“Some Epistemological Reflections on 1 Cor 2:6-16” by Richard B. Gaffin

In Jerusalem and Athens G. C. Berkouwer expressed disappointment over Van Til’s criticism of his views. He had expected that “exegesis of Holy Scripture would play a decisive role.” Instead, not only did Van Til misunderstand him, he believed, but “of far greater consequence” was “the total lack of biblical reflection and the absence of a reply to all the exegetical questions.” In a brief response Van Til conceded Berkouwer’s point. His critique of Berkouwer’s theology “should have had much more exegesis in it than it has. This is a defect.” He then went on to generalize, “The lack of detailed scriptural exegesis is a lack in all of my writings. I have no excuse for this.”

 

This interchange highlights a frequent perception (and charge): Van Til talks repeatedly about “the Christ of the Scriptures”; his uncompromising concern is to let “the self-attesting Christ of Scripture” speak. Yet his writings provide precious little, if any, argumentation based on a careful treatment of key biblical passages; his approach is assertive and dogmatizing, rather than exegetical.