Three decades ago, the Westminster Theological Journal published an article by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., with the modest title, “Some Epistemological Reflections on 1 Cor 2:6–16.” Gaffin’s main purpose was to provide some direct exegetical argument to support “several key emphases” in the epistemology of Cornelius Van Til. (Read the first page of the article to get the fuller context.)
In my humble estimation, Gaffin’s article is a masterclass in theological exegesis. But it has recently been subjected to criticism by two Reformed writers, Joel Carini (here) and Keith Mathison (here). Both contend that Gaffin illegitimately imports into his exegesis a philosophical doctrine that also polluted Van Til’s thought: the idealist theory of “epistemological holism,” according to which only exhaustive knowledge can be true knowledge, due to the unity and interconnectedness of all truth.
I think the criticisms of Carini and Mathison miss the mark, and fortunately I don’t need to prove it myself, because Brian Mattson has written an eloquent defense of Gaffin and Van Til. I commend it to you.