What do you think?
Rate this book
In Defense of the Eschaton: Essays in Reformed Apologetics
In Defense of the Eschaton is an anthology of William D. Dennison's essays on the Reformed apologetics of Cornelius Van Til. Written over the course of Dennison's many years of study, the chapters in this volume investigate Van Til's theory of knowledge, revelation, common grace, antithesis, Christian education, and the history of ideas, as well as examine key Scriptures to identify the redemptive-historical structure of a biblical apologetic method.In the end, Dennison finds that Reformed apologetics must take eschatology seriously. According to the New Testament, the believer has been transferred by faith in Christ into the final stage of history. As a citizen of heaven, the Christian apologist must defend the eschaton of the age to come against the satanic attacks of this present world.For the "This marvelous collection of apologetic essays will encourage faith in Christ even as it sharpens the mind."--Douglas A. Sweeney, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School"Dennison's treatment is by turn powerful, convicting, and cumulatively overwhelming in its analysis."--Derek W. H. Thomas, Reformed Theological Seminary, Atlanta"For anyone interested in faithfully and consistently bringing the intellectual challenge of the Gospel to our day, this book is for you."--Stephen J. Wellum, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary"This stimulating collection of essays presents a robust explanation and defense of Van Til's apologetic for the twenty-first century."--Joel R. Beeke, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary"Nobody can fully appreciate the discussion of presuppositional apologetics over the last century without taking Dennison's approach into account."--John M. Frame, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando"Bill advances the discussion on all fronts, deftly synthesizing apologetics and eschatology more ably than any other practitioner I know."--Alan D. Strange, Mid-America Reformed SeminaryFor inside of "The influence of Geerhardus Vos and Cornelius Van Til stands like a colossus in the story of the development of reformed theology in the 20th century. For me their contribution was defining. They figured hugely in my own education at seminary and beyond into a lifetime of ministry. Dr. Dennison understands their significance and his encyclopedic knowledge of his subject makes him a sure guide to their thought and its importance for the world and the church."--Dr. Liam Goligher, Senior Minister, Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania"Undoubtedly In Defense of the Eschaton is an invaluable compilation of Dr. Dennison's Biblically faithful and insightful efforts in defense of the faith. With every expectation of our Lord's blessing I commend to the reader the work of Dr. Dennison which is produced with scholarly excellence, theological integrity and highlights topics that will no doubt advance Biblical theology united with presuppositional apologetics." --Harry L. Reeder, Senior Pastor, Briarwood Presbyterian Church, Birmingham, Alabama William D. Dennison (MDiv, ThM, Westminster Theological Seminary; PhD, Michigan State University) is Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Covenant College and Visiting Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Northwest Theological Seminary. He is the author of Paul's Two-Age Construction and Apologetics (Wipf and Stock, 2000), A Christian Approach to Interdisciplinary Studies (Wipf and Stock, 2007), The Young Bultmann (Peter Lang, 2008), and Karl Marx (P&R, forthcoming).
240 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 12, 2015
8 people are currently reading
33 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 16, 2020
Masterful articles on apologetics. Dennison did a wonderful job building upon and advancing the work of Van Til and Vos. I look forward to reading this again in the future!
September 28, 2016
Dennison’s first chapter places Van Til (hereafter CVT) within the context of Continental vs. Analytic philosophy and it begins on a promising note. Few of CVT’s disciples are aware of this context and it makes these studies difficult. So we commend Dennison for that. Indeed, he notes the connection between Vos and CVT, and that connection is “the biblical story.”
So how does a “Vosian narratology” influence CVT’s thought? Dennison gives us an interesting suggestion, but only that. For him, CVT places epistemology within the realm of history (Dennison 28), which would be the biblical story. So how does that determine CVT’s apologetic? I think Dennison wants to say it means CVT sees man as either a covenant-keeper or breaker within the respective kingdom. So what does this have to do with Vos? I’m not sure.
Had Dennison stopped there the chapter would have been fine, even perhaps groundbreaking in a few parts. However, hee takes several shots at “analytic philosophy” and “Reformed Epistemology” and fundamentally misrepresents both.
He begins by noting there are two schools of analytic philosophy: logical positivism and linguistic analysis (23). I’m not so sure. Let’s take the greatest Christian analytic philosophers today: Plantinga, Swinburne, Craig. Where do they fit? They do not belong to either category. Even more, what does “Possible Worlds Semantics” have to do with Wittengstein or Vienna? Analytic philosophy today is a tool, not a totalizing approach. Dennison appears to read all analytics as following in Wittgenstein’s footsteps, whether early or late.
He notes some perceived problems with Reformed Epistemology. It doesn’t place Jesus as the beginning of epistemology (28 n69). Well, maybe, and Calvin didn’t use the transcendental argument for the existence of God, either. He criticizes Plantinga for failing to take account of the noetic effects of sin, and notes Plantinga’s Warrant and Proper Function. But Plantinga does take such into account in Warranted Christian Belief (see Plantinga, WCB 214). Did Dennison read Warranted Christian Belief?. Dennison rebukes it for its alliance with Common Sense Realism. Okay, so what is the problem exactly? In fact, what is Common Sense Realism? How are beliefs formed? That’s the issue. Simply chanting “Jesus is the starting point” tells me nothing on how beliefs are formed. And finally, he suggests Plantinga has affinities with Barth, but he gives no such evidence besides mentioning Plantinga’s paper on natural theology.
Criticisms
His review of Keller’s book was fine and I agree with most of his concerns. It was odd at a point. Dennison attacks Keller for holding to the “neo-Calvinist” scheme (168ff). What is this scheme? It is the story-line of Creation-Fall-Redemption. So what is bad about this? I think he wants to say that it makes us lose sight of heaven as our homeland? Let’s look at it.
Neo-Calvinist: Creation-Fall-Redemption and Jesus came to put the world to right.
Puritan Pietist: Heaven is our true homeland.
As it stands there is no contradiction between the two statements. Maybe all he is saying is that some Neo-Calvinists denigrate heaven. I guess. That’s an entirely different argument.
I would take it a step further: what or where exactly is heaven? Is “heaven” the final destination? How does this tie in with the New Earth? Elsewhere Dennison says that we are already in the age to come of a sorts (107). I agree. If that’s so, then there is no contradiction between Neo-Calvinism and Vosian eschatology.
The Good
Despite my criticisms, several essays are quite valuable. His notes on anthropology highlight man as an image-bearer (39). The imago dei is often missing from treatments on man’s essence.
He has some outstanding suggestions on the role of the Reformed apologist in light of his eschatological existence (107ff).
Conclusion:
This collection of essays is strong where Van Tillians have always been strong: eschatology, piety, and culture. It is weak where Van Tillians have always been weak: interacting with recent philosophy, fleshing out their views, etc. This is actually a three-star book, but Dennison’s essay on Genesis 2:15 was so good I bumped it up a star.
So how does a “Vosian narratology” influence CVT’s thought? Dennison gives us an interesting suggestion, but only that. For him, CVT places epistemology within the realm of history (Dennison 28), which would be the biblical story. So how does that determine CVT’s apologetic? I think Dennison wants to say it means CVT sees man as either a covenant-keeper or breaker within the respective kingdom. So what does this have to do with Vos? I’m not sure.
Had Dennison stopped there the chapter would have been fine, even perhaps groundbreaking in a few parts. However, hee takes several shots at “analytic philosophy” and “Reformed Epistemology” and fundamentally misrepresents both.
He begins by noting there are two schools of analytic philosophy: logical positivism and linguistic analysis (23). I’m not so sure. Let’s take the greatest Christian analytic philosophers today: Plantinga, Swinburne, Craig. Where do they fit? They do not belong to either category. Even more, what does “Possible Worlds Semantics” have to do with Wittengstein or Vienna? Analytic philosophy today is a tool, not a totalizing approach. Dennison appears to read all analytics as following in Wittgenstein’s footsteps, whether early or late.
He notes some perceived problems with Reformed Epistemology. It doesn’t place Jesus as the beginning of epistemology (28 n69). Well, maybe, and Calvin didn’t use the transcendental argument for the existence of God, either. He criticizes Plantinga for failing to take account of the noetic effects of sin, and notes Plantinga’s Warrant and Proper Function. But Plantinga does take such into account in Warranted Christian Belief (see Plantinga, WCB 214). Did Dennison read Warranted Christian Belief?. Dennison rebukes it for its alliance with Common Sense Realism. Okay, so what is the problem exactly? In fact, what is Common Sense Realism? How are beliefs formed? That’s the issue. Simply chanting “Jesus is the starting point” tells me nothing on how beliefs are formed. And finally, he suggests Plantinga has affinities with Barth, but he gives no such evidence besides mentioning Plantinga’s paper on natural theology.
Criticisms
His review of Keller’s book was fine and I agree with most of his concerns. It was odd at a point. Dennison attacks Keller for holding to the “neo-Calvinist” scheme (168ff). What is this scheme? It is the story-line of Creation-Fall-Redemption. So what is bad about this? I think he wants to say that it makes us lose sight of heaven as our homeland? Let’s look at it.
Neo-Calvinist: Creation-Fall-Redemption and Jesus came to put the world to right.
Puritan Pietist: Heaven is our true homeland.
As it stands there is no contradiction between the two statements. Maybe all he is saying is that some Neo-Calvinists denigrate heaven. I guess. That’s an entirely different argument.
I would take it a step further: what or where exactly is heaven? Is “heaven” the final destination? How does this tie in with the New Earth? Elsewhere Dennison says that we are already in the age to come of a sorts (107). I agree. If that’s so, then there is no contradiction between Neo-Calvinism and Vosian eschatology.
The Good
Despite my criticisms, several essays are quite valuable. His notes on anthropology highlight man as an image-bearer (39). The imago dei is often missing from treatments on man’s essence.
He has some outstanding suggestions on the role of the Reformed apologist in light of his eschatological existence (107ff).
Conclusion:
This collection of essays is strong where Van Tillians have always been strong: eschatology, piety, and culture. It is weak where Van Tillians have always been weak: interacting with recent philosophy, fleshing out their views, etc. This is actually a three-star book, but Dennison’s essay on Genesis 2:15 was so good I bumped it up a star.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews