Your third point get’s to the nub of the issue, I believe. I think there are many people who read Van Til but don’t make that distinction, or else they do but they don’t think it’s as important to stress the point of contact/overlap and therefore all people hear is the antithesis/contrast.

First, allow me to apologize on behalf of any Van Tillians that may press the
antithesis in the manner in which you present it here. That may represent a
misunderstanding of presuppositionalism applied, or an overzealous approach of
an immature understanding of this particular approach, but it isn’t what Van
Til promoted. In fact, a closest brother and Van Tillian pastor-apologist I
know summarizes consistent presuppositionalism as “Affirm the good; correct the bad, and present the gospel!” I’ve always found that both faithful and fruitful.

Second,I would just mention that both the Van Tillian apologetic and Foster’s
culture-affirming approach were both conceived in the same womb of Kuyperian
thought (if I understand Foster correctly).

Thirdly,I would just remind the reader of precisely when and where Van Til and his
purist prodigies emphasized pressing the antithesis. Van Til stressed and
over-stressed that the antithesis is not on the metaphysical levels and point
of contact, which is suggestive in some of your remarks above; rather, the
antithesis is at the point of the respective epistemological authorities of the
Christian and non-Christian, the self-attesting Christ speaking through
scripture for the former and autonomous human reason for the latter. If Foster
is suggesting that we should—against the Van Tillian thesis—AFFIRM human
autonomy, and I highly doubt this, then I’d say your review was entirely too
generous.

These observations notwithstanding, thank you for your review. It led to at least one additional book sale for Foster.

Grace and peace,

Kevin Stevenson

This Faith Announcer Application is used to Announce
Religion Faith.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.faithannouncers&hl=en