Talk:Cornelius Van Til

Howdy, Marknen. I modified the Cornelius Van Til entry again, but I left your (missing) link for Bahnsen in there. I would prefer to take it out because I'm not sure Bahnsen deserves his own page (original contributions don't spring to mind, but I'm certainly not an expert in his writings/lectures/debates) and because it looks a little odd since I added a few extra "influencees" who fall into the same category for me. What do you think? --Flex 16:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::Hi Flex. I'm still not sure I understand why Greg Bahsen wouldn't deserve his own page. We aren't conserving print space here. I don't recall wikipedia having any sort of threshold in terms of how many original contributions one must make to have a wikipedia page. He is quite famous (within Reformed camps)--he has produced many books, articles, and debates--and whether or not you like it--when you say "Van Til" many people immediately think of Bahnsen. Another reason why I can't understand why he wouldn't deserve an entry is the fact that his contributions are not just limited to apologetics, but also other topics such as theonomy, reconstructionism, theology etc. His apologetics are based on Van Til, so naturally they are not "original contributions". Even if he weren't an author, the well-known debate with Gordon Stien would almost be enough to validate having an entry on here. As far as I am concerned, if a name is significant enough to be named in an article, in most cases it is significant enough to have an article. Those are my thoughts.

:::First, as to your "whether you like it or not," I have no problem with Bahnsen, as you seem to imply. We can leave the empty link in there if you think he might be worthy of a page, but my point was that everyone doesn't deserve his own page. What criteria do we use in linking non-existent pages? I have been previously rebuked for linking too many non-existent topics, and so I'm more conservative now. I try to follow the guideline of linking only what I "think there should be an article about." I didn't link Bahnsen, Gordon Stein, K. Scott Oliphint, Vern Poythress, William Edgar, John Gerstner, John Robbins, et al. because either I don't think they merit a page or I'm not well enough informed to judge. (I probably would at least empty-link R.C. Sproul if it hadn't been for that rebuking I mentioned.) I did link the Clark-Van Til Controversy because I may well write an article on it. Further thoughts? --Flex 21:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::::OK. This isn't a big deal, so I'm sorry if I turned it into that. From my perspective the individuals you mentioned do merit a page, and I still see it as being consistent with the guidelines to have a link to an empty article such as Bahnsen within the Van Til article. I've reviewed pages of a few other theologians and they seemt o confirm this. Anyways, I don't see this as being a critical issue, though I would be curious to see what someone else (besides us) has to say about it. Since you've worked with this article more than I have, go and do whatever you feel is best. Marknen 04:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::::: I'm sorry, you guys may never get this message unless you have it tucked away in a "watched" location. I believe Greg Bahnsen deserves his own page. His writing, his works, and yes, the Great Debate with Gordon S. Stein, plus the College names after Bahnsen himself, I believe he deserves his own page.--NWalterstorf 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Got it, and indeed, he has his own page now: Greg Bahnsen. --Flex 10:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The phrase problem of the one and the many is wikilinked to the page Problem of universals, yet there is no mention of the former phrase in the target page. This needs to be remedied somehow. DFH 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a small thing I know, but in the sentence:

"He began teaching at Princeton Seminary, but shortly went with the conservative group that founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life."

When I get to "of his life" I start pondering what other kind of years Van Til might have had, and my thoughts no longer follow the article. I suggest that the sentence be changed to "... where he taught for the next forty-three years," or even more succinctly, "... where he taught for forty-three years."Jim P. (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cornelius Van Til. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=795282748 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20040430191412/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/oliphint/Writings/CVT-POTCH.htm to http://mywebpages.comcast.net/oliphint/Writings/CVT-POTCH.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028100302/http://gratisdei.com/Stoker-RTKPDCVT.htm to http://gratisdei.com/Stoker-RTKPDCVT.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201150500/http://solagratia.org/browseCategory.cfm?id=192 to http://www.solagratia.org/browseCategory.cfm?id=192

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The author frequently refers to Van Til or his views as “Calvinist”. This is generally used as a pejorative. Dr. Van Til’s theology is more accurately described (as he did himself) as Reformed. Reformed Theology is much more broad than just the views of Jean Calvin. 2600:1004:B153:98FA:A0E0:2ED5:814E:FDD7 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

:I'd suggest that you read the article more carefully. The term "Calvinist" or "Calvinism" is only used 4 times in the entire article, and only one of those could be assumed to refer to Van Til (the other three describe other individuals or institutions). Although I'm generally inclined to agree with the premise that "Reformed" is a more suitable label, the suggestion that "{{tq|The author frequently refers to Van Til or his views as “Calvinist”}}" is a little over-the-top considering the actual infrequency of the term in the article - especially considering the most prominent use of it is {{tq|Van Til drew upon the works of Dutch Calvinist philosophers... to devise a novel Reformed approach to Christian apologetics}} (emphasis added). ButlerBlog (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)