The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Van Til and Federal Vision

Just a quick question,

I saw somewhere on YouTube that Van Til's theology leads to Federal Vision.

One of my favorite Books is Always Ready by Bahnsen... and while I've never jumped into Van Til himself, I've always regarded him to be a pillar of Reformed Thought?

So I just wanted to here your opinions on Van Til.

Thanks.

1. The claim that Van Til's theology leads to Federal Vision is proposterous. The FV heretics like to claim that Calvin and other 'notables' are allegedly not opposed to them.

2. Bahsen was quite solid except for his "Theonomy" views. His strong area was apologetics which is a refining of Presuppositional Apologetics from Van Til.

Ok great, thank's Pilgrim I am relieved to hear you say that as I'm a very big proponent of Presuppositional Apologetics and have always had a high opinion of Van Til.

You wrote:
I agree with Pilgrim that this is preposterous.
However, I am curious if they tried to back their statement up and if so what did they say?

Tom

I didn't even watch this video series, I don't agree with the Federal Vision at all, it is completely heretical, so therefore I wasn't even interested in their argument, but here is the link Van Til Federal Vision

Dave

Dave,

I watched 3 of the series from the link you provided. What I surmised, and I am open to correction, is that the detractor of Van Til is a 'Clarkian'; follower of Gordon Clark's philosophy. There was a long-standing debate, sometimes heated on both sides, between Van Til and Clark and both men attracted quite a following. Unfortunately, there resulted much animosity between some of the more loyal followers. Thus, what I am thinking is that this series on YouTube is one of Clark's more vehement followers who is seizing an opportunity to discredit Van Til. He is doing so by making the illogical fallacy of taking the broad area of Presuppositional Apologetics and condemning Van Til just because many of those who embrace Federal Vision embrace Van Til's methodology.

I could use the same fallacy in argument and say that all Calvinists are guilty of embracing semi-Pelagianism because both groups embrace the doctrine of divine inspiration. This is nothing less than the old 'guilt by association' foolishness.

Was Van Til infallible? No! Was Van Til inerrant? No! But he never embraced anything even remotely associated with Federal Vision nor does his Presuppositional Apologetical methodology lead to Federal Vision or any of its morphs. The problem is with the INDIVIDUALS who embrace Federal Vision with their distortion, twisting and adding to Scripture.

Federal Vision I ve hardly ever heard of,but whats the beef (in a paragraph or two ) with Theonomy?

How about an article or two... or three?

1. Another Look at Theonomy by Raymond O. Zorn

2. Moses' Law for Modern Government by J. Ligon Duncan III

3. Theonomy's Dispensational Hermeneutic by Lee Irons

So Im part way through Zorn's article and he seems to be making sense, I have a bone wrt the woman caught in adultery.


)

This looks to me as out of place on Zorn's part as are the examples he cites as misused by Bahnsen.

The woman was released because there were no witnesses willing to testify. Clearly a direct application of the law.

Anyways so far so good

H

I believe this accusation is coming from another one of those ministries that I like to refer to as “Heresy Hunters’.
One of the arguments the link uses is the accusation that VanTillians didn’t stop the on slot of Federal Vision Theology, because it was paralyzed by Van Tillian heresy, basically on the subject of God and revelation. The video, by RedBeetle quoted John W Robbins. In fact they claim it spawned a new denomination.
Looking over a few other links in the margin, I noticed one video called ‘James White the Professional Liar’. This basically was about James White’s book ‘The King James Controversy’.
Something that John W Robbins mentioned in this is that James White believes like Non-King James Bibles that Lucifer is the “Bright and Morning Star”. Rather than the truth that Jesus is the Bright and Morning Star as the KJB rightly says. He claims that he has challenged James White to a debate, but James White refuses.
He mentions also that although James White has a Dr. in front of his name, he isn’t one. The College where James White attended also says James White is a Dr. in residence, yet this obviously is not true. Thus, they say both White and the college can not be trusted.
Another person who RedBeetle attacks is RC Sproul.
I realize that part of this post is off topic; however it would appear that RedBeetle and John W Robbins have an axe to grind; one that I don’t have time to get into.

Tom

Tom,

Methinks you are just a bit confused in regard to John W. Robbins having 'an ax to grind'. Mr. Robbins isn't able to grind any axes at this time since he died August 14, 2008. However, when he was alive, he wasn't the most amiable individual one could meet. In my estimation, he apparently was a very unhappy soul and unfortunately his demeanor was simply nasty and judgmental. That isn't to say that John Robbins had nothing good or correct to say because he sometimes did. But due to his belligerent and combative style of writing, endurance is needed and often lacking by most and thus the good things he had to offer are missed.

I came to similar thought when I watched some of those Red Beetle videos and wondered if they weren't produced by Marc Carpenter of the infamous "Outside the Camp" website. I did see a few videos by his partner on the right so if nothing else, I guess I would tend to group the Red Beetle and whoever is responsible for it as being in the same type of camp to whatever degree.

Pilgrim

I am aware that Robbins died a few years ago and looking back at my wording, I can see where I should have been clearer.
I will say that the people at Red Beetle, like to quote him a lot.

Tom