Since posting Dr. McCormack’s essay, I have had many emails come my way that were critical of the essay. Two things are interesting to me about this: 1) These people chose to email me privately about the essay instead of posting their criticisms in a comment and 2) most of these criticisms had nothing to say about the content of Dr. McCormack’s essay.Â
The objection that was raised the most was that Dr. McCormack is a Barthian, therefore he cannot speak to the situation. In essence they were saying, “What has Princeton to do with Westminster?” or, perhaps, “What has Barth to do with Bavinck/Van Til/Murray?”
However, this line of reasoning does not hold up in the least. Instead, it is a tactic which allows the critics to write off the content of Dr. McCormack’s essay without interacting with the points that he makes within the essay. Instead of interacting with the content, these critics turn to “dirtying the water” in order to excuse themselves from thinking through the implications of what was said in the HTFC document. In a word: its bad scholarship.
What is interesting to me is that Dr. McCormack’s essay should have resonated with all those who call themselves Reformed, especially those who follow the apologetical method of Van Til. Read the rest of this entry »
