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.
Old Life 
Starke doesn’t say that his ordering of Horton, Oliphint, and Frame is intended to communicate precedence.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Dan, he doesn’t but why would you list a set of center fielders and put Willie Mays behind Don Demeter and Shane Victorino?
LikeLike
At least Oliphint has Van Til looking over his shoulder. That has to be worth something, right?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
John Starke, no offense taken. Just don’t be surprised by blow back from the keepers of Van Til’s flame.
LikeLike
No surprises here.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Look how friendly Old Bob was above. Old Bob, what happened?!
LikeLike
I want so very badly to get n on this, but there is no way I can do it now.
LikeLike
Well shoot. I jist can’t help myself.
Van Til is not difficult so much as he is FOREIGN. The thoroughly biblical system of thought that he so faithfully proclaimed for all those years is an utterly foreign ethical and intellectual (in that order) language to the one the corrupted sons of fallen father Adam are born with.
Imagine this conversation with a six year old girl after church. My church is mostly black (though I am white). Some sane joyful dancing goes on there on occasion.
————————————————————–
Me, in kiddy voice to a 6 year old girl dancing around the foyer at my church: “How many is 2+2 _______(name)?”
6 year old still dancing in tone calculated to indicate the silliness of the question: “4 brother Greg”(duh)
Me, to tirelessly dancing 6 year old: “are you sure?”
6 year old in respectful tone: “yes sir.”
Me: “why are you sure?”
6 year old states matter of factly without missing a step: “because that’s how God made it”.
————————————————————-
That’s the right answer. The sovereign preeminent, non contingent ground of all thought and being who is alone capable of actually autonomous objective knowledge. The ancient of days whose eternally ontological triunity majestically resolves the problem of the one and the many. The triumphant conquering king of the universe without whose all governing decree not one atom in all the vast cosmos dare twitch. The reason why 2+2=4. In six words from the mouth of a babe nurtured in His name and yet uncluttered by the onslaught of the world.
Ya know, I had to read “The Defense of the Faith” twice in a literal row 25 years ago. I finished it, and became of aware of a strained wince on my face as I pondered what I’d just read for a good while. I picked it up and started over. It was like I could smell a sumptuous feast on the other side of a wall with a door I couldn’t find.
I don’t remember the exact quote of what I was reading at the time, but the second time through the shade went up and the light came flooding in. I felt like an idiot for it having to have been pointed out to me. I actually chuckled out loud: “of course. How could it possibly be otherwise?” I understood the Godhood of God like never before. I’m not being over dramatic. Since then I’ve read most of what Dr. Van Til has written and repeatedly listened to all 78 known extant recordings of his voice. Today it’s second nature. Well actually first nature. “Don’t ya see?” 🙂
Jesus Christ defeated my sin and death. God used John Calvin in his institutes to show me what that meant and Cornelius Van Til taught me how to think like it was true.
LikeLike
My log shows me a call for the epistemology debate between Steve and I that was referred from this page. Somebody from Beaver Falls Pennsylvania just after midnight last night. How interesting.
You will be relieved to know that I have certainly not forgotten about you Dr. Hart. I’ve been occasionally working in a response to your… Oh nevermind. You’ll see it when I’m done. 😀
LikeLike