Cornelius Van Til

Opinions on his Trinitarian theology?

Apologetic method?

Controversy with Gordon Clark?

Phoebe Ann said:

Pick the one you disagree with please.

Click to expand...

I think he was brilliant but lacking in his presentation of the Trinity.

Presuppositionalism is useful but he ends up resorting to classical evidentialism...which means his apologetic method is not consistent...but that doesn't mean it's a bad method at all. I tend to agree that at some point you have to resort to the classical method. (see R.C. Sproul on the subject.)

That's all I got.

I met Dr Van Til in the 70s. After reading his books I expected a brilliant egg-head type. Nope. He was a gentle, humble grandfatherly type who made everyone feel welcome. Not at all what I expected.

Phoebe Ann said:

I'd like to hear some opinions. I don't intend to debate. I'm just curious. If you share your opinion, please tell us why you believe that. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Phoebe Ann, thank you for bringing the topic up and seeking opinions. I am not seeking debate either, but I would like to point out that I strongly disagree with JM about CVT, and we have gone over our disagreement in the past, there is no real need or point in getting into that again, but I would like to give another quite different opinion, and try to help you sort things out.

First, I have a couple of book recommendations:

1.) Van Til: Defender of the Faith by William White

"“He has been praised, condemned, quoted, misquoted, represented, misrepresented, understood, misunderstood, loved, hated, explored, ignored.”

So writes William White, Jr., in the introduction to the authorized biography of the greatest apologist in American theology, Cornelius Van Til.

Van Til, former professor at both Princeton and Westminster seminaries, turned the field of apologetics upside down by de-emphasizing man’s rational faculty. “To employ the launching pad of the naked intellect instead of the launching pad of Scripture is to fight the Lord’s battle in Saul’s armor. All thinking must begin where the Bible does: ‘In the beginning, God…; otherwise all is chaos.”

White skillfully unfolds the story of Van Til’s early years in the Netherlands and later in Indiana, his mutual love for learning and farming, his marriage to Rena Klooster, and his call to the ministry, and eventually to the university. The author reveals Van Til’s personal side: his sense of humor, adventure, and uncompromising conviction.

White traces Van Til’s philosophic development with care. But always, there is the humanity and humility of the man, his love of Scripture. White points out that Van Til, like Luther is “bold before man, humble before God.”

2.) Van Til's Apologetic by Greg L. Bahnsen

"This the the late Dr. Bahnsen’s testament to today’s defenders of the truth. It is an encyclopedic synthesis of the thought of Cornelius Van Til, who was arguably the most original apologist of the twentieth century. In the grand tradition of the Sentences of the fathers, this study will be a standard for years to come." – William Edgar, Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary

Review from Monergism Bookstore: "There is only one work to buy on Van Til and this is it. Bahnsen has written the definitive commentary on the works of the great thinker. Van Til is very hard to understand because his thought is deep and abstract. Bahnsen provides readings and analysis so that Van Til becomes assessable to everyone. This book is a goldmine of information, tackling the problems of unbelief and exposing them to the light of a “presuppositional apologetic”. If your not sure what “presuppositional apologetics” means this book is a good place to start. If you are a “presuppositional apologist” then you will fully agree- this book is worth every cent! The task Bahnsen has completed would be absolutely daunting, but nothing has been dummied down to insult the intelligence of the reader. At the same time, non-technical readers can understand it. I couldn’t even imagine where one would begin with a synthesis of Van Til, but Bahnsen gives us clarity where there has been much confusion. It is strange that one should start with Bahnsen instead of Van Til if they really want to understand Van Til. But this is true because “Van Til’s Apologetic” is the clearest, most accurately systematized introduction to Van Til available. Indeed, Van Til could not have done better! You have not studied apologetics until you have studied the works of Van Til and this book is all you need to accomplish that task." – B. K. Campbell

Second, I'd like to share a link to an article that I hope you will read, my story is similar, though I never met him in person, nor had the chance or opportunity to study under him. I would likely be an agnostic today, were it not for the efforts of Van Til, and those who have worked to keep his lectures and writings available today. I had been a Christian of the Arminian variety for basically my whole life, and I had become somewhat of a skilled classical apologist, so far as apologetics and the internet are concerned. Honestly, for several years, I practically ate, slept, and breathed apologetics, and I came to a point of realizing, or I should say the Lord opened my understanding such that from where I was at, I could be an agnostic or a presuppositional Christian apologist, which would entail more than I thought or wanted, it would send me on a journey to becoming a Calvinist, and quickly it did so.

The article is entitled "Van Til Made Me Reformed" and it's by Eric Sigward published in the OPC New Horizons magazine October 2004.

Third, Cornelius Van Til made such an impact on me, that I created a blog dedicated to him, and those who have also embraced his apologetic. Here is a link to my blog: Presuppositionalism 101

I put up most of Van Til's writings (exceptions are copyrighted pamplets, booklets, books) in PDF format, and all of his lectures (sermonaudio links) through the "VanTillian Media" menu.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

I am not seeking debate either, but I would like to point out that I strongly disagree with JM about CVT, and we have gone over our disagreement in the past, there is no real need or point in getting into that again, but I would like to give another quite different opinion, and try to help you sort things out.

Click to expand...

I don't think you posted anything I would disagree with. I can pick my banjo and smile.

JM said:

I think he was brilliant but lacking in his presentation of the Trinity.

Click to expand...

Ralph Allan Smith wrote an interesting book on Van Til and the Trinity entitled "Paradox and Truth: Rethinking Van Til on the Trinity".

An article you might find interesting on James White's A&O site by Colin Smith here: Van Til and the Trinity: God as a Person

If we wanted to nitpick at every theologian, I'm afraid we would have to conclude that however inspiring, they are still just men, like the rest of us. IOW, Van Til is far from the first to be lacking in presentation, or explanation.

JM said:

Presuppositionalism is useful but he ends up resorting to classical evidentialism...which means his apologetic method is not consistent...but that doesn't mean it's a bad method at all. I tend to agree that at some point you have to resort to the classical method. (see R.C. Sproul on the subject.)

Click to expand...

How does it resort to classical evidentialism? It's not like Van Til rejected the classical proofs nor the use of reason etc., his objection really had to do with meta-apologetics, or overall method, or to use Gordon Clark terminology, the axiom. Think about it like this, Biblical presuppositionalism, or revelational epistemology, work like a holster for all of the other methods. Vantillians are not constricted to presuppositional arguments, however the evidential, classical, etc arguments should be framed within a Christian worldview, a Reformed Christian worldview.

Phoebe Ann said:

Well, I can't say too much yet, but I have a set of 22 discs by Greg Bahnsen: Defending the Christian Worldview Against All Opposition.

Click to expand...

Excellent set, though somewhat general in scope and detail. A Seminary Level Apologetics Course is one of my favorite sets, it's long though, but provides hours upon hours of listening.

Phoebe Ann said:

As far as Van Til is concerned, I doubt that I will be able to accept the doctrines of Federal Vision. But, being the novice that I am, I'm certainly not in a position to debate.

Click to expand...

I consider Federal Vision to be an "in house" debate, and it's not one that's likely to be settled, or to everyone's satisfaction, at least in the foreseeable near future. I can't help but think, if Greg Bahnsen were still alive today, that there might be more people taking "Theonomy" more seriously, at least in consideration or thought, acting upon it, that's another story altogether. Personally, I love bacon (I'd eat it every day if I could), and have eaten pork chops more often than I wanted. I'm also glad people are not stoned to death (at least in civilized countries), especially publicly, how gruesome a sight. It's hard to even imagine O.T. law imposed on a secular society and carried out to the letter with teeth. What makes it even more difficult, is that I truly believe my country has, at least in it's founding principals (and or documents), the greatest system of government in the history of mankind. I may be overstating or overstepping, but so much good has come from it, though not without times of war and bloodshed. I'm just looking forward to Heaven, were God reigns and man does not, where our tears will be wiped from our faces, where evil has no place, and earthly struggles will be no more. The world weary Christian, the wounded Christian soldier, can barely give half a hearing to the strong message of Theonomy, it's not for the faint of heart, like me.

AW, I know you don't want to argue but I'll just restate that others have done a better job on the Trinity. VanTil is too confusing unless you are initiated into the deeper practices of philosophy.

On the subject of apologetics, mehhhh. I'm tried of Clark as well.

VanTil is a good place start but you will soon see he has a real cult following. Good luck.

JM said:

VanTil is a good place start but you will soon see he has a real cult following. Good luck.

Click to expand...

I drank the koolaid. Hehe...

Though, I haven't read all of his theology. I like his Christian epistemology. And Bahnsen's of course.

JM said:

AW, I know you don't want to argue but I'll just restate that others have done a better job on the Trinity. VanTil is too confusing unless you are initiated into the deeper practices of philosophy.

Click to expand...

I agree, and other Vantillian's have done a better job on the Trinity and helped others understand his apologetic. Also agree, some background knowledge, and familiarity with philosophical terminology is a must, but it's not as though the same is not true of theological works, considering the scope of theological terminology. I remember listening to R.C. Sproul talk about the relationship between theology and philosophy, and the way he put it was something like this, philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, and I agree. Many times over Dr. Bahnsen would draw the important distinction between Christian philosophy, and non-Christian philosophy. I have to agree with Dr. Bahnsen where he makes the point that everyone is a philosopher, has a philosophy of life, whether or not it's technical and organized in their mind or not, just as logic is logic whether formal or informal. Sorry, just wanted to elaborate a little...technical philosophy can be a bit intimidating, though it irritates me, the shift in mainstream Christian thought and opinion concerning philosophy, over the last century or so contrasted with the past five hundred or so years. You'd never guess, but when I was a young Christian, I wanted nothing to do with philosophy or theology, and I had somewhat of a fear, of anything that might separate me from the love of God and or for God, or anything that might twist my thinking beyond or less than Scripture, or might lead me astray. Never in a million years could I have guessed that I would have respect and admiration, for a man like Van Til.

JM said:

On the subject of apologetics, mehhhh. I'm tried of Clark as well.

Click to expand...

I'd rather sit and listen to you play the banjo while I enjoy the pleasures of life like tobacco, but that's just me being my hedonist self, makes sense to me pragmatically speaking.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

I agree, and other Vantillian's have done a better job on the Trinity and helped others understand his apologetic. Also agree, some background knowledge, and familiarity with philosophical terminology is a must, but it's not as though the same is not true of theological works, considering the scope of theological terminology. I remember listening to R.C. Sproul talk about the relationship between theology and philosophy, and the way he put it was something like this, philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, and I agree.

Click to expand...

She can just get a good philosophical dictionary. Or keep a tablet on hand for when you don't recognize terms so you can type it into Google to see how others understand it.

bsd058 said:

She can just get a good philosophical dictionary. Or keep a tablet on hand for when you don't recognize terms so you can type it into Google to see how others understand it.

Click to expand...

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are good online resources. I've rarely used them, but I have copies of the Oxford dictionary of Philosophy and the Penguin dictionary of Philosophy. Of course one should keep an eye out for biases in all of them, but they helpful. I'd prefer the IVP Dictionary of Apologetics before them, and before Geisler's Baker Ency of Apolo, which I have some issues with, though it has usefulness because of the wealth of info.