Van Til on Rushdoony, North. (Theonomy)

I reference this letter enough in conversations that I figured it would be convenient to have it posted here for reference. Notably, Van Til writes:

“Then too I am frankly a little concerned about the political views of Mr. Rushdoony and Mr. North and particularly if I am correctly informed about some of the views Gary North has with respect to the application of Old Testament principles to our day. My only point is that I would hope and expect that they would not claim that such views are inherent in principles which I hold.”

Van Til (on Rushdoony, North)

Advertisements

About douglasdouma

I am a graduate of the University of Michigan (BSME), Wake Forest University (MBA), and Sangre de Cristo Seminary (Mdiv). I've learned far more from books than in school. I'm particularly in debt to Martin Luther, Ludwig von Mises, and Gordon H. Clark for any thoughts I have.
This entry was posted in Theology. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Van Til on Rushdoony, North. (Theonomy)

  1. I am leavening under a different users name – Ben

    For those who do not know the title of the book that Dr. Van Til is referring, It is “Foundations of Christian Scholarship” edited by Dr. Gary North. It contains essays written by Rousas John Rushdoony, Gary North, C. Gregg Singer, Vern Poythress, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and others. “Jerusalem and Athens” was another festschift that was more critical of Van Til’s ideas just like the festschift – The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark – was more critical of Clark’s ideas. It is interesting that Van Til would view “Jerusalem and Athens” as more than enough since it had contribution from his critics. I really like this post because provides evidence that Van Til did not completely endorse theonomy. In a lecture on apologetic, Ronald Nash stated that there was little difference between Dr. Gordon Clark in his later year and some of Van Til’s followers. This lecture was Lesson 9 titled methodology. You can listened to this lecture through a link at monergism.com.

    • douglasdouma says:

      Interesting lecture.

      Nash says Clark and Van Til were not that far apart in apologetics and then he speaks of the listeners surprise on this because of the controversy between the two men. I can somewhat agree with Nash on the proximity between Clark and Van Til on apologetics. The controversy, however, wasn’t directly about apologetics. So there shouldn’t really be any surprise at Nash’s statement.

      Nash says Van Til “and his groupies at Westminster” accused Clark of heresy. This isn’t true; at least the word “heresy” is nowhere found in the record.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s