'But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.'The more I read about Old Princeton, the more I see similarities between Abraham Kuyper and John Witherspoon. Kuyper's strategy in Church and Politics was focused on reconciling the vulgar and the learned. Like Witherspoon, Kuyper was far more interested in rhetoric engagement than in rhetoric theory or belleterie.
A recent blogpost by Justin Holcomb focuses on Cornelis van Til's assertion that 'there is no neutral common ground':
'The Dutch held to the belief that people have no religiously neutral, “objective” rational faculty. This meant there was no common ground, necessarily, shared between believers and nonbelievers.'Bill Dennison's explanation of the Transcendental Critique and Oliver Buswell's critique of Dooyeweerd illustrate that there might be more common ground between Old Princeton and Abraham Kuyper then is often presupposed.
A phrase by J. Oliver Buswell in that article:
'Now, to the simple Bible believing Christian, unaffected by the Aristotelian “Unmoved Mover” or the pagan static absolute, the God of the Bible is revealed ‘to be intensely active in all of his works of providence and redemption.'
'Believing in the doctrine of “particular atonement,” it is not at all necessary for us to deny, or to hold apparently contradictory, or to hold as paradoxical the fact that Christ tasted death “for every man” in a very true sense of the word, namely, in the sense that his atonement is sufficient, applicable, and genuinely offered to all.'
In the light of the plain statement of Hebrews 2:9, Professor Van Til’s unqualified statement that “Christ has not died for all men” is intolerable.'J. Oliver Buswell's words remind me of a phrase in a blogpost on similarities between Jonathan Edwards and Klaas Schilder in which I quote Schilder stating:
'We should take our starting point in what is revealed'