Details for tuning in to the stream are available at http://reformedforum.tv/live. We will be broadcasting in audio and video, putting a new mobile video rig to the test. Though it is rather experimental (and I don’t mean that in a Puritan way), we hope to bring you a great live experience.

Visit http://reformedforum.tv at 7PM EDT Friday, September 24, 2010 for the opening session of this great conference. Be sure to join in the live chat room to comment on the conference addresses and to interact with others.

If you will be in attendance, stop by and say hello.  We’d love to speak with more of our listeners.  I pray it will be an exciting and edifying time.

November 2008

• A Brief History of Trinitarian Thought with Carl Trueman
• Getting the Blues with Steve Nichols
• The Reformed Doctrine of Justification with John Fesko
• Apologetics and Islam with James White
• Cornelius Van Til: A Life with John Muether

October 2009

• William Perkins and the Development of Puritan Preaching with Joseph Pipa, Jr.
• Restoration Prophecy in Ezra-Nehemiah with Matthew Patton
• Paul’s Two-Age Construction and Apologetics with Bill Dennison
• Church Membership with Guy Waters
• Luther and Media with Carl Trueman

The postmodernist wants to reject the existence of brute facts by saying that all facts are interpreted by subjects who exist in a socio-cultural milieu. Therefore, we can never access “objective” truth because there are no brute facts. All our knowledge is colored by our socio-cultural situation. Van Til’s point in rejecting brute facts is not that human subjects are bound by culture and are therefore unable to interpret facts without bias, but that God is the all-knower. The self-sufficient Triune God knows all facts and pre-interprets them. Therefore we can never come to any fact without approaching it as one that is already known and has been interpreted by the all-knowing Triune God.

On page 101 of his book The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity, Carl Raschke speaks of Van Til’s as a transitional theology on its way toward postmodernism. This is a terrible case of misreading a theologian – using a gross misrepresentation for one’s own doctrinal wiles. Our task as human knowers is to reinterpret the facts, thinking God’s thoughts after him on a created level. We think analogically as our knowledge is firmly planted on the one who knows all things. As such we are not hopelessly trapped within our socio-cultural context, but can escape that context because God has clearly revealed himself and that he is the reference point for all knowledge. Perhaps readers are interpreting Van Til according to their own postmodern inclinations.

October 2008

• The Reformed Doctrine of Justification with John Fesko
• Herman Bavinck with Ron Gleason
• Christ’s Kingdom: Gospel Priorities and Politics with Russell Moore
• The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards with John Carrick
• Cornelius Van Til: A Life with John Muether

September 2009

• New Testament Theology with Tom Schreiner
• The Masculine Mandate with Rick Phillips
• Loving the Church with Ted Kluck
• The Doctrine of Assurance with Burk Parsons
• Institutes Book 1, Chapter 1: The Knowledge of God…

Don’t forget to call us with your questions or comments: 440-97FORUM.

One approach would simply be to define Christian philosophy as the Christian approach to traditional philosophic categories (i.e. metaphysics, epistemology and ethics). But this doesn’t seem to make a real distinction at all. Philosophy would be no more different from theology than, say, ecclesiology would be. Furthermore, the great theologians dealt with these topics. Why do we prefer to call them theologians rather than philosophers? This approach does not satisfy.

Others have suggested that theology is distinguished from philosophy in that theology requires exegesis. This seems to be a better attempt at a distinction. But we still speak of “speculative theologians.” I think the title reveals how we intuitively think about this issue. We still leave room [often pejoratively] under the category of “theologian” for those who venture into theological spheres without being rooted in exegesis.

Webster defines philosophy as “a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.” This definition does not move us toward a distinction between philosophy and theology at all. Rather, it underscores the difficulty in making such a distinction. A Christian philosophy is neither “chiefly speculative” nor “observational.” Truly Christian philosophy is revelational. And since this is the case, what distinguishes it from theology?

Perhaps it would be wisest to think of Christian philosophy and Christian theology as highly overlapping disciplines that differ ever so slightly in subject matter. K. Scott Oliphint suggests we should be much more fluid in our understanding of the relationship between these two disciplines. Whenever engaging in philosophy, the Christian should never put aside his theological thinking. But there may also be differences in terms of method. This is an area for further research. How, specifically, does a presuppositionally consistent Christian engage in an explicitly philosophic endeavor? I’m not sure anyone has answered that question.

• It was only for the truly disadvantaged.
• Moral prerequisites accompanied assistance.
• Private or religious charity, not state largesse, was the vehicle for aid.
• Ordained officers managed and brought accountability.
• Theological underpinnings were normal.
• Productive work ethic was sought.
• Assistance was temporary.
• History is valuable in confirming practices.

Later in the book, Hall writes that “Calvin, Luther, Bucer, and Knox coalesced to form a consensual approach to the church’s role in social welfare.” He then lists the consensual policy principles from the Reformation era. (p. 127)

• Theology guided practice.
• If one did not work, he was not assisted (2 Thess. 3:10).
• Each church was to administer a “common chest.”
• Welfare relief was temporary, with a long-term goal of industriousness.
• The family was the first rung of relief.
• A distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor was maintained.

These are very helpful principles for anyone thinking through diaconal ministry and even public policy. I think all Christians should consider these points as they determine how they might assist the poor and needy in their own congregations through the diaconate and how they might support para-church (not quasi-church) organizations such as rescue missions. I am delighted to mention that both rescue missions for whom my wife has worked incorporate several of these points into their programs. Unfortunately, not every diaconate or organization considers these principles as they seek to help those in need. The result is that those who are unwilling to find lasting help act as parasites by taking from those who are truly deserving.

• The Theology of Samuel Rutherford with Guy Richard
• Truth and Error in the Church with Martin Downes

Do you think this assessment is accurate? Which three (non-inspired) authors would you select? Please comment and include your ecclesiastical affiliation and theological education (if applicable).

Other Links

• Just Genesis

• Scripture and Doctrine in the Church
• Apologetics and Pastoral Ministry with David Robertson
• A Comparison of Rahnerian to Reformed Apologetics
• Calvin as a Servant of the Word of God with Glen Clary
• Books on Doctrine of God
• The Relationship of Philosophy to Theology
• A Life in the Preaching Ministry with Eric Alexander
• Why Johnny Can’t Preach with T. David Gordon
• Geerhardus Vos with Danny Olinger
• New Testament Textual Criticism in the 21st Century with Dan Wallace

• Top 15 Books on the Cross
• Grabill on the Natural Law
• Calvin on Romans 2:13
• Dr. Benjamin Shaw on the Song of Songs
• Two Long-Awaited Books Finally Available
• The Calvin Conspiracy
• Ligon Duncan on Calvin and Piety
• James White on William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens
• The Puritans, Simplicity, and Culture Shift in American History?