7/16/08 re MOUW's CONVERSATION w/ CORNELIUS VAN TIL: "...found Berkouwer quite convincing, and with youthful abandon I quizzed Van Ti about his strong rejection of Barthian theology At one point I prefaced a line of questioning with these words: “As someone who believes that Barth is not a Christian….” Van Til quickly and decisively cut me off. “No, no!,” he exclaimed. “I have never said that Barth is not a Christian! What I have said is that an unsaved person could not come to understand the gospel properly from Barth’s theology. But that he himself is not a true Christian—this is something I have never said, and I never would say.” Van Til’s remark left a lasting impression on me. He was firm in his verdict that Barth was far removed from historic Christian teaching, yet he was still unwilling to offer a similarly critica assessment of the state of Barth’s soul. Ever since, I have tried to exercise a similar caution. It is one thing to evaluate a person’s theology. It is another thing to decide whether that person has a genuine faith in Christ. There are folks these days who worry about what they see as an overly charitable spirit in people like me. They think it is dangerous to enter into friendly dialogue with thinkers whose theologica views are far removed from traditional Christian orthodoxy. They tend to think that if a person is unorthodox they cannot be in a saving relationship with Christ. I take a different view on those matters. Maybe I should start telling people that what they think is liberalism in me is actually my Van Tilian orthodoxy at work ..." http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?m=200807

7/16/08 re MOUW's CONVERSATION w/ CORNELIUS VAN TIL: "...found Berkouwer quite convincing, and with youthful abandon I quizzed Van Ti about his strong rejection of Barthian theology At one point I prefaced a line of questioning with these words: “As someone who believes that Barth is not a Christian….” Van Til quickly and decisively cut me off. “No, no!,” he exclaimed. “I have never said that Barth is not a Christian! What I have said is that an unsaved person could not come to understand the gospel properly from Barth’s theology. But that he himself is not a true Christian—this is something I have never said, and I never would say.” Van Til’s remark left a lasting impression on me. He was firm in his verdict that Barth was far removed from historic Christian teaching, yet he was still unwilling to offer a similarly critica assessment of the state of Barth’s soul. Ever since, I have tried to exercise a similar caution. It is one thing to evaluate a person’s theology. It is another thing to decide whether that person has a genuine faith in Christ. There are folks these days who worry about what they see as an overly charitable spirit in people like me. They think it is dangerous to enter into friendly dialogue with thinkers whose theologica views are far removed from traditional Christian orthodoxy. They tend to think that if a person is unorthodox they cannot be in a saving relationship with Christ. I take a different view on those matters. Maybe I should start telling people that what they think is liberalism in me is actually my Van Tilian orthodoxy at work ..."
http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?m=200807