Cornelius Van Til’s Doctrine of God and Its Relevance for Contemporary Hermeneutics. Jason B. Hunt

Theology, 225. Van Til, discussing verbal inspiration, also makes mention of the Spirit’s necessary and authoritative role in giving the correct interpretation of the facts of redemption. He also asserts this point in opposition to Roman Catholic interpretation which he sees as seeking an infallible interpretation in the human interpreter rather than in Scripture itself (Systematic Theology, 233, 250).

45. Van Til, Defense of Faith, 219;Psychology, 148–49.

46. Van Til, Defense of Faith, 176

47. Van Til, Doctrine of Scripture, 24, 27, 67; Defense of Faith, 113–14.

48. Tipton, “Triune Personal God,” 141; Van Til, Christian Epistemology, 78, 96, 102; Theory of Knowledge, 207; “Introduction,” 28.

49. Van Til, “Covenant Theology,” 306; Christian Epistemology, 98, 100; Common Grace, 69–70.

50. This is a characteristic Van Til uses to depict the ethical antithesis between believing and unbelieving thought (e.g., Defense of Faith, 257–60; Apologetics, 62–63; Systematic Theology, 161, 189, 274).

51. E.g., Vanhoozer, Is There?, 81, 367–78, 383, 436–37.

52. Van Til, Reformed Pastor, 75.

53. Van Til, New Hermeneutic, 69. He speaks of a similar tendency in Western philosophy (e.g., Spinoza) which he labels as “monological” (versus man inherently in dialogue with his Creator) (Christ and Jews, 38).

54. E.g., Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 480.

55. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 5.

56. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 3, 9, 47; Thiselton, “Philosophical Categories,” 87–100.

57. Thiselton, Two Horizons, 10, 47.

58. Frame, Van Til, 21. One clear example of this is found in Van Til’s unpublished essay, “Evil and Theodicy,” in which he explicitly borrows Hegelian terminology (overcoming “through negation of the negation to the affirmation”) in order to argue for both election and reprobation as means to God’s glorification ( Bristley, “A Guide.”)

59. Van Til, Christianity and Idealism, 15-16; Defense of Faith, 65; Oliphint, “Van Til’s Methodology,” 27–33.

60. Van Til, Christ and Jews, 36.

61. Van Til, Christian Epistemology, xiv-xv.

62. Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 17.

63. Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 55-56.

64. Van Til, Christian Epistemology, 57.

65. Anderson, Benjamin B. Warfield, 46, 48; Daane, Theology of Grace.

66. Buswell, “Fountainhead,” 48; DeBoer, “New Apologetic,” 3; DeBoer, “Van Til’s Apologetics,” 7–12; Pinnock, “Philosophy of Christian Evidences,” 423; Knudsen, “Crosscurrents,” 308–10.

67. Evans, Faith Beyond Reason, 103.

68. Carson, Gagging of God, 95–96; Cooper, “Reformed Apologetics,” 108–20. Carson does recognize that Cooper’s expression of presuppositionalism might not satisfy some presuppositionalists.

69. Carson, Gagging of God, 96.

70. Carson, Gagging of God, 98; Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 129; Systematic Theology, 56. Carson calls for a proper corrective to the dispassionate and impersonal approach of modernity to “truth” (Gagging of God, 101–2). This mirrors Van Til’s own concern (Van Til, “Covenant Theology,” 306; Scripture, 24, 27, 67; Common Grace, 69–70; Christian Epistemology, 98, 100; Defense of Faith, 113–14).

71. Carson, Gagging of God, 126–27; Van Til, Why I Believe.

72. Carson, Gagging of God, 102–3, 121; Van Til, Systematic Theology, 65–66, 268–70.

73. Carson, Gagging of God, 107 (emphasis his).

74. E.g., Van Til, Theory of Knowledge, 47–51.

75. Carson, Gagging of God, 130.

76. Carson, Gagging of God, 132.

77. Carson, Gagging of God, 59.

78. Carson, “Unity and Diversity,” 77–79, 91.

79. Carson, Gagging of God, 194; Frame, Apologetics, 34–50.

80. Carson, Gagging of God, 194, 201, 202, 204, 223, 229.

81. Carson, Gagging of God, 223–24.

82. Elsewhere, he argues that God is not merely an impersonal “ground of being” (Carson, Collected Writing, 19, 21).

83. Carson, Gagging of God, 226–28.

84. Carson, Gagging of God,