldview thinking. It is at this point that there is no more commonality with an unbeliever possible. Because he will choose an non-christian ontology to give a rational for his „thoughts are occuring“. But this unchristian ontology goes hand in hand with an unchristian epistemology and an unchristian ethics. You cannot set the three apart because they presuppose each other. The question now is if this „chosen ontology“ correspond to the „real ontology“. If I’ve understood van Til correctly he is saying that only the christian worldview can deliver the necessary foundation of intelligibility of human experience. That is to say that the unbeliever does not live consistently according to his worldview because he is living in Gods world. That does not mean that he can’t have knowledge, but it will always be knowledge that is formally grounded on an unchristian worldview, and therefore is unethical.

[@isaiahanddakotamartinez7730]

Just recently came across you guys grateful for your ministry!!

[@Amilton5Solas]

good one, Van Til is the best!

[@Gisbertus_Voetius]

46:38 I’ve never understood the notion that van Til were allegedly unaware of the reformed scholastics. To be honest I understood „Christian Apologetics“ not until I took up Voetius and compare the two . At times it seemed to me that some paragraphs van Til wrote were straight out of Voetius. It would surprise me a great deal if van Til wasn’t aware of -at least- Gisbertus Voetius.

[@Acek-ok9dp]

Icegeezful I wood ascribe it to the so common american ignorance...he was a dutch guy and most certainly new his historical theology like he new Kant and Hegel and the rest of continental theology and philosophy..

[@lalumierehuguenote]

Looking forward to Fesko !

[@BrandonCorley109]

Was a conversation with Fesko ever done after this?

[@theologymokbang5484]

Correct me if I am wrong. I believe that this episode is possibly mis-communicating Fesko's claim on Van Til and Common notions. On page 7 in this particular work, Fesko writes, "Van Til rejected common notions and instead argued that Christians have to appeal to unbelievers on the basis of the innate knowledge of God, their identity as divine image-bearers, and their status as covenant breakers. Van Til needlessly distanced himself from historic Reformed theology. But for all his protestations, he nevertheless advocated the same concepts under a different name. Once again, though Van Til chided the Reformed Orthodox and others such as Herman Bavinck for their use of common notions, Van Til employs the same concepts."

[@lalumierehuguenote]

:D Prayers answered. Thanks for the show

[@josephryan8899]

great show guys

[@Bewareofthewolves]

Shame about the current Dr Oliphint situation - this would have been a perfect episode to have him on as a guest.

[@josephryan8899]

im sorry to ask but what situation is that thanks

[@Bewareofthewolves]

Joseph Ryan The most recent article on the Reformed Forum website explains the situation.

[@lalumierehuguenote]

@@Bewareofthewolves It is better to do this kind of things by the letter. That is, in writing.

[@thomaskanke6383]

Can you please add a skip time for all the small talk. Time is precious and I want to learn about apologetics not about everything else in your life for 30 minutes 😅😆