Items tagged vantil

Muether on Van Til

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:20:59 GMT

Here are a few blurbs for John Muether's forthcoming biography, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman:

“An outstanding introduction to the life and thought of Westminster Seminary’s premier apologist. Muether writes with the spirit of Van Til’s apologetic: suaviter in modo, fortiter in re—‘gentle in persuasion, powerful in substance.’ Read and be persuaded by the powerful impact of Van Til’s gentle yet confrontational blend of vigorous thought, gracious service, and Presbyterian churchmanship. This is essential reading for understanding Van Til’s unique and creative integration of the best of the Dutch Reformed tradition with the strengths of American Presbyterianism, which gave birth to presuppositionalism and continues to energize interest in worldview analysis.” —Peter A. Lillback, President, Westminster Theological Seminary

“John Muether does a masterful job of tracing the personal history of this ‘father of presuppositionalism.’ He also shows the inextricable link between Van Til’s own call as a minister of the gospel and his task of training men for gospel ministry to be self-conscious in their apologetic method. As Muether weaves together the various strands of Van Til’s life and career, one can readily see, in a way not clearly seen before, that it was Reformed theology, and not philosophy, that shaped Van Til’s work as a Christian apologist. I could not put this book down.” —K. Scott Oliphint, professor of apologetics and systematic theology, Westminster Theological Seminary

“Highly interesting and engaging. Particularly helpful is how Muether sets Van Til’s work in the context of contemporary academic and especially ecclesiastical debates. He presents many new angles on Van Til’s life that promise to enrich our appreciation and evaluation of him.” —David VanDrunen, Robert B. Strimple professor of systematic theology and Christian ethics, Westminster Seminary California

The Noetic Effects of Salvation in Presuppositional Apologetics

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:31:51 GMT

It has become standard fare in any method of Christian apologetics to give a place to what theologians call the noetic effects of sin. How does sin affect our minds? In what way is one’s ability to reason corrupted by the fall and by the ongoing sin of the individual? No one twentieth-century Christian philosopher seems to have engaged this question more thoroughly than Cornelius Van Til. Of course, like nearly everything that Van Til wrote, his views on the subject are quite controversial in apologetic theory. One of the deficiencies of Van Til’s writing is his failure to counterbalance his thought on the noetic effects of sin with a theory of salvation’s effects on the mind.

In one sense Van Til said quite a bit about the noetic effects of salvation. Everywhere that he speaks of the differences between the reasoning of believers and unbelievers he is discussing the effects of salvation on the mind. However, his theoretical development of the noetic effects of salvation is inchoate in comparison to that of the noetic effects of sin. (more…)

Essential Van Til Books

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:25:05 GMT

The following is a brief list of books on apologetics in the tradition of Van Til. These are the books I have found to be most helpful in developing a presuppositional apologetic. These books aren’t necessarily an easy read, but for those seeking understanding in the subject, these are the writings I have found most helpful.

Bahnsen, Greg L. Van Til’s Apologetic (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998).
This book is indispensable. I would recommend reading this book before all the other books (provided one if fairly familiar with presuppositionalism). Bahnsen provides tremendously useful footnotes that explain Van Til’s writing. Diving right into Van Til’s writings directly can be a bit overwhelming. Bahnsen provides an alternative that lets you get into the depths of Van Til while he still holds your hand so you don’t drown. The book is laid out in a way that lends itself to referencing - so you’ll be able to turn to appropriate sections easily when you’re looking for a particular topic.

Bahnsen is perhaps the author closest to Van Til’s position. John Frame strays just a little bit in a few areas (Bahnsen addresses these in the book). For those seeking a thorough explanation of presuppositional apologetics - this is the book.
Frame, John. Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995).
This is another great overview of Van Til’s apologetic. Though the title may indicate otherwise, it is a sympathetic work. I found the discussion of the problem of the one-and-many to be very helpful.
Notaro, Thom. Van Til and the Use of Evidence (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980).
This small volume covers the much debated topic of presuppositional apologetics and evidences. It’s a useful book and provides a good overview of how the presuppositionalist [should] understand the role of evidences.
Van Til, Cornelius and William Edgar, ed. Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003).
This book is perhaps the closest thing to an introduction to apologetics Van Til wrote. Bill Edgar annotates some of the more difficult sections. It’s a wonderful book, however it’s not necessary if you have read Bahnsen’s volume.
Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955).
This is the classic Van Til volume. If you only have one Van Til book on the shelf, this should be it. However, much of this book is contained in Bahnsen’s book. If you’ve read Bahnsen you’ll have already read the big points and heard the famous illustrations.
Pratt, Richard L. Every Thought Captive. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979).
This short book is an introduction to presuppositional apologetics aimed at high school students. It’s a great book and provides a Biblical foundation for apologetics. It is an introduction, so if you’re familiar with the subject, it is non-essential. This book is a great resource to point others toward.

There are many other great books, but these few will give you a solid foundation in presuppositional thought. Perhaps we could get Presbyterian and Reformed Publishers to package these together and offer them at a discount.

Seminary and Apologetics

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:50:08 GMT

I was going to post this on the AOMin Blog, but decided to do it here instead…

I wanted to follow up on a phone call James White received last week on the Dividing Line. The caller was basically asking if James could recommend a seminary that has a solid apologetics program. You can listen to James’ answer here.

In my humble opinion (and it is my own), I believe those looking for the best apologetics program will find it at Westminster Theological Seminary (East). That is not a blanket endorsement of all the departments at the seminary, I’m only addressing the particular question asked. At WTS (East) you will have the opportunity to sit under Lane Tipton, Scott Oliphant and William Edgar - all three of these men are Van Tillian in their apologetic approach. I’ll let the reader search for the body of literature these men (along with others) have and are producing. You will no doubt have the opportunity to read opposing literature (i.e. non-Christian, in various forms) and have the chance to interact with it.

Along the same lines one my favorites is John Frame at Reformed Theological Seminary. Always on the cutting edge, always thinking through his theology and apologetic and how it applies.

Some of you know that I am heading to Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in the Fall. At Greenville, you will receive a solid education (from all departments) and presuppositionalism is the apologetic approach they teach. The focus of GPTS is to train pastors, so they do not offer a host of apologetic courses. But, if you are looking for a seminary where you don’t have to look over your doctrinal shoulder for heresy or the latest fad, GPTS might be for you. There might be only three of these types of seminaries left, in the US.

How I'm a "modified van Tilian"

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:40:21 GMT

by Dan Phillips

I can't believe it's that interesting to that many, but several have asked me what I mean when I say I'm a "modified van Tilian."

Frankly, I've been reluctant to answer because I know readers often seem to expect a doctoral dissertation in 500 words, and I'm not prepared to give that. But enough nice folk have asked, nicely, and I think they deserve what answer I have. And so, I'm taking off of Matt Gumm's question from my most recent post here.

Matt's question:

DJP: what do you see as the connection between apologetics and evangelism? How are they related?

Also, would you mind sharing (or pointing to it if you've already talked about it) what you've modified about your van Tilianism? Thanks.

My answer:

Well, if I'm not held to doctoral dissertation standards, I'd say that evangelism rests on apologetics, explicitly or implicitly. That is, it proclaims a truth which has been, is, and/or can be vindicated apologetically.

And, while I don't think that sheer proclamation is a substitute for apologetics, good apologetics should always issue in a declaration of the gospel. Our goal is not to prove ourselves right and the sinner wrong. Our goal is to show that God is right, and the sinner is wrong, that he is "without excuse" (Romans 1:20), and thus to point to Christ as God's answer to man's deepest needs.

In spite of a lot of reading, I'd not say I'm an expert on van Til/ianism. But it has struck me often that, in their zeal to show the inadequacy of evidential-ISM, van Tilians often neglect, or positively deride, the Biblical role of evidences.

For instance, a zealous and thoroughgoing van Tilian might jump all over a man who said "Evidence is essential, evidence 'demands a verdict,' and the evidence points to Christ's deity."

Yet Jesus Himself said something just precisely like that, more than once (John 5:36; 10:25, 27, 38; 14:11; 15:24).

So any apologetic theory or praxis that seems apologetic about evidences is inadequate.

By the same token, any apologetic that thinks that the mere amassing of evidence is sufficient to compel belief is also wrongheaded, both epistemologically and anthropologically. It overlooks the dominant role of one's presuppositions, and the dominating power of sin in creating and enforcing those presuppositions, evidence be damned.

Hence, if you read my own apologetical essay as linked to in the article, you will see a sort of two-pronged approach that both attempts to take fundamental aim at the premises, and brings evidence to bear in demonstrating the truth of the Gospel. (I've solicited the evaluation and feedback of van Tilians on that essay, and so far have gotten none.)

So, for what it's worth, there you have it.

Cornelius Van Til

Sat, 19 May 2007 15:32:42 GMT

by John M. Frame

The resurrection, apologetically

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:40:05 GMT

by Dan Phillips

Preface. On the subject of apologetics, two statements in beginning: (1) I started out (three-plus decades ago) as an evidentialist, moved through Schaeffer to van Til, and now am pretty much a modified van Tilian; and (2) if you don't know what any of that means, it's okay. Really. Please read on.

Apologetics is the reasoned defense of the Christian faith. Evidentialism is the approach to apologetics that focus presents facts, builds a probability case for Christianity, and bids people make a leap (or, to some, "hop") of faith the rest of the way to Christ. Folks like John Warwick Montgomery and Josh McDowell (and a million others) represent this approach.

Cornelius van Til, late professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, constructed a Christian approach to apologetic that... would really hard to describe briefly without someone jumping all over me. I think a fair way is to say that van Til mounted a Biblical attack on the idea that fallen man can autonomously construct a truthful Weltanschauung.

Clear? Oh. Sorry. Let's try that again.

We are creatures, living in a created world. We, our world, and every fact we touch is created, and thus endowed by our Creator with a meaning which He defined by that very created design (cf. Psalm 104:24; Proverbs 3:19; 8:21-31; Romans 11:36). Therefore, there is no such thing as a "brute" fact. Things mean what God says they mean; any other idea is a misapprehension. Constructing other ideas is an act of intellectual rebellion growing out of autonomy, "self-rule" — the demand of being little gods creating our own little universes.

But our problem is sin. Sin isn't just something we do, it is what we are, and that without choice (Romans 6:20). Sin does not merely affect our actions, but our very way of thinking and reasoning (Ephesians 4:17-19). Our problem is not that we have no access to the truth about God. We are surrounded by truths about God, everywhere we turn (Psalm 19:1-6). We have plenty of access. Our problem is that we naturally pervert and distort every truth we meet when we meet it (Romans 1:18ff.), until we are liberated by the sovereign grace of God (2 Corinthians 4:3-6).

What does any of this have to do with the resurrection of Christ?

The resurrection. The resurrection is an essential component of the Gospel, beyond all sane debate.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.... (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

So, if we prove the resurrection to an unbeliever, he will believe in the Gospel, right?

Not necessarily. For instance, I believed in the resurrection long before I was saved. It made sense, it was well-attested. I had no argument about the brute fact of the resurrection of Jesus. I just didn't believe that it meant what Jesus-freaks wanted to think it meant. It was just a demonstration of that principle of life that the Christ within all of us seeks to express. Jesus did it better, but anyone can do it. (That no one yet had managed to was weird, but it's a weird world.)

I affirmed the event, but not its meaning.

Van Til himself captured this pretty brilliantly in his dialogue between Mr. Black (an unbeliever), Mr. Grey (an evidentialist), and Mr. White (not Famous James, but an archetypal "Calvinist" as described by van Til).

[Mister Grey:] I want to deal with simple facts. I want to show you that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is as truly a fact as any fact that you can mention. To use the words of Dr. Wilbur Smith, himself a ‘moderate’ Calvinist but opposed to the idea of a distinctively Reformed method for the defense of the faith: ‘The meaning of the resurrection is a theological matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter; the nature of the resurrection body of Jesus may be a mystery, but the fact that the body disappeared from the tomb is a matter to be decided upon by historical evidence.’ The historical evidence for the resurrection is the kind of evidence that you as a scientist would desire.

Sound familiar? I imagine that would sound pretty good to many good brothers and sisters. But listen to Mr. Black's response:

[Mr. Black:] Now as for accepting the resurrection of Jesus...as thus properly separated from the traditional system of theology, I do not in the least mind doing that. To tell you the truth, I have accepted the resurrection as a fact now for some time. The evidence for it is overwhelming. This is a strange universe. All kinds of ‘miracles’ happen in it. The universe is ‘open.’ So why should there not be some resurrections here and there? The resurrection of Jesus would be a fine item for Ripley’s Believe It or Not. Why not send it in?

Oh, ouch. That didn't go very well, did it?

Perhaps we've had similar dialogues. We think that, if we can make a strong historical case for the resurrection, our friend will be compelled to repent and believe. Yet nothing of the sort happens. Why?

Here's where we need to listen a bit more closely to Paul, I think. Let's ask the apostle to raise his voice a bit for emphasis:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.... (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

Paul does not adduce the resurrection as a "brute fact," but as an interpreted fact, as a fact freighted with specific assigned meaning. The resurrection means neither nothing nor anything, but something.

Here's where I also think of the words of Solomon:

A wise man scales the city of the mighty
and brings down the stronghold in which they trust (Proverbs 21:22)

We need to take aim at the wrong presuppositions that underlie our friends' thinking, as Paul did in Athens (Acts 17). Often demolition must precede reconstruction (Jeremiah 1:10; 2 Timothy 3:16; 4:2).

Then we bring to bear the evidences—but as God's facts, not brute facts.

(FWIW, I try to do this very thing in Why I Am (Still) a Christian.)