tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post1280591285457087828..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: The Scriptural Epistemology of DogmatismTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-41405705545320396402016-01-01T18:41:52.455+00:002016-01-01T18:41:52.455+00:00Thank you for this post.
It's a great help.Thank you for this post.<br /><br />It's a great help.Justin Tamblynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18173990531469222349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-38661784894012736262007-06-13T18:49:00.000+01:002007-06-13T18:49:00.000+01:00Dear JB,I've appreciated our discussion.I have a s...Dear JB,<BR/><BR/>I've appreciated our discussion.<BR/><BR/>I have a suggestion, and it is only a suggestion, for you. That suggestion is not to assume that you know what I'm thinking, or that you have my view all figured out.<BR/><BR/>I try not to do that with Van Til, and I find that it allows me to think more critically about the Van-Tillian position.<BR/><BR/>I have read plenty on the Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-59391703048353715252007-06-13T18:25:00.000+01:002007-06-13T18:25:00.000+01:00It seems that you attempt to answer my criticism b...It seems that you attempt to answer my criticism by ignoring some qualifications and making others. <BR/><BR/>The pamphlet is entitled "Why I Believe in God"-- as such, you think it should merely say, "Because God made me" and leave it at that. When Van Til attempts to supplement it, you think this is inconsistent with the previous statement. However, as I have pointed out before, this is only Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-34885359206322095502007-06-13T17:01:00.000+01:002007-06-13T17:01:00.000+01:00JB,I had not forgotten your quotation, that's why ...JB,<BR/><BR/>I had not forgotten your quotation, that's why I thought that relatively short work would provide a suitable common ground for our discussion.<BR/><BR/>If you'd rather discuss one of his longer writings, feel free to point out the one that is of interest to you.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "God often works through means and there are primary causes and secondary causes."<BR/><BR/>I respond: Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-4624652783521161052007-06-13T16:10:00.000+01:002007-06-13T16:10:00.000+01:00TF,You write, "Your last couple of comments seem t...TF,<BR/>You write, "Your last couple of comments seem to be more directed to asserting that I do not know Van Til (and Kant, perhaps), than to advancing the discussion. <BR/><BR/>Since you've decided to go that way, let me point out that I think the shoe is on the other foot.<BR/><BR/>If you have not done so, read Van Til's 'Why I believe in God,' (here's a link). It's not long, and it provides Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-10448050346864164852007-06-13T15:07:00.000+01:002007-06-13T15:07:00.000+01:00Dear JB,Your last couple of comments seem to be mo...Dear JB,<BR/><BR/>Your last couple of comments seem to be more directed to asserting that I do not know Van Til (and Kant, perhaps), than to advancing the discussion. <BR/><BR/>Since you've decided to go that way, let me point out that I think the shoe is on the other foot.<BR/><BR/>If you have not done so, read Van Til's "Why I believe in God," (<A HREF="http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-5292419967221083922007-06-13T14:45:00.000+01:002007-06-13T14:45:00.000+01:001) There are various methods of investigation and ...1) There are various methods of investigation and Kant does not have the copy right on transcendentals. If you think that one must be Kantian to apply transcendental methods then I doubt you understand Kant as well. This is like calling me Humean, Lockian, or Barklian simply because I try to verify if there is bread in my kitchen by getting up and looking. (This is not to suggest that Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-70749394287799389432007-06-13T14:16:00.000+01:002007-06-13T14:16:00.000+01:00JB:Kant made a differnece between the two (between...JB:<BR/><BR/>Kant made a differnece between the two (between transcendent and transcendental), but unless you are suggesting that Van Til is Kantian, I'm not sure why that otherwise meaningless difference is of note.<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that Van Til was Kantian?<BR/><BR/>As to the remainder of your comments: <BR/><BR/>Frankly, even Bahnsen has admitted that Van Til was not always clear, Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-83557058615973356542007-06-13T03:44:00.000+01:002007-06-13T03:44:00.000+01:00I don't mean to sound condescending, as I have sai...I don't mean to sound condescending, as I have said before, you have certainly done more studying than I have (I've only been "Reformed" for two years) but you simply don't understand Van Til's position. This is probably most evident in your use of the word transcendent in place of transcendental. I need a better grasp of Van Til myself, but to construe the Van Tilian position as not having the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-79482141447006261662007-06-12T22:07:00.000+01:002007-06-12T22:07:00.000+01:00Dear Anonymous,One would think you were right, yet...Dear Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>One would think you were right, yet the first comment above is an objection by someone who (I think) is a Reformed Christian.<BR/><BR/>Suprising, eh?<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-80692154080820183282007-06-12T22:05:00.000+01:002007-06-12T22:05:00.000+01:00How can a Reformed Christian not see that the reve...How can a Reformed Christian not see that the revelation of the Bible is the starting point of knowledge? It has to be. This seems to be such an obvious matter it seems impossible that believers can differ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-23901242547011372272007-06-12T17:11:00.000+01:002007-06-12T17:11:00.000+01:00Dear JB,If you have time and interest, it would be...Dear JB,<BR/><BR/>If you have time and interest, it would be of more value to me if you would identify those portions of my post where you had substantive disagreement.<BR/><BR/>Leaving aside the labelling issues (does it need a VT or GC?), what part of the epistemology of dogmatism is objectionable to you.<BR/><BR/>I'd much rather focus on that, than on the differences between two dear ChristianTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-76815716019179057862007-06-12T17:02:00.000+01:002007-06-12T17:02:00.000+01:00If by rational you mean rationalism then you reall...If by rational you mean rationalism then you really don't understand Van Til's epistemology at all. <BR/><BR/>A further problem seems to be arising from the fact that you are trying to critique certain portions of Van Til's apologetic by showing how they contradict Clarkian views. Of course they contradict Clarkian views. Let us say that you hold to A and because of A you believe that C is a goodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com