Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Seminary, and long-time interlocuter in matters neo-Calvinist, has a very positive review in Christianity Today of the recent biography of Cornelius Van Til by NTJ co-editor, John Muether.  Mouw writes:
John Muether has done a particularly good job of making a scholar’s life interesting—typically a daunting challenge for the would-be biographer—and he has done it by portraying Van Til’s career in a larger-than-the-academy context. For one thing, the polemics for which Van Til is well known were not simply arguments that are “contained” within the academy. Michael Hakkenberg made this point nicely in an essay he once published about Van Til’s rather acrimonious dispute with the philosopher Gordon Clark. The subject at issue was the doctrine of “divine incomprehensibility.” But as Hakkenberg observes, there was more going on here than a simple theological argument. The struggle had something to do with who would control the theological direction of the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination. Clark’s position had affinities with certain non-Calvinist elements in the broader evangelical movement, while Van Til insisted on the kind of stark contrast between divine and human knowledge that would reinforce a uniquely Calvinst piety and ecclesiology. Van Til was victorious in the ecclesiastical struggle, with Clark departing for other environs.
He adds:
Those of us—and I consider myself in this crowd—who are more tempted in the commonness direction would do well to learn from a nice little vignette that Muether relates. Toward the end of his life, Van Til returned to Grand Rapids and visited one of his Calvin philosophy professors, William Harry Jellema, who was close to death. Jellema was very much a common-grace type Kuyperian, well known for his expressed hope that he would meet Socrates in heaven. He and Van Til had long parted ways on many key philosophical and theological matters. On this occasion, however, Van Til thanked his former teacher for what he had learned from Jellema. Jellema responded: “Yes, but Kees, it was you who at times kept us from going too far.” Jellema is not the only one with that kind of indebtedness to Van Til.
High marks for Van Til and Muether from a PCUSA neo-Calvinist. Those who haven’t bought the book should. And don’t forget the other biographies in the series.
Old Life 
Does this mean you’re becoming a Van Tillian?
LikeLike
Ah, but wait until that Baptist one comes out in a few months–that’ll make our series :-). It was a nice review, except he changed my last name to Lewis (at least in the online version)…
LikeLike
Technicalities. Bad pr is good pr.
LikeLike
I’m at a loss as to why everyone thinks Van Til is so “great”? First off, his theology sounds a lot like neo-orthodoxy, which in my opinion is nothing new nor orthodox. Barth’s rejection of propositional truth and verbal-plenary inspiration and infallibility in essence subjectivizes the objective revelation of God in the text of Holy Scripture.
Secondly, Van Til gives rise to theonomy by way of his student, Greg Bahnsen. Again, what’s so great about theonomy and reconstructionism, another product of Van Til’s irrational theology?
I like Carl F. H. Henry’s approach much better and it seems to me that without a solid grounding in Holy Scripture what we wind up with is existential subjectivism and a wishy washy faith based on some vague theological concept that might or might not be in the text, according to Barth’s theology. God is ineffable and incomprehensible. So let’s all become Buddhists?
OK, there are limits to epistemology and theology but that is not the same thing as saying Scripture just “contains” God’s Word. Certainly if Scripture is perspicuous, and it is, then even a child can read it and understand what God wants us to know (2 Timothy 3:15).
Also, as a former pentecostal, I think theology done in the academy is inferior to theology done in the pulpit. The greatest theology comes from Scripture itself as we struggle with the text in relationship to the people of God in the congregation and what they need to hear from the Bible as we preach the text.
Jesus, Paul and the apostles were not off in seminary somewhere writing theological treatises on why we should reach out to the lost. They preached the Word. That isn’t to say that academics are unimportant but it does mean we need to keep our priorities straight here.
Otherwise, what we see is the pentecostal/church growth/emergent/whatever else group of soft peddlers teaching a watered down Gospel. What the church needs is passionate preaching of the Reformed doctrines in relationship to pastoral concerns but with the polemical/dogmatic grounding of both systematic and biblical theology. (Not either/or).
I’m just a redneck from some swamp in Florida. What the heck do I know? I love a good pugilistic hoe down between opposing theological perspectives.
LikeLike
Hart on Nevin for ten bucks, still a bit too much
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d42fffbcdd813b3bdc47e6132&id=3d782a60d9
Salvation by Grace: The case for Effectual Calling and Regeneration, by Matthew Barrett, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2013, a quotation from p 78.
“In the Twentieth century, hyper Calvinism has shown its head yet again in the work of Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)Building off of HIS VIEWS ON election and reprobation, Hoeksema argues that there can be no well meant offer of the gospel, which would imply and desires the salvation of the nonelect, for Scripture is clear that God determines to harden the hearts of the nonelect, not to save them. In fact, says Hoeksema, God does not even desire the salvation of of the nonelect, nor does God act favorably toward the nonelect, but only acts to further their sentence to destruction. When the gospel is preached it is not a free offer to whomever will believe, but rather it is simply a promise meant only for the elect. The only thing the nonelect receive in hearing this message is condemnation.”
Barrett continues: “Hoeksema’s view is deeply unbiblical. Scripture everywhere affirms the well-meant offer of the gospel, as Capsar Olevian termed it, whereby God genuinely desires the salvation of the lost (II Peter 3:9, I Timothy 2:4). Jesus Himself DID KNOW who was the elect and noneelect were and yet he offered the gospel freely (Matthew 22:3-8, Luke 14:16-21, John 5:38) Hyper Calvinists like Hoeksema are wrongly used as representatives of Calvinism instead of the traditional Reformed Reformed theologians.”
Throughout Barrett’s book the reference to “historic” or “traditional” Calvinism is used as a code word to mean the “universal sufficiency” view . The idea is to appeal to a broad historic tradition, at least for appearance sake, but in the meanwhile to exclude and marginalize other historic views as not being really “historic”. The strategy is used by Kenneth Stewart to argue that Reformed people should be more “evangelical”. Stewart is one who endorses this book, along with Haykin, Timothy George, Robert Letham, Greg Forster. Bruce Ware, Fred Zaspel, and other Andrew Fuller fans.
It’s a tricky strategy, because on the one hand, it’s saying that the “God does not love everybody” view is a tiny blip, not really Calvinism, but then on the other hand, it acts as this “hyper” threat is very dangerous and important.
LikeLike
I paid more than $10 in 2007 dollars and thought it well worth it. If you want free there are scans of The Mystical Presence everywhere online. It’s a hell of a read and as relevant as if it were written yesterday.
LikeLike
I certainly agree that Calvin and Nevin on the same side on some “sacramental” issues. Good to know that, just like it’s good to know that Calvin was on the side of Christendom, not on the side of religious liberty.
Institutes 4:17:5 For there are some who define the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word, nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to me to have intended to teach something more express and MORE SUBLIME in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his flesh—viz. that we are quickened by the true partaking of HIM, which he designated by the terms eating and drinking, lest any one should suppose that the life which we obtain from him is obtained by simple knowledge.For as it is not the sight but the eating of bread that gives nourishment to the body, so the soul must partake of Christ truly and thoroughly, that by his energy it may grow up into spiritual life.
http://americanvision.org/4973/hortons-contrived-empire-calvin-denied-christendom/
LikeLike
Calvin (3:2:10)–”Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with Him in the gifts with which he has been endowed.”
McCormack—”One of the ‘gifts’ Calvin speaks of–regeneration–is very difficult to distinguish conceptually from that ‘union’ which is supposed to give rise to both justification AND REGENERATION….Calvin’s break with Medieval Catholic views was not as clean and complete as he himself obviously thought. For where regeneration is made— if only logically–to be the root of justification, then the work of God in us is once again made to be the ground of the divine forgiveness of sins.”
p 110, “What’s At Stake in Current Debates Over Justification?”, professor Bruce McCormack, Princeton Theological Seminary
“I do not participate in the historical humanity of Christ Rather, I participate in the kind of humanity which Jesus embodies. That is why I John 3:2 says that WHEN WE SEE HIM as He is, we shall be LIKE him… we are suffering from ‘creeping perichoresis’, that is, the overly expansive use of terms which have their homes in purely spiritual relations between humans who do NOT participate in a common ‘substance”’ and who therefore remain distinct individuals. This surely has to be the relation of the human believer to the human Jesus as well. What has prevented us from seeing this is, I think, the degree of residual Catholic content in the Reformation understanding of eucharistic feeding. It is in the context of his treatment of eucharistic feeding that Calvin borrows rhetoric from the early church that brings him into conflict with his own doctrine of justification.”
LikeLike
but here’s a good book from P and R — Douglas Bond Grace Works 2014 p 92—“There are men today who encourage their congregations to tear out the page between the Old and New Testaments in their Bibles. Zealous to avoid the error of dispensationalism, these men make the continuity of the covenants the foundation of their preaching. But I wonder if it is a foundation that is able to support the scandal of grace. If we care about the distinction between law and gospel…then we will train our ears for those who don’t seem to want to keep the distinction between the old and new covenants.Their insistence on “the continuity of the covenants” may prove to be a code phrase for confusing law and gospel. Where there is a merging of the old and new covenants, it will never be the law diminished by gospel. It will always be the gospel fatally diminished by the law.”
LikeLike