What do you think?
Rate this book
By what standard?
An introduction into the problems of Christian philosophy. It focuses on the philosophical system of Dr. Cornelius Van Til, which in turn is founded upon the presuppositions of an infallible revelation in the Bible and the necessity of Christian theology for all philosophy.Basic to this study is the belief that presuppositions of human thought in every field must be basically one in order to arrive at any concept which both validates biblical faith and human knowledge. The sovereignty of the self-contained God is the key to every field, in that only the God of Scripture makes all things possible and explicable and is thus the basic premise not only of theology, but of philosophy, science and indeed all knowledge. In that God is the Creator of all things. He is their only valid principle of interpretation, in that they derive both their existence and meaning from His creative act. This belief is herein set forth in terms of various aspects of human thought.Again basic to this study is the belief that such a philosophy finds consistent and able exposition in the writings of Cornelius Van Til. This work, therefore, is thus both an exposition as well of Van Til's development of that philosophy, a school of thought to which the author subscribes.This is Rushdoony's foundational work on philosophy.
22 pages, Unknown Binding
First published December 1, 2003
22 people are currently reading
246 people want to read
About the author
Rousas John Rushdoony
136 books147 followersRousas John Rushdoony was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as the father of both Christian Reconstructionism and the modern homeschool movement. His prolific writings have exerted considerable influence on the Christian right.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
July 12, 2013
Rushdoony summarized the philosophy of Van Til in approximately two hundred pages. Greg Bahnsen summarized only Van Til's apologetic in over seven hundred pages. What's the difference? Rushdoony summarized the larger work of Van Til including epistemology, apologetics, common grace, inspiration and inerrancy, the authority of Scripture, and Van Til's idea of "the self-contained God."
Rushdoony's work is far more broad, but parts of it are even more dense than Bahnsen's, which is also dense. This makes portions of it very difficult to follow. Rushdoony's analysis is brilliant and worth reading. The essay on Job in the appendix is almost the best part of the book and should not be missed.
"Bishop Butler's Analogy", also in the appendix, may be the best, and shortest argument in favor of Van Til's epistemology. This is only a portion. He writes,
"Reason is regarded as arbiter and judge over the meaning, morality and evidence of revelation and of Scripture. As a result of the analysis of the evidences, Aquinas and Butler both conclude that God probably exists. In the alpha and omega of this methodology, human self-conciousness is assumed to be autonomous, capable of sitting in judgment over God and His revelation, and intelligible without reference to God as Creator and interpreter. The conspicuous fact in such thinking is its failure to see man as creature or to take seriously the Creator-creature relationship and its implications. If their thinking is true, God is irrelevant to the human situation because He is neither creator nor determiner of things but only a common participant in being and history. It assumes also the impartiality and neutrality of man the covenant-breaker. As a result, apologetics based on such an approach fail to present more than a probable God who is a pale shadow and imitation of the God of Scripture no matter how well intentioned its hopes and how Calvinistic its theology."
Rushdoony's work is far more broad, but parts of it are even more dense than Bahnsen's, which is also dense. This makes portions of it very difficult to follow. Rushdoony's analysis is brilliant and worth reading. The essay on Job in the appendix is almost the best part of the book and should not be missed.
"Bishop Butler's Analogy", also in the appendix, may be the best, and shortest argument in favor of Van Til's epistemology. This is only a portion. He writes,
"Reason is regarded as arbiter and judge over the meaning, morality and evidence of revelation and of Scripture. As a result of the analysis of the evidences, Aquinas and Butler both conclude that God probably exists. In the alpha and omega of this methodology, human self-conciousness is assumed to be autonomous, capable of sitting in judgment over God and His revelation, and intelligible without reference to God as Creator and interpreter. The conspicuous fact in such thinking is its failure to see man as creature or to take seriously the Creator-creature relationship and its implications. If their thinking is true, God is irrelevant to the human situation because He is neither creator nor determiner of things but only a common participant in being and history. It assumes also the impartiality and neutrality of man the covenant-breaker. As a result, apologetics based on such an approach fail to present more than a probable God who is a pale shadow and imitation of the God of Scripture no matter how well intentioned its hopes and how Calvinistic its theology."
June 28, 2023
Van Til for dummies (for which I, a dummy, am grateful). An accessible, helpful analysis and defense of Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics, epistemology, etc.
July 19, 2007
I always try to read this book every couple of years. Points out that all law has a lawgiver. The lawgiver is either God the Creator or man.
The irrationality of so called rationalim apart from the Law of the God of the Bible is thoroughly treated. All law contains a moral point of view. The operative question for evaluating the morality of law is "By what standard?"
[It is interesting to note that the so called atheist or secular rationalist often forgets or ignores, while insisting that the U.S. was intended to be a secular nation, that the Declaration of Independence attributes our inalienable rights to be be given by God. Rights granted by man can be taken away by legal fiat. God given rights are untouchable.]
Objective, moral law originates with God and is given to man. Moral law therefore has an objective, authoritative basis rather than being subjective , selective, and relative to the whims of man. Moral law is revealed as well as being written on the conscience of man (bearing the image of God).
"Who says?" might be another way to address the issue of authority as it relates to Law. If a Christian could fully abandon Biblical Law (she cannot), what authority for law would replace God's? Even after a kind of weak Christendom all moral appeals apart from the Bible wax shallow. Post Christian anarchism (there is a kind of Biblical anarchism as relates to tyrannical states)logically would be a return to paganism ( but now on steroids).
Bottomline: Pagan Americans irrationally follow a code of ethics that borrows heavily from the Biblical perspective. This is the explanation for the observation made that sometimes the non-believer conducts his life more "morally" than many biblicists. Ask the question "What's moral?" and then "Why?" and then "Who says? and observe the utter confusion and irrationality of the non-biblical rationalists response. Since they do not have a Bible to stand on, they don't have a logical leg to stand on as well. Their best shot is to try to prove the irrationality of the Biblical perspective so that everyone has to join their little world of rational irrationality.
If there is no God, everything goes. Secular law boundaries are thus an attempt to organize or control human life and limit some of the damage of rational irrationality. But at the core of the issue of law, there is no true authority (only might makes right)except for the laws of nature (gravity, etc.)' Appeals to the common benefit are usually the best shot. But who defines the common good?
If non-believers were more consistent, life would become harsher and even more degraded.
The irrationality of so called rationalim apart from the Law of the God of the Bible is thoroughly treated. All law contains a moral point of view. The operative question for evaluating the morality of law is "By what standard?"
[It is interesting to note that the so called atheist or secular rationalist often forgets or ignores, while insisting that the U.S. was intended to be a secular nation, that the Declaration of Independence attributes our inalienable rights to be be given by God. Rights granted by man can be taken away by legal fiat. God given rights are untouchable.]
Objective, moral law originates with God and is given to man. Moral law therefore has an objective, authoritative basis rather than being subjective , selective, and relative to the whims of man. Moral law is revealed as well as being written on the conscience of man (bearing the image of God).
"Who says?" might be another way to address the issue of authority as it relates to Law. If a Christian could fully abandon Biblical Law (she cannot), what authority for law would replace God's? Even after a kind of weak Christendom all moral appeals apart from the Bible wax shallow. Post Christian anarchism (there is a kind of Biblical anarchism as relates to tyrannical states)logically would be a return to paganism ( but now on steroids).
Bottomline: Pagan Americans irrationally follow a code of ethics that borrows heavily from the Biblical perspective. This is the explanation for the observation made that sometimes the non-believer conducts his life more "morally" than many biblicists. Ask the question "What's moral?" and then "Why?" and then "Who says? and observe the utter confusion and irrationality of the non-biblical rationalists response. Since they do not have a Bible to stand on, they don't have a logical leg to stand on as well. Their best shot is to try to prove the irrationality of the Biblical perspective so that everyone has to join their little world of rational irrationality.
If there is no God, everything goes. Secular law boundaries are thus an attempt to organize or control human life and limit some of the damage of rational irrationality. But at the core of the issue of law, there is no true authority (only might makes right)except for the laws of nature (gravity, etc.)' Appeals to the common benefit are usually the best shot. But who defines the common good?
If non-believers were more consistent, life would become harsher and even more degraded.
December 29, 2022
Mostly listened to this one on audible. Will have to reread. Great explanation and exposition of the presuppositional thinking of Van Til. Will probably refer back to this book for years to come.
October 4, 2021
Are you looking for a book-length introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics? If so this book might be for you! Even if you are a season apologetics that skillfully employ Presuppositional Apologetics this book is still a good resource to read to remind, retain and at times sharpen one’s knowledge of Presuppositional Apologetics as taught by Cornelius Van Til.
This book was originally written in 1958 and was probably one of the first books written to try to popularize the apologetics method of Cornelius Van Til. Van Til who taught at Westminster Theological Seminary is best known as the father of Presuppositional Apologetics. The author of this specific book is one of Van Til’s early disciples. As I read this book I was at awe with how this covered a lot of Van Til’s apologetics theme and insight into both theology and apologetics, and these issues were presented to a general Christian audience decades before Greg Bahnsen came along with his books, audios and debate (Bahnsen is one that people often associate with popularizing Van Til to a larger general Christian audience). How true is the saying that there is nothing new under the sun!
The book consists of fourteen chapters and six appendices. Chapter one as the introduction uses the story of Jacob and Leah to drive home a parable of how Christians need to be careful of merging non-Christian philosophy to Christianity such as Aristoleanism, other Greek philosophy, etc. Also here in this first chapter Rushdoony tells us about what one assume shape’s one’s conclusion. This observation of course is important in the development of Presuppositional Apologetics. Apparently the author though Jacob and Leah was a fitting parable for Presuppositional Apologetics that he mentioned it again in the first appendix titled “The Sons of Leah.” Other chapters in the book include The Christian philosophy of knowledge, the psychology of religion, the issue in Common Grace, the authority of Scripture and the self-Contained God. Another neat parable Rushdoony presents to illustrate what Presuppositional Apologetics is found in chapter 3 which is the famous story of the Emperor has no clothes; the book reminds readers through this story a important application that we must not go with what’s popular but stick to speaking the truth even if it does not make us popular. Also nonbelief truly is bankrupt intellectually when one has a chance driven worldview, it is will destroy
Other topics in the book that I really enjoyed including the challenge to the beliefs one can be totally neutral towards God, there's also discussion about common grace, authority of Scripture, man being mad in the image of God and Christian ethics. This book is somewhat dated at times such as when Rushdoony speaks about Van Til and Dooyweerd so favorably; of course the two parted ways in some instances and both have different calling.
I do recommend this book.
This book was originally written in 1958 and was probably one of the first books written to try to popularize the apologetics method of Cornelius Van Til. Van Til who taught at Westminster Theological Seminary is best known as the father of Presuppositional Apologetics. The author of this specific book is one of Van Til’s early disciples. As I read this book I was at awe with how this covered a lot of Van Til’s apologetics theme and insight into both theology and apologetics, and these issues were presented to a general Christian audience decades before Greg Bahnsen came along with his books, audios and debate (Bahnsen is one that people often associate with popularizing Van Til to a larger general Christian audience). How true is the saying that there is nothing new under the sun!
The book consists of fourteen chapters and six appendices. Chapter one as the introduction uses the story of Jacob and Leah to drive home a parable of how Christians need to be careful of merging non-Christian philosophy to Christianity such as Aristoleanism, other Greek philosophy, etc. Also here in this first chapter Rushdoony tells us about what one assume shape’s one’s conclusion. This observation of course is important in the development of Presuppositional Apologetics. Apparently the author though Jacob and Leah was a fitting parable for Presuppositional Apologetics that he mentioned it again in the first appendix titled “The Sons of Leah.” Other chapters in the book include The Christian philosophy of knowledge, the psychology of religion, the issue in Common Grace, the authority of Scripture and the self-Contained God. Another neat parable Rushdoony presents to illustrate what Presuppositional Apologetics is found in chapter 3 which is the famous story of the Emperor has no clothes; the book reminds readers through this story a important application that we must not go with what’s popular but stick to speaking the truth even if it does not make us popular. Also nonbelief truly is bankrupt intellectually when one has a chance driven worldview, it is will destroy
Other topics in the book that I really enjoyed including the challenge to the beliefs one can be totally neutral towards God, there's also discussion about common grace, authority of Scripture, man being mad in the image of God and Christian ethics. This book is somewhat dated at times such as when Rushdoony speaks about Van Til and Dooyweerd so favorably; of course the two parted ways in some instances and both have different calling.
I do recommend this book.
April 28, 2022
Van Til is hard to read. Rushdoony is less hard. Rushdoony's insight on the world of Christian Ethics, philosophy, and apologetics is fantastic, and he makes Van Til's philosophy more accessible with his own commentary. You get the best of both worlds in this case.
October 31, 2021
Rushdoony was one of those stalwart Christian Reconstructionists that sorta took the reigns of the movement for a while in the 70's and 80's. He had a lot to owe to others, such as Cornelius Van Til, who sought to approach apologetics in a very similar way that Rushdoony approached the truth claims of Christianity. It might even be said that Van Til borrowed much from Rushdoony, or at the very least was drinking from the same stream. Where Van Til essentially worked on the presupposition that God's existence was to be assumed, Rushdoony worked on the assumption that the Old Testament law still held validity for life in practice for New Testament believers. One can see the comradery between the two men and in this work, it is that similar foundation that allows Rushdoony to be a fair and energetic critic of Van Tils Corpus.
July 24, 2011
An excellent introduction to the writings and thought of Cornelius Van Til. "By What Standard?" was written in 1958, before Rushdoony wandered into Theonomy. I've also read the written correspondence between Rushdoony and Van Til in the Westminster Theological Seminary library that indicated Van Til reviewed many, if not all, of the chapters before its publication. So Reformed thinkers, if you've shied away from this book because of the Rushdoony authorship, give it a second chance. It should compare favorably to John Frame's "Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought." And it's about 250 page shorter!"
December 29, 2011
This is an old, old book. It was written before all the Reconstructionalist kerfuffle. It is a short, quick overview of Van Tillian thought. Like Frame of Bahsen, there are prodigious Van Til quotes throughout, which is nice. I just read it because I'm trying to read anything and everything about Van Til, but I don't think there's much here that isn't elsewhere. Still, a good quick read.
July 27, 2024
RUSHDOONY'S INFLUENTIAL EXPOSITION OF VAN TIL
Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as the father of Christian Reconstructionism. This 1958 book is subtitled, "An analysis of the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til"; Van Til was a famous professor of "presuppositional" apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary.
He asserts, "Man neither is nor can be 'objective' and 'impartial.' All his thinking is from some fundamental starting point or presupposition which is a priori and is therefore either pure or impure faith." (Pg. 13) Later, he adds, "The difficulty most people experience is not with Van Til's writing but with his God; it is essentially He whom they find unacceptable and offensive. Their quarrel is not with what they cannot understand in Van Til but with that which they all too clearly understand." (Pg. 98)
He argues, "The orthodox view of the authority of Scripture is often rejected as involving circular reasoning; it is charged that it is merely reasoning from God to God, and from the Bible to the Bible. There is no reason in denying this charge. Rather, it must be affirmed that in a very real sense all reasoning is circular reasoning. Men move from their basic presuppositions to brute factuality, 'facts,' whose meaning is predetermined by their philosophic presuppositions and the subjectivity of their reasoning, back again to their own interpretation." (Pg. 139-140) He reiterates, "Scripture speaks to man with authority... All this the Christian must boldly affirm, without any hesitancy with regard to the charge of circular reasoning." (Pg. 145-146)
This book had great influence on persons such as Greg Bahnsen and Gary North, and will be of ongoing interest to students of presuppositional apologetics, or Christian Reconstruction.
Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as the father of Christian Reconstructionism. This 1958 book is subtitled, "An analysis of the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til"; Van Til was a famous professor of "presuppositional" apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary.
He asserts, "Man neither is nor can be 'objective' and 'impartial.' All his thinking is from some fundamental starting point or presupposition which is a priori and is therefore either pure or impure faith." (Pg. 13) Later, he adds, "The difficulty most people experience is not with Van Til's writing but with his God; it is essentially He whom they find unacceptable and offensive. Their quarrel is not with what they cannot understand in Van Til but with that which they all too clearly understand." (Pg. 98)
He argues, "The orthodox view of the authority of Scripture is often rejected as involving circular reasoning; it is charged that it is merely reasoning from God to God, and from the Bible to the Bible. There is no reason in denying this charge. Rather, it must be affirmed that in a very real sense all reasoning is circular reasoning. Men move from their basic presuppositions to brute factuality, 'facts,' whose meaning is predetermined by their philosophic presuppositions and the subjectivity of their reasoning, back again to their own interpretation." (Pg. 139-140) He reiterates, "Scripture speaks to man with authority... All this the Christian must boldly affirm, without any hesitancy with regard to the charge of circular reasoning." (Pg. 145-146)
This book had great influence on persons such as Greg Bahnsen and Gary North, and will be of ongoing interest to students of presuppositional apologetics, or Christian Reconstruction.
August 27, 2017
Excellent and very understandable (maybe the easier exposition and insights of Van Til, even easier than Bahnsen) exposition of Van Til's thought. It is more broad and less precisely systematic than Frame (Van Til an analysis of his thought) and Bahnsen books (Van Til readings and analysis), and less precise than the two others. But it still contains the main ideas of Van Til. Very enjoyable and quick to read.
Read
April 3, 2023I listened to this for a few chapters of it, ignoring the others so I didn't end up getting confused about what the Orthodox teachings are.
The Emperor Has no Clothes chapter is worth giving a look, I'd say if you're just learning the presuppositional critiques people make of modernity.
The psychology of religion one is a good critique of the Jung/Campbell/Peterson junk people are heavily circulating today.
The Emperor Has no Clothes chapter is worth giving a look, I'd say if you're just learning the presuppositional critiques people make of modernity.
The psychology of religion one is a good critique of the Jung/Campbell/Peterson junk people are heavily circulating today.
Currently reading
October 14, 2025Starts with the Hellenization thesis that has been thoroughly debunked, and a poor understanding of scholasticism. But what caught my attention most is the stated recognition that they think Hume won the argument (so unsurprising that their apologetics has similarities to Kant's philosophy).
As Sproul pointed out, they unfortunately confuse the ontological starting point of knowledge with the epistemological starting point for men created by God.
As Sproul pointed out, they unfortunately confuse the ontological starting point of knowledge with the epistemological starting point for men created by God.
March 8, 2022
Shows that the Triune God is Himself the only standard for all things.
May 5, 2023
Wonderful description and defense of Van tilian apologetics.
October 30, 2023
Great.
Side note, I never understood the common grace controversy that started the Protestant Reformed Church, but this helped a lot.
Side note, I never understood the common grace controversy that started the Protestant Reformed Church, but this helped a lot.
August 10, 2024
My head hurts in a great way.
October 30, 2012
With many qualifications, this book is not only quite good, it is quite useful. Rushdoony can be faulted for many things, but not for this: he really wants his theology and faith to be lived out consistently. He failed drastically at times, but he also triumphed at times.
Rushdoony's apologetic edge is always honed as an advance against statism, and this book is the prime example.
Rushdoony's apologetic edge is always honed as an advance against statism, and this book is the prime example.
May 17, 2013
Well stated defense of Cornelius Van Til's apologetic. The vocabulary can edge on being graduate level writing, but overall an enjoyable read.
July 8, 2013
Rushdoony makes a very abstract subject more accessible.
July 28, 2020
A very good introduction the presuppositional method of Christian apologetics.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews