“Van Til’s Trinitarian Theology” by Lane G. Tipton
Lane G. Tipton joins the panel again to discuss Cornelius Van Til’s particular formulation of Trinitarian theology. Dr. Tipton is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (PA) and has written a dissertation on the topic. Join us as we talk about Dr. Van Til’s theology and the importance of his Trinitarian theology not only for understanding his apologetic system but for holding all things together.
The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til by Lane G. Tipton
Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987) offered a confessionally Reformed doctrine of the Creator-creature relation that stands out as distinct in contrast to both traditional Roman Catholic and contemporary Barthian alternatives. His Trinitarian theology of the Creator-creature relation supplied a pioneering enrichment of Reformed theology in the traditions of Old Princeton and Old Amsterdam.
In this volume, Lane G. Tipton interprets Van Til in his own historical and polemical context and demonstrates how the immutably dynamic life of the self-contained Trinity bears upon God’s relation to Adam in the work of creation, the act of special providence in covenant, and the person and eternal Son in the event of incarnation.
Tipton argues that Van Til’s Trinitarian theology deepens confessionally Reformed Trinitarianism and federalism in contrast to medieval Thomistic and modern Barthian theological alternatives. In a period marked by theological decline, he strives to clarify and extend confessional Reformed Trinitarian and federal theology in the service of the church’s union and communion with the immutable person of the crucified and ascended Christ of Scripture.
“Van Til as Critic of Barth’s Christology” by James J. Cassidy
In the recent resurgence of interest in the theology of Karl Barth — particularly among evangelicals — theologians of no mean significance have chimed in on their take of Cornelius Van Til’s writings about the dialectical theologian. The Orthodox Presbyterian churchman, according to some, offered an “absurd” and “inept analysis” of Barth’s theology which “wielded a disproportionate influence” among evangelicals through his “tendentious” reading of the Church Dogmatics. Others have argued that Van Til’s motive for critiquing Barth and Barthianism was “institutional.” D.G. Hart,for example, paints a portrait of the historical situation as one in which Van Til was motivated by giving an institutional justification for Westminster Seminary’s existence over against Princeton Seminary. …
Foundations of Christian Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til Perspective edited by Gary North
Christian commentators have pointed to the contradictions of the modern world, and they have asserted that the answers to these contradictions can be found in the Bible. Yet whenever pastors or Christian instructors confront the congregations or each other with concrete requirements of biblical law, the instant response in that “the churches shouldn’t meddle in things that don’t concern them,” meaning politics, economics, or anything else that might prove controversial. The Bible has the answers for every problem, but these are supposed to remain vague generalities except when in accord with the accepted cultural heritage in question. …
“Christian Civilization is the Only Civilization – In a Sense, Of Course” by Michael H. Warren
Intellectuals throughout history have given their views as to what the source, goal and nature of civilization is. The ancient philosopher Plato described a well-ordered civilization as a three-tiered hierarchy of philosopher-kings, the soldier class, and the merchant class. The philosophers are the kings because they are allegedly the most knowledgeable about the ideas of justice and the good. Hegel offered a comprehensive philosophy of life in which he said that the state is God, and the ideal of civilization is for all people to become unified under the State. Freud expressed the predominate view of 20th Century intellectuals when he said that civilization is defined by the degree that a culture rejects the psychological projection of a loving, divine Father as the explanation for the mysteries of the world and embraces rational, scientific, materialistic explanations of the world. In this essay I do not examine all of the competing explanations for civilization in detail. However, despite all their differences, all non-Christian views of civilization have a common point of view that allows for a single refutation that applies to them all and allows for a single proof (see the introductory quote from Van Til above) that Christian Civilization is the only rationally possible civilization. …
The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox by Brant Bosserman
The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox grapples with the question of how one may hold together the ideals of systematic theology, apologetic proof, and theological paradox by building on the insights of Cornelius Van Til. Van Til developed an apologetic where one presupposes that the triune God exists, and then proves this Christian presupposition by demonstrating that philosophies that deny it are self-defeating in the specific sense that they rely on principles that only the Trinity, as the ultimate harmony of unity and diversity, can furnish. A question raised by Van Til’s trademark procedure is how he can evade the charge that the apparent contradictions of the Christian faith render it equally self-defeating as non-Christian alternatives. This text argues that for Van Til, Christian paradoxes can be differentiated from genuine contradictions by the way that their apparently opposing elements discernibly require one another, even as they present our minds with an irresolvable conflict. And yet, Van Til failed to sufficiently vindicate the central Christian paradox–the doctrine of the Trinity–along the lines required by his system. Hence, the present text offers a unique proof that God can only exist as the pinnacle of unity-in-diversity, and as the ground of a coherent Christian system, if He exists as three, and only three, divine Persons.
“Knowledge and the Fall in American Neo-Calvinism: Toward a Van Til–Plantinga Synthesis” by Bálint Békefi
Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga represent two strands of American Protestant philosophical thought influenced by Dutch neo-Calvinism. This paper compares and synthetizes their models of knowledge in non-Christians given the noetic effects of sin and non-Christian worldview commitments. The paper argues that Van Til’s distinction between the partial realization of the antithesis in practice and its absolute nature in principle correlates with Plantinga’s insistence on prima facie–warranted common-sense beliefs and their ultimate defeasibility given certain metaphysical commitments. Van Til endorsed more radical claims than Plantinga on epistemic defeat in non-Christian worldviews, the status of the sensus divinitatis, and conceptual accuracy in knowledge of the world. Finally, an approach to the use of evidence in apologetics is developed based on the proposed synthesis. This approach seeks to make more room for evidence than is generally recognized in Van Tilianism, while remaining consistent with the founder’s principles.
“Van Til and the Trinity: The Centrality of the Christian View of God in the Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til” by Colin D. Smith
Beginning with the publication of his book The Defense of the Faith in 1955, until his death in 1987, Cornelius Van Til set forth an apologetic system for which his name has since become synonymous. This system, known as “Presuppositional Apologetics,” or the “Transcendental Method,” emphasizes the fundamental antithesis between God as Creator and man as creature, and between believer and unbeliever, and seeks to use that antithesis to show unregenerate men their need of the gospel. …
“Presuppositionalism in the Dock: A Review Article” by James N. Anderson
Three things are certain in life: death, taxes, and debates over Cornelius Van Til. For many, the Dutch professor is a hero of the Protestant tradition—a brilliant reformer in the mold of John Calvin who sought to further the work of the Reformation in the areas of Christian philosophy and apologetics. For others, he is more of a villain—an innovator beguiled by unbiblical idealist philosophy who led a large faction of the Reformed church in a dubious if not dangerous direction. And then there are those who fall somewhere between the two wings, acknowledging that Van Til was on the side of the angels, and that he made some positive contributions to Christian thought, but nevertheless finding significant faults in his more distinctive and provocative claims about natural theology, philosophy, and apologetic methodology. …
“Analogical Knowledge: A Systematic Interpretation of Cornelius Van Til’s Theological Epistemology” by James D. Baird
William D. Dennison in his 1995 article, “Analytic Philosophy and Van Til’s Epistemology,” argued that Cecil De Boer, Jesse De Boer, and John M. Frame misunderstood the epistemology of Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987). The De Boers endeavored to make sense of Van Til’s epistemology by examining his terminology and its historic philosophical usage. This led them to interpret Van Til according to a philosophical tradition he openly opposed: idealism. Frame followed, in Dennison’s view, a more commendable route amongst Van Til scholars as Frame recognized that Van Til’s epistemology is inherently biblical, even though Van Til employed idealist terminology. Frame attempted to advance Van Til’s thought, while cleaning up his complex idealistic language for philosophical clarity and the practical purposes of the church. Still, Dennison pointed out, what resulted in Frame’s case was a perspectival epistemology that neglected the “main rubric of Van Til’s own epistemology—the philosophy of history.” In Dennison’s estimation, the De Boers and Frame implemented analytic philosophical methods of interpretation that were inadequateto comprehend the holistic, redemptive-historical structure of Van Til’s epistemology. Dennison concluded, “Herein lies the crux of the problem: both the De Boers and Frame failed to perceive the importance and centrality of the ‘story’ of Scripture (redemptive history) in Van Til’s epistemology.” Furthermore, according to Dennison, to recognize the centrality of redemptive history in Van Til’s epistemology is to perceive nothing less than the influence of Van Til’s biblical theology professor at Princeton, Geerhardus Vos. …