“How Much Intellectual Common Ground Is There Between a Christian and a Non-Christian? Common Notions and Common Ground in the Writings of Cornelius Van Til” by Timothy Paul Jones

The thinking of a Christian and a non-Christian diverges at the most basic level. The believer in Jesus Christ sees all of reality from the cognitive perspective of an individual who lives with “the mind of Christ” and whose life is shaped by the Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:16). This does not cause Christians to become more intelligent, more rational, or more perceptive than non-Christians. A commitment to Jesus Christ does, however, cause every fact in the universe to be seen in a different way, as a reality that exists in, for, and through Christ (Colossians 1:15-20). There is thus a fundamental epistemic distinction between the Christian and the non-Christian. In the words of Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til, “The natural man has epistemologically nothing in common with the Christian.”

 

But what does this mean for meaningful engagement between Christians and non-Christians, particularly when it comes to ultimate issues such as the truth of Christianity? And what—if any—truths about God can an unbeliever know through nature or natural reason? Most importantly for those of us who live to fulfill the Great Commission—if there is a fundamental epistemic distinction between the thinking of a Christian and a non-Christian—on what basis can a Christian discuss the truth of Jesus with someone who rejects Jesus as he is described in Scripture?

“Did Cornelius Van Til Really Teach that Non-Christians Know Nothing?” by Timothy Paul Jones

I am not a Van Tilian presuppositionalist, though I am sympathetic with certain aspects of Cornelius Van Til’s approach. Over the past few years, I have—to the best of my knowledge—read every book and syllabus that Van Til wrote related to apologetics.

 

Even after reading several thousand pages of Cornelius Van Til’s writings, I do not find his approach or his assumptions to be wholly convincing. At the same time, I’ve also recognized that there are instances when Van Til’s critics have misconstrued his claims. Admittedly, the critics aren’t the only culprits here! Van Til himself was at least partly to blame. Much of Van Til’s articulation of his own thinking is scattered, unclear, and poorly supported. Still, despite Van Til’s apparent struggle to communicate with clarity, there is much to learn from this Reformed philosopher and theologian. As part of this process of learning, there are some criticisms of Van Til that should be set aside because they misrepresent what Van Til thought and taught.