Isn't Bahnsen basically in agreement with Van Til? He wrote a large tome about it.
https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/van-tils-apologetic-readings-and-analysis-bahnsen.html
Honest question, why would you need to add in Geerhardus Vos to avoid becoming a reconstructionist like Rushdoony? Does Bahnsen take Van Til to an improper conclusion?
Yes, he's in substantial agreement with Van Til--and that's an excellent book for understanding CVT.
Van Til was excellent at rooting out and rejecting metaphysical dualism (and its downstream "dualisms" in epistemology and ethics). He was taking aim, largely, at a Thomistic nature/grace dualism in the very beginning of man's creation and the corresponding covenant (read: donum superadditum, the "fall" as mere privation, etc.). That's true enough and Bahnsen picked up on that. But that rejection of metaphysical dualism spilled over into rejecting the "dualism" between the common kingdom and the redemptive kingdom, and the "dualism" of ages--between this age and the age to come, between the 'already' and the 'not yet.' He left no room for natural law, for so-called 'common grace,' no room for a valid and non-theocratic world system in this age--no room for us to be pilgrims on the way, so to speak. To borrow a recent interaction on nostr--he places us marching on Jericho at Joshua's side rather than praying 'thy kingdom come!' within the walls at Rahab's side. (Yes...it's millennial views...but millennial viws are a function of one's covenant theology, IMO.)
Some (most?) versions of 'sacred/profane' and 'common/holy' or 'two swords' or 'two cities' etc. are rooted in Thomas' metaphysical dualism, and Bahnsen (and CVT) were right to reject them on those grounds. Call it a misunderstanding of the 'what'. But when the distinction betweeen the sacred and the secular, or the redemptive and the common, are rooted instead in Christ's inaugurated (but not yet consummated) redemptive kingdom, in an exaltation of the spirituality of the church (as opposed to some political motivation), then we're also on the right track with the 'when'. Which is to say: we get the proper 'what' with CVT (and Bahnsen) -- but we need to plant it firmly in a proper 'when' with Vos.
Hope that made some sense.
Here's an [interesting paper](https://meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/kline-on-multiperspectivalism/) I just came across, written by Kline, critiquing the theonomists (in his own institution), which puts covenant theology as the starting point for the discussion of millennial views in general, and theonomy in particular. It was written in response to a faculty forum, apparently(?) led by John Frame, on theonomy.
I am going to have to read that article again. Big words, and I have small brains. Interesting point here….
“But theonomists, like dispensationalists, without biblical warrant impose distinctions within the course of a given historical epoch of an institution, distinctions that result in changing norms of conduct. Thus, it is suggested among theonomists that a demographic shift in a State from an unbeliever to a believer dominant population signalizes a change of norms with respect to the supposed State function of suppressing false religions.”
We’ve often said that the theonomist and the dispensationalist make the same error from different directions. Essentially using the Old Testament to interpret the New. Which can happen if you hold to the “one covenant / two administrations” view from the WCF. If the Old is obsolete, and replaced with the New, you don’t drag the old forward. Yet, we have to agree that God’s Law is good as Paul declares in Rom 7. It just takes on a greater and fuller meaning in light of who Christ is and what He has done.
I hear what you're saying, but let's not forget -- the "new covenant" is older than the "old covenant" (because the Abrahamic promises came before the Mosaic theocracy--see Galatians). 🫡😄
FWIW, just to keep things interesting, I'm a "[three covenant](https://www.upper-register.com/papers/two_adams.pdf)" guy.
Perhaps if you define old covenant as Mosaic only. But, yes those promises were made to Abraham’s Seed, meaning Christ, and all in Christ are joint heirs with Him of those promises. One people.
Dude, we need to have you on our podcast. Fireworks for sure. We’re a bunch of reformed-ish Baptists and love covenant theology, but, full disclosure, we tend to see eschatology through a Christ-centered lens rather than the lens of covenant. We split on the preterist and idealist readings of Revelation and I am the lone ammill in our little group.
https://www.ssbcokc.org/have-you-not-read/
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/have-you-not-read/id1603666136
I'm told I have a great face for radio, and an excellent voice for printwork...so...wrap all that up and top it off with "I'm a presbyterian, too" and if you're still game, then I might be up for it. It would be a first. 😅
