I don’t want to discourage the young and restless from growing in their understanding of Reformed Protestantism but sometimes even the best of intentions cannot prevent stepping in it. Over at the allies blog John Starke encourages readers to spend more time with Cornelius Van Til — The Most Important Boring Thinker You Should Read (whose birthday happens to be today tomorrow). Starke goes on to ask three leading apologists to recommend sources for readers who know not presuppositionalism — Mike Horton, Scott Oliphint, and John Frame, in that order.
Is it impolite to notice that hard core Van Tillians would likely take umbrage at this order since I’ve often heard comments that Horton is light in his presuppositional loafers? And what would John Frame think to read that he comes in third behind Horton and Oliphint? Maybe Horton’s recommendation of Frame’s Apologetics to the Glory of God as “a readable apologetic from Van Til’s perspective” will take some of the sting away. Also, since the critics of 2k often invoke Van Til against the likes of VanDrunen and Horton, and since VanDrunen and Horton appear to have more of a following among the young and restless than the hard core Van Tillians (despite the congenital defect of transformationalism that afflicts the Gospel Coalition), Starke may have unwittingly aggravated those who invoke the antithesis to divide the world between 2k and R2k.
Sometimes you need a score card to keep track of all the players.
Update: and sometimes you need a clue and can’t take TGC’s word on dates. My comrade in arms informs me that Cornelius Van Til’s birthday is tomorrow. That gives me time to stock up.
15 Comments
Starke doesn’t say that his ordering of Horton, Oliphint, and Frame is intended to communicate precedence.
Its that breezy California look Horton is sportin’ that moved him to the front of the apologist class. No tie? Check. Chin beard? Check. Lean, “engaged with your question” look? Check. The picture of Frame makes him look like an aggravated repairman.
Dan, he doesn’t but why would you list a set of center fielders and put Willie Mays behind Don Demeter and Shane Victorino?
At least Oliphint has Van Til looking over his shoulder. That has to be worth something, right?
I’ve been wondering if the brave enterprise of WSC in going back to the 16th and 17th century sources to recover the meaning what it means to be Reformed might mean that at some stage they would back away from C Van Til, who I believe had a fair antipathy to the idea of Natural Law. and who seems to function quite often as the basis for Reformed intellectual hubris – but going on Horton’s endorsement, apparently not yet. But given the recent unpleasantness that so many of us have read or heard about, it’s quite nice to see Horton and Frame being presented as co-Van-Tillians.
Upon seeing the batting order and Dr. Hart’s commentary thereon, I immediately thought of “Christ the Center — Doctrine for Life.”
And what do you know? Hey Camden! How’s it goin’, buddy?
I’ve studied under Oliphant [creature from Tolkien?], Frame, and informally Horton. So I should really like Van Til, or at least appreciate him. Maybe the three interpreters scrambled him up too much for me.
I admit I’m not very philosophically wired, but the historian in me sort of cringes when I hear the tenor of the Starke piece. Should Reformed people really think that anything so radically new and different is either possible or good in the field of apologetics? How could it be that a method of apologetics “entailed by Reformed theology” didn’t exist for the first four centuries after the Reformation? Hackles, up.
Lots of good humor (intentional and otherwise) in this piece. The pictures are classic, Horton going a little too cool (need a pic like this to speak at Mockingbird), Oliphant channeling Van Til (or at least his barber), and Frame sitting at an organ… with his back to it. Then you have Horton recommending the Frame volume… after The Escondido Theology, too clever by half.
Brian – I resonate with the thoughts in your middle paragraph. But then again apparently everything changed with Kant… Camden could explain why – Christ the Centre have had some brilliant episodes on philosophy, epistemology and apologetics.
Dr. Hart, Sorry to have aggravated and offended you by the order of names. I’ll quit cherry-picking and just stick with listing my favorite Billy Hybels books.
John Starke, no offense taken. Just don’t be surprised by blow back from the keepers of Van Til’s flame.
No surprises here.
I was blessed to spend a few years with Dr. Van Til @ WTS, 1950-1953. We joked about being born on the same day, May 3. We passed over the fact that his birth was in 1895, mine 1928! I have shared my CVT thoughts many times with DGH and others. I am sure that the good Dr. didn’t say some of the things that some say he said! I have given details on this so many times I decided to quit when I turned 84 May 3 last week! So glad for all that CVT taught me, howbeit not in the clearest of words, seemed to me. Maybe not being Dutch made me not so MUTCH? God Bless, RKM
Only an old Philly fan would pick Don Demeter as one of two along with Willie Mays to make the point. But who flanked Don in the outfield? In left, one of my favorites, as a kid in the sixties in the Philly area, Wes Covington (loved his batting stance). In right another favorite Johnny Callison. Come to think of it.. The whole starting line up contained my favorites!
All this because I was perusing posts on Van Til. Was he a Philly fan per chance? As the Viking might say, back to the regularly scheduled CtC or 2K debate.
Jack, I happened to get loose when our Little League division went to a game at Connie Mack in 1966 or so. A few of us descended into the bowels of the stadium and walked past a number of player spots, including the bat room, where we saw Dick Stuart and Wes Covington picking out the lumber.
Look how friendly Old Bob was above. Old Bob, what happened?!