2010 Calvinism for the 21st Century Conference Review

The conference went well, as did my presentation “Calvin, Bavinck, and 21st Century views of Inerrancy” (audio is here, video and text are still processing). Though, I have much to learn in terms of being concise and effective during question and answer sessions (I’ve been telling myself a hundred times “I should have said _____!”). Given my little (only 1) debate experience, it’s good to have opportunities like these to see where improvement is needed. But, over all, things went well, and the conference proved to be a wonderful project put on by Andreas Foundation, Professor Lief, and all the others putting it together. Many thanks to all involved! God is good.

I don’t have time or energy to give a full review of the event. Instead, I’ll simply provide a more multidimensional snippet account of my thoughts:

• I wish people at Calvin College read Van Til’s primary works before being so reactive/critical of him. Plantinga is so severely underrated in secular philosophy, severely overrated in Christian philosophy, and as such has elipsed the closest thing that we have to a “biblical epistemology,” which is the work of Van Til…
• I never knew I’d get to talk with the author of a book on epistemology in my library, Meek’s Longing to Know. The book is endorsed by John Frame and proves to be a useful tool in that arena. However, as I pressed her in the question and answer session, a “covenant epistemology” (her next book project) must give a full account of the radical difference between unbelieving epistemology and believing epistemology. Indeed, a knower who puts God on His throne will have a radically different life, thought-life, and epistemological process/experience than that of a knower who does not. As Van Til said, people either know God as “covenant breakers or covenant keepers.” Thus, I still think Van Til’s work deserves the title “covenant epistemology” more rightfully than Meek’s future project.
• Fabulous presentation on Christianity and gender by a Dordt student, Daniel Kessel; I pray the Lord may give him guidance in further explanation in this area.
• James K.A. Smith (Calvin philosophy prof) laid the smack-down on Michael Horton, VanDrunen, and Westminster West’s “two kingdom theology.” It will be interesting to see what develops.
• It was fun hearing Vincent Bacote speak and later having dinner with him; a Reformed Kuyperian at Wheaton has to be interesting.
• I was absolutely ecstatic to hear someone spend 25 minutes articulating one of my deepest intellectual concerns: Ryan Mcllhenny (who knows Greg Bahnsen, apparently) and his essay “The Religious Brain: Neocalvinism and Neurotheology.” It’s amazing how God can bring his people from across the globe to the same concerns without any direct contact; I felt like it was a Zwingli/Luther moment of parallel spiritual working. I have at numerous times expressed my concern for a Reformed take on neurophilosophy/theological anthropology/neuroscience, as if to talk in the wind. The need is great, but no one is picking up on it in the Reformed community. But, now I know I’m not alone in this incredible undertaking and, though our projects may differ in scope and content, I pray God will give Ryan the wisdom and insight to provide a truthful response to critics of a biblical understanding of human existence, experience, and mindfulness in whatever venue he pursues.
• It was good to meet and talk with John Meuther, Van Til’s biographer, and also librarian at RTS in Orlando. Very balanced analysis, good character and blessed with fascinating insights into the life of Cornelius Van Til.
• Finally, I enjoyed the skepticism of my paper regarding inerrancy in the Reformed tradition. Both pastor and historian felt irritated at some of my assertions (I saw a least one substantial frown when I said “…thus, the Bible contains no errors” – a bit odd for a “Calvinism” conference!) But, I suspect after hearing the audio file, there was no penetrating objection to any of the primary theses laid out in my presentation.