Re: Liberalism and Neo-orthodoxy

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Mon Feb 16 2004 - 16:25:15 EST

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:52:45 -0700, "Terry M. Gray"
<> said:

> That being said, while I do regard theological liberalism and
> neo-orthodoxy to be separate entities, and would regard neo-orthodoxy
> to be an improvement upon theological liberalism, in my tradition,
> that of the conservative Presbyterians represented by the Orthodox
> Presbyterian Church and Westminster Theological Seminary,
> neo-orthodoxy springs from many of the same roots as liberalism, and
> while the language of orthodoxy is much more prevalent, some of the
> fundamental postures toward scripture and the historicity of the
> Christian faith remain. The critique of theologian/apologist
> Cornelius Van Til comes to mind here. I know that many on the list
> will strong disagree with Van Til's analysis, but no one can say that
> Van Til didn't know Barth. It is said that Van Til's personal copy of
> Barth's Church Dogmatics was the most studied and marked up of any
> known scholar. Some may even regard the OPC and WTS as
> fundamentalists. I will dispute that label, although I will proudly
> stand by the right use of that term, i,e. that we affirm the
> fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Since you are up on this, do you recall the context where Barth refered
to Van Til as a man eater?
Received on Mon Feb 16 16:26:03 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 16 2004 - 16:26:04 EST