“The Thought of Cornelius Van Til” (Lecture Outline) by John M. Frame
Category Archives: John M. Frame
Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (John M. Frame)
Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought by John M. Frame
The insights of Cornelius Van Til have generated intense discussion among friends and foes alike. Until now nearly everything written about Van Til has come from either uncritical followers or unsympathetic critics.
This volume, marking the one hundredth anniversary of Van Til’s birth, combines deep appreciation with incisive critical analysis of the renowned Westminster apologist’s ideas. John M. Frame offers warm personal reflections on Van Til’s life and a close examination of his thought, including his interaction with prominent figures in the Reformed, evangelical, and secular communities. In terms of its spirit, scope, clarity, and profundity, this volume is must reading for serious students of apologetics and theology.
Cornelius Van Til – IVP Dictionary of Apologetics (John M. Frame)
“Cornelius Van Til” (IVP Dictionary of Apologetics) by John M. Frame
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), Reformed theologian and apologist, was born in Grootegast, Holland. At the age of ten, he moved with his family to Highland, Indiana. The Van Tils affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church, and Cornelius attended denominational schools, the Calvin Preparatory School, Calvin College and (for one year) Calvin Theological Seminary, all in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He transferred to Princeton Theological Seminary and earned his Th. M. there in 1925, followed by his marriage to Rena Klooster. He completed his Ph. D. at Princeton University in 1927. His dissertation, supervised by Archibald Allan Bowman, compared Reformed theology’s view of God with the absolute of philosophical Idealism. …
Van Til: The Theologian (John M. Frame)
“Van Til: The Theologian” by John M. Frame
In 1961, Cornelius Van Til reviewed a book by R. H. Bremmer called Herman Bavinck als Dogmaticus (Herman Bavinck the Theologian). Having run across this review in a recent perusal of the Van Til corpus, I asked myself whether someday there might be a book called Cornelius Van Til als Dogmaticus. …
Van Til: His Simplicity and Profundity (John M. Frame)
“Van Til: His Simplicity and Profundity” by John M. Frame
Our Orthodox Presbyterian Church is a small body and has little influence in the world or even in the worldwide Christian community. For its size, however, it has had as members a remarkable number and quality of Christian scholars. That fact may at times distort our perspective. We OP’s may be tempted, for instance, to think regarding Cornelius Van Til that since he is one of us he cannot really be very important. OP’s remember Van Til as a familiar, friendly face at church gatherings– the fellow who washed dishes at congregational meetings so his wife could vote, the grandfatherly minister who loved kids and told jokes about chickens and such, the flaky professor who threw chalk at wayward students, the kindly man who visited hospital rooms and prayed with strangers as well as friends. …
Van Til Reconsidered (John M. Frame)
Van Til on Antithesis (John M. Frame)
“Van Til on Antithesis” by John M. Frame
As we seek to make the best use of Cornelius Van Til’s thought in our own time, it is especially important that we come to grips with his concept of antithesis, the diametrical opposition between belief and unbelief and therefore between belief and any compromise of revealed truth. The concept of antithesis is one of Van Til’s own major concerns, and it is that element in his thought which has brought him the most severe criticism. In the present pluralistic theological climate, it seems particularly difficult to draw lines sharply enough to support Van Tilian talk of antithesis: lines between denominational traditions, between liberal and conservative, between Christianity and other religions, between belief and unbelief. Universalism is taken for granted in contemporary liberal theology, and conservative Christian thinkers, if not going that far, often tend nevertheless to play down the differences between themselves and others. Is it possible, even necessary, to maintain Van Til’s emphasis in our time and to repudiate all these tendencies toward accommodation? Or did Van Til overstate his case, unnecessarily inhibiting biblical ecumenism? Or is the truth to be found somewhere between these two evaluations? …
Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic (John M. Frame)
“Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic” by John M. Frame
Classical Apologetics has been eagerly awaited. This book puts into systematic (and at least somewhat technical) form an apologetic approach of considerable interest, which up until now has been expressed primarily in popular writings and taped lectures. It is also notable for its critique of “presuppositionalism” (mainly in its Van Tillian form). This book is one of the most extensive critiques of Van Til to date, and I think of all the critiques of Van Til this one shows the most thorough research and the most accurate interpretation. In saying this, I should acknowledge a possible conflict of interest: The authors express indebtedness to me for correspondence between myself and Gerstner which “significantly sharpened our understanding of Vantillian apologetics.” However, in commending these authors for their understanding of Van Til, I am not intending to commend myself. My contribution to their formulations was relatively small (and, as it turns out, not always understood and/or accepted). But Gerstner himself is a former student of Van Til and has (as I know from personal discussions) been mulling over Van Til’s position for many years, with an intense interest and scholarly care not matched, in my view, by other critics of Van Til. Thus the credit for the book’s high critical standards must go to the authors themselves. …
Trinitarian Analogies (John M. Frame)
“Trinitarian Analogies” by John M. Frame
Much theological energy has been spent on the interesting question of whether there are suitable analogies in our experience for describing the Trinity. The question is probably not as important as it is interesting. God never tells us that we must come up with any such analogy. Rather, he simply presents the truth in Scripture and calls us to accept it on faith.
Nevertheless, teachers of the word of God have the general task of teaching the word to others in the clearest and most cogent way possible. Certainly Scripture warrants the general practice of using illustrations and analogies in teaching. Thus, although we are not commanded specifically to find analogies of the Trinity in human experience, the search is certainly justified.
The problem is that the doctrine of the Trinity has historically defied attempts to expound it according to analogies. Some such attempts have resulted in destructive heresies. The Trinity is very mysterious, and study of it requires particular caution. The suggestions I make below are not intended to carry dogmatic weight. I am only suggesting possibilities, some suggested by others, some from my own reflection. …
Transcendental Arguments (John M. Frame)
“Transcendental Arguments” by John M. Frame
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is responsible for introducing the term “transcendental” to philosophical discussion. Seeking to repel the skepticism of David Hume, but unable to accept the methods of his rationalist teacher Christian Wolff, Kant came to advocate transcendental argument as a new means of grounding the certainty of mathematics, science, and philosophy.
All of us, he argued, must concede that knowledge is possible. Else there is no point to any discussion or inquiry. Now, given that knowledge is possible, said Kant, we should ask what the conditions are that make knowledge possible. What must the world be like, and what must the workings of our minds be like, if human knowledge is to be possible? …