Toward a Reformed Apologetics: A Critique of the Thought of Cornelius Van Til

by Keith A. Mathison

A Truly Reformed Apologetics?

Cornelius Van Til claimed that all traditional apologetic methodologies are flawed and that those Reformed Christians who use such methods are compromising their theology. His goal was to develop an apologetic method that is truly consistent with Reformed theology. Did he achieve that goal?

For almost a century, Reformed theologians, especially in North America, have debated this topic. The debate has often been acrimonious, with serious charges and counter–charges coming from both sides. This book seeks to take the debate in a more constructive direction by clearing away as much misunderstanding as possible in order that we might add to discussions of apologetic methods the actual practice of apologetics.

In Part One, Cornelius Van Til’s own system of thought is set forth in a clear way in order that readers may know exactly what it entailed. His doctrine of God, creation, the fall, common grace, redemption, and the antithesis are explained in order that readers might understand the apologetic implications of these doctrines.

Part Two is devoted to explaining why many Reformed Christians have not embraced Van Til’s apologetics in spite of its popularity and influence. These chapters outline biblical, philosophical, theological, historical, and practical concerns with Van Til’s system of thought. What this book reveals is that Van Til’s apologetic system of thought is consistent with neither Scripture nor Reformed theology.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy

296 pages, Paperback

Published November 12, 2024

About the author

Dr. Keith A. Mathison is associate editor of Tabletalk magazine. He is also academic dean and professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fla., and author of From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology.

Reviews

[Scott Bielinski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mathison's critique of Van Til is charitable and clear. The first half of the book constructs Van Til's system of thought. It's clear that Mathison has read Van Til and is extremely familiar with his work. Importantly, Mathison also demonstrates a great grasp of Van Til's disciples - Mathison constantly refers to Tipton, Frame, et al., for clarity on elements of Van Til's theology. It is clear that Mathison has gone to great lengths to understand Van Til. That kind of dedication ensures a book is not a diatribe but a helpful and thoughtful contribution. I'm grateful for that kind of work.

There were a few critiques that I think needed to be sharpened and some that I thought fell a little flat. For example, in response to Van Til saying Jesus wants people to acknowledge Him as the precondition for knowledge and language, Mathison writes, "The Bible also does not proclaim Jesus Christ as 'the indispensable presupposition of all intelligent human predication.' It proclaims Jesus as God-incarnate and as the one who died as the once-for-all atoning sacrifice for sins . . ." (142). Van Til unreservedly agrees with Mathison's point about who Christ is economically - but he would see this as entailing the former point, theologically.

However, Mathison's two chapters that detail the theological and philosophical issues with Van Til's position are especially good. Mathison points out some of Van Til's revisionist tendencies (an unfortunate feature of some of his disciples, too) and the fractious damage associated with editing our received theological heritage. I wasn't aware that Van Til appealed to the relationship between the attributes to argue for a similar relationship between the persons of the Trinity. This is a strange and dangerous argument.

Mathison does not think we need to throw Van Til away. He applauds much about Van Til - as he should. But he does think a consistently Reformed apologetic ought to more closely approximate the theological conclusions, sensibilities, and methods of those who constructed the Reformed confessions. To this end, Mathison has written an important and helpful critique of one whose Reformed apologetic is not, in an important sense, Reformed.

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a serious achievement. The debate too often is marred by a lack of charity, and/or a lack of understanding of the other sides' position. Mathison avoids both problems. First he spends an entire half of the book carefully outlining Van Til's teaching in a manner that Van Tilians would agree was accurate.

Then he proceeds (in the second half) to show that Van Til's theory of knowledge is not gleaned from Scripture, but is rather picked up from British Idealism and "planted in the soil of Reformed Theology". Employing philosophical ideas is not in itself a problem, of course. But the idealist 'problem' of human predication, and the idealist assertion that to know anything one must know everything, is neither the epistemology that the reformed who wrote our Confessions used, nor is it consistent with what the Word teaches and assumes. Thus it is not surprising that Van Til's ideas lead to a contradiction of plain Biblical teaching on knowledge, and to theological innovations (especially in his followers: Frame, Poythress, Sheppard, Rushdoony, Jordan,etc).

In the book Mathison looks at Biblical concerns, philosophical concerns (which are huge), theological concerns (especially Van Til on the trinity), historical concerns (particularly his version of the myth of Calvin vs the Calvinists), and Practical Concerns. This layout allows much to be covered with minimal confusion.

This book will surely accelerate the doubts that are growing over Van Til's teaching in the reformed world. My only desire is that he would have said a few things about the good that has come from Van Til's ideas (even though they introduced serious problems).

I really liked it.

[Simon O'Mahony · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is divided into two parts. In the first part, Mathison presents a clear and compelling presentation of Van Til's views. The author takes a system of thought that is notoriously complex (and convoluted) and represents it in a way that is fair, winsome, and lucid. A pastor-friend of mine quipped in jest, that after reading the first part he was almost convinced to become Van-Tillian.

The second part shifts from presentation to critique. Through multiple chapters Mathison demonstrates how Van Til's attempt to recast a 'Reformed Apologetic' method falls short of being either Reformed or Scriptural. Instead Van Til has created a method that is both novel and controversial. Even more troubling is that Van Til's legacy of undermining Reformed Theology has been carried on by his various students who continue to recast the doctrines of the Reformed faith.

[Zorina Shepard · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a layperson, this was a very hard book for me to get through. I am still giving it a high rating though because it is a good book, but I definitely felt like I was not the audience for this book.

I started reading this book with no idea who Cornelius Van Til was. Keith Mathison really did a good job in the first part of the book talking about what Van Til believed without bringing in his own criticism. He saves that for part 2. In part 2, he presents his Biblical, Philosophical, Theological, Historical, and Practical concerns. Cornelius Van Til was confessionally Reformed just as Keith Mathison, but he was intent on developing a Reformed apologetics and argued that the traditional apologetics is flawed. Mathison argues why he failed at this and how his method is neither Reformed or Biblical.
I really loved a quote at the end by Mathison on developing a truly Reformed apologetics, "If we are going to develop an apologetics that is consistent with Reformed theology, we must develop an apologetics that conforms to what we find in Scripture. We cannot presuppose our apologetics and then read Scripture through that lens. We must start with what we actually find in Scripture and evaluate our apologetics in light of that."

The Reformation was all about getting back to the Word of God and conforming ourselves to Scripture. I loved that this was one of Mathison's reminders to be conforming our apologetics to Scripture and why Van Tils misses that. He had some very good critiques and I found the historical criticism helpful as well. Even though I went into this not knowing about Van Til, I still found it interesting. Part 2 was much easier for me to read through and I think it was in part with how part 1 is mainly what Van Til thought and some of that was very heady and confusing for me.

Thank you @christianfocuspublications for a copy of this book for my honest thoughts!

[Darren Maxfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this book was helpful. As someone that has not studied Van Til in depth I have the disadvantage of not learning about him from a more favorable perspective. But I thought this was a good introduction.

[Jake · Rating 5 out of 5]

Convincing.

[David Curtis · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was tremendously helpful in understanding why Van Till is so beloved (part 1), as well as why so many are critical of him (part 2).

The most powerful critiques for me were in regard to the antithesis. Mathison points out that since Van Till teaches common grace that results in true knowledge for unbelievers, why is a presuppositional apologetic necessary?
In addition, if the antithesis is true, and necessitates a presuppositional method of apologetics, why does scripture show Jesus, Moses, Paul, and others appealing to nature and evidences like miracles in order to appeal to the unbeliever?

I also appreciated how charitable Mathison was, while not holding back in presenting his concerns.

[Paul Hess · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book by Mathison. Clearly and coherently presents Van Til’s views and ably addresses the key points of tension.

I moved away from Van Tillianism even before reading this book, but whatever inclinations I had towards it were successfully squashed by this excellent book. Both Van Tillians and non Van Tillians would be well served by reading this book.

[Dale Hagwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a clear, well-written presentation of Van Til's approach to Reformed theology and Reformed apologetics. It provides careful analysis of both, as well as a thorough critique. A consistent element of Mathison's critique is Van Til's redefinition of Reformed theology. Mathison makes this point consistently across chapters. I found myself saying "Amen" to some of Mathison's practical concerns, one of which highlights the at times vitriolic nature debating apologetic methodology among Reformed people tends to be. Furthermore, I'm by no means a Vantillian and found myself in overall agreement with Mathison's assessment of Van Til's approach. Though I read a lot of Van Til before, during, and since seminary, I'm by no means a "Van Til Scholar" either. Thus, the overall helpfulness and accuracy of Mathison's representation of Van Til is left to the professionals. That said, I strongly appreciate and found myself heartily agreeing with Mathison throughout in his analysis and critiques.

Having said this, my reason for giving a 4 star is because of how frequently I was left with a sense of déjà vu. This sense isn't related to the repeated claims Mathison makes that Van Til's system is a redefinition of Reformed theology that's worth criticizing, if not outright rejecting. One thing Mathison's book seeks is to move the conversation forward between Vantillians and Non-Vantillians regarding the best apologetic method. Personally, I'm not sure how successful Mathison is in this. This book is only about two years old at the time of writing this review. The lasting impact of this book in moving the conversation on Reformed apologetics forward remains to be seen. This reality is especially true since much ink has already been spilled critiquing and defending Van Til. In many respects, I did feel as though I were reading Sproul's and Fesko's respective apologetic works again, even if the focus offers slight differences. This was a significant drawback to someone who loves reading about the debates. No doubt, however, the same or similar push back from Vantillians will persist: there is some failure of understanding Van Til on Mathison's part, willingly or unwillingly.

As mentioned, I agree in substance with Mathison's apologetic views and heartily welcome his critique. I believe Mathison does understand Van Til well. At the same time, whether Mathison's book meaningfully moves the apologetic conversation forward remains to be seen.

[Daniel Rowland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best critique of Van Til in print. Many critiques I’ve read are incomplete, inaccurate, or even derogatory. Mathison is charitable and scholarly. He demonstrates a strong understanding of Van Til’s philosophy in the first half of the book, something that Gerstner and Sproul were never able to do well. This is extremely helpful given how difficult it is to read and understand Van Til. In my opinion, the strongest point of critique was the section on Biblical concerns. Since Van Til’s premise is the authority of Scripture alone, it is a devastating blow to reveal in his works such lacking, dubitable exegesis and Scriptural support.

Mathison keeps the issues in perspective, is transparent in his motives, and is cogent in his reasoning. This is a well done critique.

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

The teachings of Cornelius Van Til have swallowed whole churches, seminaries, denominations. This is the beginning of a desperately needed corrective. I don't know how effective it will be (Van Til's disciples aren't known for their humility), but I pray it's a start.

Mathison is eminently fair toward Van Til and what he wrote and taught. Mathison explains Van Til's doctrine plainly and fully for a large chunk of this book before turning to critique. He himself is humble, yet unafraid to make the errors clear. A brave and worthwhile effort.

[Korinne Harkin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Super helpful!

[Aaron J. Gregas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent

[Ethan Montgomery · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book. I appreciated his charitable critique, but I often found it to be repetitive. That being said, the critiques are articulated well.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good! Charitable addition to an often tumultuous debate.