“Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought,” by John M. Frame (P&R, 463 pp.; $27.99, hardcover). Reviewed by Mark Horne, a freelance writer based near Saint Louis, Missouri.
Whether one entirely agrees with him or not, no Christian interested in apologetics–the reasoned defense of the faith–can afford to be uninterested in Cornelius Van Til, the late professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. According to John Frame, Van Til “is perhaps the most important thinker since Calvin.” Yet Frame demonstrates throughout his book that he is willing to be quite critical of his former professor. His praise is not due to an unquestioning allegiance, but to years of reflection as a theologian, philosopher, and apologist.
Why is Van Til so important? Building on the thought of Reformed theologians in America (Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield) and Holland (Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck), Van Til developed an approach to apologetics based on two foundational points: that all people are obligated to acknowledge God in all their thinking, and that non-Christians unremittingly resist this obligation. These two points are perhaps most obviously set forth in Romans 1:18-32, where the apostle Paul declares that God is clearly revealed in creation but that people suppress that revelation and worship creatures rather than the Creator.
Correcting the common misconception that Van Til did not believe in “general revelation”–that God is revealed even to non-Christians in nature and history–Frame shows that Van Til strongly affirmed that God is clearly revealed to all people. The problem is that all people practice self-deception.
Van Til’s radical critique of non-Christian thought constitutes what he regarded as an “absolutely certain proof” for the existence of God–not merely a “supreme being” of some sort, but the Triune God of Scripture. Negatively, this proof was an indirect argument that said that unless the God of the Bible exists, knowledge is impossible. Since no argument of any kind could be made if knowledge were not possible, Christianity is left as not merely the best option, but the only intelligible option. Positively, this proof spelled out how the existence of a personal God, the Trinity, providence, the distinction between creator and creature, humankind’s creation in the image of God, and God’s revelation of himself make human knowledge possible.
“The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism,” Van Til wrote, “cannot be settled by direct appeal to ‘facts’ or ‘laws’ whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ intelligible.’ “
But if Christians and non-Christians are operating on the basis of fundamentally different presuppositions, how can they even join in productive debate? Van Til’s answer was that Christian apologists should “meet our enemy on their own ground,” assuming their position “for the sake of argument” and reducing it to absurdity, showing that their reasoning “leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a nontheistic point of view as well.”
The self-contradictory presumption that bedevils all unbelieving systems of thought can be seen at work, Van Til argued, even in the primal Fall. On the one hand, to disobey God’s command, Adam and Eve had to assume that God was incapable of making predictions about the future, just as they were. Here is a model of the universe as a product of chance (or, as Frame puts it, “the general structure of unbelieving thought includes an ultimate epistemological irrationalism, correlated with a metaphysic in which reality is reducible to chance”). On the other hand, to believe they could ignore God’s command with impunity, Adam and Eve had to assume that they would not be cursed if they ate from the tree. Here is a model of man the sovereign knower: “Man therefore does not need to live by the authoritative assertions of the Creator. He can discover by his own independent inspection . . . what will take place in the course of time.” Thus, Van Til concludes, “man, in rejecting the covenantal requirement of God, became at one and the same time both irrationalist and rationalist.”
Frame, who is himself professor of apologetics at Westminster Seminary in California (Escondido), provides not only a clear overview but also an in-depth breakdown of Van Til’s thought. This is extraordinarily helpful to both the beginner and the reader who has slogged through many of Van Til’s books. As Frame says, Van Til speaks of proving Christian theism “as a unit.” In teaching apologetics, he throws his whole system at the reader all at once, so to speak, rather than bit by bit. And if the reader doesn’t grasp it all, well, Van Til throws it all at him a second time. Thus the reader gets the impression that he cannot pick and choose; it is either all or nothing; Van Til must be thoroughly embraced or totally opposed.
Not only did Van Til’s method tend to make for bad communication, it also polarized the debate over apologetic methodology. Anyone who didn’t “thoroughly embrace” him found it easy to “totally oppose” Van Til. Frame himself discusses his run-ins with “movement Van Tillians,” who become extremely upset over mere departures from Van Til’s language, let alone criticisms of his ideas. And Frame does criticize some of Van Til’s ideas. Having broken down Van Til’s thought he disagrees with some points and wishes other parts had been nuanced more carefully. He is especially helpful in defending apologists with whom Van Til clashed, such as Edward J. Carnell, Gordon Clark, and Francis Schaeffer. Yet Frame maintains that the good in Van Til’s thought is well worth picking from the dross. Indeed, his work seems to be a plea for fellow laborers in the field. Frame’s irenic tone and his mastery of such fascinating and challenging material should win for him some partners in analysis and some friendly critics as well. He makes it clear he would appreciate both.
Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
