Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Post-Modernism and the Relevance of VanTil

Expand Messages
  • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
    Neil, I am glad you raised this. As I have been thinking over the past several months on the debate on the Revolution Church and how modern Presbyterians
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 25, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Neil,

      I am glad you raised this. As I have been thinking over the past
      several months on the debate on the Revolution Church and how modern
      Presbyterians treat history, it dawned on me that the Post-modern
      mentality has been put forth in various ways here. The
      postmodernist cares little about history and pretty much says "that
      was then this is now. I am in the now and living in the now and
      what transpired in the past has little to do with me." When one
      brings up the history of the Church responses like, "I was not part
      of that church of then, I am part of the church of now", as if
      Biblically speaking such a dichotomy can be made and as if Church
      history matters little. The doctrine of the moral person is thrown
      to the side, if even known by most Presbyterians of the present age,
      therefore that area of ignorance is replaced by a postmodern idea of
      history, one fruit of which continues to be the rampant schism
      occuring in the Presbyterian and Protestant church at large.
      Pragmatism is the rule for the postmodernist.

      Neil, put forth good arguments to the postmodernist and some will
      concede and still say "so what" others will just shrug their
      shoulders without conceding anything, just a "oh, that is
      interesting" and walk away...

      Good times!

      Yours in Christ,

      Edgar

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Neil Barham
      <jneilbarham@y...> wrote:
      > Dear Bretheren and Sisteren,
      >
      > Beginning in January, I will be teaching study on apologetics in
      my Miami PCA church. In preparation, I have been immersing myself
      in VanTil, Frame, Bahnsen, Rushdoony, Pratt, Van Til, Van Til, Van
      Til, and after that a little bit of Van Til. From my reading, it
      appears to me that Van Til is the perfect refuter of Postmodernism,
      since he shows that, apart from an a priori commitment to the Christ
      of the Bible, thought, rationality, logic, and experience are all
      meaningless and lead to despair.
      >
      > My pastor has a different view. Though he agrees with Van Til's
      method and conclusions, he claims that the postmodernist does not
      care whether his existence makes sense or not. The postmodernist,
      it is alleged, is totally comfortable with epistemic despair and
      meaningless experience. He cares nothing for logic, rationality,
      purpose, hope. The postmodern response to Van Til, I am told, is:
      OK, you're right. My life is meaningless, self-contradictory, and
      irrational. Who cares?
      >
      > My own acquaintance with post-modernism is not as thorough as I
      would like. Is my pastor right? Will my postmodern opponent
      concede my arguments, shrug his shoulders, and walk away
      indifferent?
      >
      > Advice is welcome.
      >
      > Neil
      >
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > http://mail.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.