What do you think?
Rate this book
Common Grace and the Gospel
Restoring the full text of the original 1972 work, this collection of annotated essays addresses questions on common grace and its relevance to the gospel. A pioneer in presuppositional apologetics, Cornelius Van Til sets forth a Christian philosophy of history; examines the views of Abraham Kuyper, Herman Hoeksema, and others in the debate over common grace; and replies to criticism.
328 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
9 people are currently reading
200 people want to read
About the author
Cornelius Van Til
150 books122 followersCornelius Van Til, was a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist.
Biographical sketch
Born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, The Netherlands he was the sixth son of Ite and Klazina Van Til, who emigrated to the United States when "Kees," as he was known to friends, was 10. He grew up helping on the family farm in Highland, Indiana.
Van Til graduated from Calvin College in 1922, receiving a ThM from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1925 and his PhD from Princeton University in 1927. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics.
He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in which, according to John Frame, neither man was at his best and neither quite understood the other's position.
Van Til's thought
Van Til is perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more consistently Christian methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Source: Theopedia
Biographical sketch
Born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, The Netherlands he was the sixth son of Ite and Klazina Van Til, who emigrated to the United States when "Kees," as he was known to friends, was 10. He grew up helping on the family farm in Highland, Indiana.
Van Til graduated from Calvin College in 1922, receiving a ThM from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1925 and his PhD from Princeton University in 1927. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics.
He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in which, according to John Frame, neither man was at his best and neither quite understood the other's position.
Van Til's thought
Van Til is perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more consistently Christian methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Source: Theopedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
November 1, 2016
Summary: A collection of essays by presuppositional theologian Van Til with introduction and annotations by K. Scott Oliphint, articulating Van Til's understanding of a Reformed doctrine of common grace, engaging views of others in this tradition that differ from his own.
Cornelius Van Til represents a stream within the Reformed theological tradition known as presuppositionalism. At the risk of oversimplifying, this stream contends that it is impossible to argue from human reason to the existence of the Triune God and the authority of the Bible as God's revelation. Van Til would contend rather that it is by these realities, revealed by the witness of the Spirit alone to the elect, that it is possible to understand everything else about God, about human beings made in God's image, God's work in the world and through Christ, and the destiny of both the saved and the lost.
Common grace is often advanced as a counter to these ideas, that there are things that may be known of God common to the experience of all human beings. In part, the appeal of this is a response to the Reformed idea that God saves some, and not others, simply by his sovereign will, apart from human choice. It allows that humans may contribute something to their salvation, or alternately their damnation on the basis of this knowledge--an idea held in various ways in both Wesleyan and Roman Catholic circles.
In this collection of essays, recently re-issued with a quite helpful introduction to the thought of Van Til by editor K. Scott Oliphint, a student of Van Til, we have a chance to see the arguments against this idea, consistent with Van Til's presuppositionalism. Van Til would argue, as I understand him, that common grace is simply God's love for all human kind made in his image before the fall. After the fall, this "knowledge of God" is something fallen human beings suppress as they assert their own autonomy. The assertion of autonomy fundamentally shapes how we know, or epistemology such that we can know neither God, nor his world or purposes, apart from the sovereign grace extended to the elect in salvation. Van Til would go so far as to say that even in supposedly "neutral" fields of science, for example, the different ways of knowing of autonomous man versus the elect rule out a "common ground" around common grace.
In these essays, it is interesting that while he clearly sees his own position as consistent with the Reformed tradition over and against the Wesleyan (Arminian) or Catholic positions, his criticism is actually most pointed toward others in the Reformed tradition from Kuyper to Barth to Bavinck to Hoeksema. A common criticism is that while they affirm Reformed orthodoxy, they open the door to rationalism in their view of common grace and undermine the sovereign grace of the gospel.
Reading all this has a bit of a feeling of listening to arguments from another time, although I am well aware of those in the Reformed tradition who continue to be vociferous in their advocacy. Yet there are several things I appreciate in Van Til. One is an unwillingness to try to rationalize some of the very concrete language of scripture around these things in ways that minimize logical conflict. Another is a sensitivity to how both Greek and Enlightenment thought often creep into theological formulations. Furthermore, as this bears on the work of the apologist, I, like Van Til, have found that rational proofs for God largely confirmatory for Christians but unhelpful, apart from the witness of the Spirit in engaging those who do not believe. The question of what might be called "incommensurable epistemologies" seems more challenging. In many discussions, it does seem like there is a certain amount of common ground, as well as incommensurable aspects. How, theologically, do we account for both?
This is a collection of essays, which means that there is overlap (probably helpful in understanding Van Til) as well as engagements with particular thinkers, many who may be unfamiliar to the reader, although Oliphint's annotations help. The most engaging for me was Chapter 6, "A Letter on Common Grace" in which Van Til lays out his ideas of common grace while engaging his critics.
For those who are not sympathetic to the Reformed tradition, it is easy to dismiss a thinker like Van Til. But his influence extends to the present through theologians like John Frame, and the late Francis Schaeffer as well as in the work of many in Reformed seminaries across the country. It is a perspective that would inform the thinking of many in The Gospel Coalition. Reading Van Til reminds me of the continuing challenge of thinking clearly and living consistently with "the faith once delivered" and yet living with grace and compassion toward all. I know little of his personal life and ministry but I miss the latter in this example of Van Til's writing. Conviction and compassion are hard to hold together, yet those who follow the Christ who came full of grace and truth (John 1:14) are called to no less.
______________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher via Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
Cornelius Van Til represents a stream within the Reformed theological tradition known as presuppositionalism. At the risk of oversimplifying, this stream contends that it is impossible to argue from human reason to the existence of the Triune God and the authority of the Bible as God's revelation. Van Til would contend rather that it is by these realities, revealed by the witness of the Spirit alone to the elect, that it is possible to understand everything else about God, about human beings made in God's image, God's work in the world and through Christ, and the destiny of both the saved and the lost.
Common grace is often advanced as a counter to these ideas, that there are things that may be known of God common to the experience of all human beings. In part, the appeal of this is a response to the Reformed idea that God saves some, and not others, simply by his sovereign will, apart from human choice. It allows that humans may contribute something to their salvation, or alternately their damnation on the basis of this knowledge--an idea held in various ways in both Wesleyan and Roman Catholic circles.
In this collection of essays, recently re-issued with a quite helpful introduction to the thought of Van Til by editor K. Scott Oliphint, a student of Van Til, we have a chance to see the arguments against this idea, consistent with Van Til's presuppositionalism. Van Til would argue, as I understand him, that common grace is simply God's love for all human kind made in his image before the fall. After the fall, this "knowledge of God" is something fallen human beings suppress as they assert their own autonomy. The assertion of autonomy fundamentally shapes how we know, or epistemology such that we can know neither God, nor his world or purposes, apart from the sovereign grace extended to the elect in salvation. Van Til would go so far as to say that even in supposedly "neutral" fields of science, for example, the different ways of knowing of autonomous man versus the elect rule out a "common ground" around common grace.
In these essays, it is interesting that while he clearly sees his own position as consistent with the Reformed tradition over and against the Wesleyan (Arminian) or Catholic positions, his criticism is actually most pointed toward others in the Reformed tradition from Kuyper to Barth to Bavinck to Hoeksema. A common criticism is that while they affirm Reformed orthodoxy, they open the door to rationalism in their view of common grace and undermine the sovereign grace of the gospel.
Reading all this has a bit of a feeling of listening to arguments from another time, although I am well aware of those in the Reformed tradition who continue to be vociferous in their advocacy. Yet there are several things I appreciate in Van Til. One is an unwillingness to try to rationalize some of the very concrete language of scripture around these things in ways that minimize logical conflict. Another is a sensitivity to how both Greek and Enlightenment thought often creep into theological formulations. Furthermore, as this bears on the work of the apologist, I, like Van Til, have found that rational proofs for God largely confirmatory for Christians but unhelpful, apart from the witness of the Spirit in engaging those who do not believe. The question of what might be called "incommensurable epistemologies" seems more challenging. In many discussions, it does seem like there is a certain amount of common ground, as well as incommensurable aspects. How, theologically, do we account for both?
This is a collection of essays, which means that there is overlap (probably helpful in understanding Van Til) as well as engagements with particular thinkers, many who may be unfamiliar to the reader, although Oliphint's annotations help. The most engaging for me was Chapter 6, "A Letter on Common Grace" in which Van Til lays out his ideas of common grace while engaging his critics.
For those who are not sympathetic to the Reformed tradition, it is easy to dismiss a thinker like Van Til. But his influence extends to the present through theologians like John Frame, and the late Francis Schaeffer as well as in the work of many in Reformed seminaries across the country. It is a perspective that would inform the thinking of many in The Gospel Coalition. Reading Van Til reminds me of the continuing challenge of thinking clearly and living consistently with "the faith once delivered" and yet living with grace and compassion toward all. I know little of his personal life and ministry but I miss the latter in this example of Van Til's writing. Conviction and compassion are hard to hold together, yet those who follow the Christ who came full of grace and truth (John 1:14) are called to no less.
______________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher via Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
September 19, 2014
Gary North said this is one of Van Til's worst books. I think it is one of his best--and largely for the same reason North thinks it is bad. More on that later.
While much of the book has common Van Tilism's, he does break new ground. The larger context is the Dutch-American debate on common grace, of which I do not know enough to speak. I will list some of the high points:
Metaphysically, we have all things in common with the unregenerate. Epistemologically, we do not.
With Klaas Schilder we see the importance of thinking historically and concretely. Common grace shows us the importance of seeing historical development and progression (31).
Danger of Abstract Thinking
Kuyper: all creation-ordinances are subject to the will of God (35). Kuyper was unclear on the relation between universal/particular.
1. universals themselves exist as a system. They are organically related to one another. But how can they be related to one another and still remain universals? Whenever universals “overlap,” they begin to admit of “change,” which seems to deny what a universal is. This was Plato’s problem.
2. Plato ascribes the transition between universals as “chance.”
The Christian can begin to allow for transitions between universals because the universals are ascribed to the counsel of God. No abstract staticism and no abstract change.
3. Therefore, the Christian reasons analogically with respect to these relations between facts. Facts never exist as facts; they always exist as facts-in-relation (and this is where Hegel did have correct insight). Reasoning analogically, if the being and self-consciousness of the ontological Trinity are coterminous, may we not also say that facts and universals are correlative in the counsel of God (40).
Positive Line of Concrete Thinking
Even prelapsarian man was confronted with positive revelation. God walked and talked with him.
1. Natural revelation is a limiting concept. It has never existed by itself as far as man is concerned.
2. To insist that man’s relation with God is covenantal is to say that man deals with the personal God everywhere.
3. After the common comes the conditional; history is the process of differentiation. It is a common-ness for the time being (74).
3a. The offer comes generally so that history may have differentiation.
3b. Per Platonism, the conditional can have no real meaning.
Interestingly, Van TIl says he does not reject Old Princeton’s epistemology; simply it’s apologetics (155).
SUmmary of Van Til’s Position contra critics (158-159):
1. all facts in the unvierse are exhaustively revelational of God.
2. This is true of the environment, nature, and history.
3. This is true of man’s constitution (perhaps there is a correlation with Reid’s belief-creating mechanism).
4. All men unavoidably know God.
4a. natural knowledge and sense of morality are not common grace. They are the presuppositionof Common grace
4b. The “starting point” is not the absolute ethical antithesis, but rather the imago dei.
4.b.1. This image contains actual knowledge-content.
4.b.2 Protestantism is a matter of restoring man to his true ethical relation.
5. The immediate testimony of the spirit has to terminate on man. It has to be mediated to man through man’s own consciousness (178).
6. The Antithesis is ethical, not metaphysical.
6a. The Romanist (and others) cannot really grasp this point because on the chain of being there are only gradations, not separations.
The Image of God in Man
Kuyper: image in wider sense is the essence of man, which remains unfallen. The image in the narrower sense consists of true righteousness, knowledge, and holiness. It can be lost/marred/defaced.
Does this distinction really work? Is the “narrower” sense so loosely/accidentally related to man that it can be lost without effecting that image at all? This looks a lot like donum superadditum.
This is what happens when we use concepts like “essence” and “Nature” loosely.
The image must be used in an analogical sense (205).
each concept must be subject to the whole of the revelation of God.
While much of the book has common Van Tilism's, he does break new ground. The larger context is the Dutch-American debate on common grace, of which I do not know enough to speak. I will list some of the high points:
Metaphysically, we have all things in common with the unregenerate. Epistemologically, we do not.
With Klaas Schilder we see the importance of thinking historically and concretely. Common grace shows us the importance of seeing historical development and progression (31).
Danger of Abstract Thinking
Kuyper: all creation-ordinances are subject to the will of God (35). Kuyper was unclear on the relation between universal/particular.
1. universals themselves exist as a system. They are organically related to one another. But how can they be related to one another and still remain universals? Whenever universals “overlap,” they begin to admit of “change,” which seems to deny what a universal is. This was Plato’s problem.
2. Plato ascribes the transition between universals as “chance.”
The Christian can begin to allow for transitions between universals because the universals are ascribed to the counsel of God. No abstract staticism and no abstract change.
3. Therefore, the Christian reasons analogically with respect to these relations between facts. Facts never exist as facts; they always exist as facts-in-relation (and this is where Hegel did have correct insight). Reasoning analogically, if the being and self-consciousness of the ontological Trinity are coterminous, may we not also say that facts and universals are correlative in the counsel of God (40).
Positive Line of Concrete Thinking
Even prelapsarian man was confronted with positive revelation. God walked and talked with him.
1. Natural revelation is a limiting concept. It has never existed by itself as far as man is concerned.
2. To insist that man’s relation with God is covenantal is to say that man deals with the personal God everywhere.
3. After the common comes the conditional; history is the process of differentiation. It is a common-ness for the time being (74).
3a. The offer comes generally so that history may have differentiation.
3b. Per Platonism, the conditional can have no real meaning.
Interestingly, Van TIl says he does not reject Old Princeton’s epistemology; simply it’s apologetics (155).
SUmmary of Van Til’s Position contra critics (158-159):
1. all facts in the unvierse are exhaustively revelational of God.
2. This is true of the environment, nature, and history.
3. This is true of man’s constitution (perhaps there is a correlation with Reid’s belief-creating mechanism).
4. All men unavoidably know God.
4a. natural knowledge and sense of morality are not common grace. They are the presuppositionof Common grace
4b. The “starting point” is not the absolute ethical antithesis, but rather the imago dei.
4.b.1. This image contains actual knowledge-content.
4.b.2 Protestantism is a matter of restoring man to his true ethical relation.
5. The immediate testimony of the spirit has to terminate on man. It has to be mediated to man through man’s own consciousness (178).
6. The Antithesis is ethical, not metaphysical.
6a. The Romanist (and others) cannot really grasp this point because on the chain of being there are only gradations, not separations.
The Image of God in Man
Kuyper: image in wider sense is the essence of man, which remains unfallen. The image in the narrower sense consists of true righteousness, knowledge, and holiness. It can be lost/marred/defaced.
Does this distinction really work? Is the “narrower” sense so loosely/accidentally related to man that it can be lost without effecting that image at all? This looks a lot like donum superadditum.
This is what happens when we use concepts like “essence” and “Nature” loosely.
The image must be used in an analogical sense (205).
each concept must be subject to the whole of the revelation of God.
July 16, 2016
This book is a collection of various essays by Reformed apologist and theologian Cornelius Van Til on the topic of common grace. The writings found in this book spans twenty five years of Van Til’s teaching career. By common grace we mean God’s unmerited favor shown both towards the believer and nonbeliever. The subject of common grace has been a topic of no small debate in Reformed circles in the twentieth century (and carries over to the twenty-first century as well). How the doctrine of common grace is understood or even rejected has implications for other areas of theology beyond the attributes of God such as the area of evangelism, apologetics, and one’s theological view of culture. Here is Van Til’s contribution to the discussion gathered conveniently in one book.
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK
The book is divided into two parts with nine chapters. The first three chapters made up part one with part two consisting of six chapters. Part one looks at the development of the doctrine of Common Grace while part two deals more with Common Grace in relations to the Gospel (the book actually doesn’t say). The first chapter covers the Christian philosophy of history which Van Til situates the debate on common grace from the perspective that one needs a biblical philosophy of history going into the debate in order for it to make sense. The second chapter survey the doctrine of Common Grace in the theology of Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper while the third chapter goes over recent debate and Van Til’s own suggestion to move the discussion forward. In chapter four Van Til discusses about Common Grace in relations to Particular Redemption while chapter five looks at Common Grace and the Christian duty of witness-bearing. From chapters six to eight Van Til interact with others in a more ad hoc fashion such as his reply to criticisms and also further critique of Herman Hoeksema’s objection to common grace. The final chapter is Van Til’s final considerations.
STRENGTH
• For those who want to have a quick historical survey of the discussion the second and third chapter is very helpful.
• Van Til’s suggestions for the future is helpful back then as well as now. I love how he makes the point that one should not just see common grace as a “lower” form of grace as opposed to special saving grace which is “higher;” rather we should also consider the fact that common grace ihas its commonness from the fact that it is an “earlier” grace before the appearance of salvific grace. I also thought it was a wonderful insight that Van Til made of how common grace with the unfolding of history will gradually diminish until finally eternal judgment has been given.
• Van Til has many quotable moments in the book. In deed those who have studied Presuppositional apologetics for some time will instantly recognized some of Van Til’s classic quotes on apologetics and theology has its origin in this book.
• Van Til’s discussion shows how theology is interdependent. Van Til goes from discussion of philosophy of facts to doctrines of revelation and God’s sovereignty. I am reminded of how theology and the various theological disciplines are all inter-related.
WEAKNESS
• Since the book is a collection of various essays on common grace it did not feel as systematic as it should be in its presentation. The nine chapters varied in its origin as pamphlets, articles for theological journals and appendix to Van Til’s class syllabus.
• I wished Van Til was more exegetical and explicitly biblical. Don’t get me wrong Van Til’s work is driven by biblical doctrines but for the most part he assumes his readers already grant the truth of a lot of doctrines already. Here is where I must say that I appreciate John Frame’s discussion of the biblical texts for common grace in his Doctrine of God.
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK
The book is divided into two parts with nine chapters. The first three chapters made up part one with part two consisting of six chapters. Part one looks at the development of the doctrine of Common Grace while part two deals more with Common Grace in relations to the Gospel (the book actually doesn’t say). The first chapter covers the Christian philosophy of history which Van Til situates the debate on common grace from the perspective that one needs a biblical philosophy of history going into the debate in order for it to make sense. The second chapter survey the doctrine of Common Grace in the theology of Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper while the third chapter goes over recent debate and Van Til’s own suggestion to move the discussion forward. In chapter four Van Til discusses about Common Grace in relations to Particular Redemption while chapter five looks at Common Grace and the Christian duty of witness-bearing. From chapters six to eight Van Til interact with others in a more ad hoc fashion such as his reply to criticisms and also further critique of Herman Hoeksema’s objection to common grace. The final chapter is Van Til’s final considerations.
STRENGTH
• For those who want to have a quick historical survey of the discussion the second and third chapter is very helpful.
• Van Til’s suggestions for the future is helpful back then as well as now. I love how he makes the point that one should not just see common grace as a “lower” form of grace as opposed to special saving grace which is “higher;” rather we should also consider the fact that common grace ihas its commonness from the fact that it is an “earlier” grace before the appearance of salvific grace. I also thought it was a wonderful insight that Van Til made of how common grace with the unfolding of history will gradually diminish until finally eternal judgment has been given.
• Van Til has many quotable moments in the book. In deed those who have studied Presuppositional apologetics for some time will instantly recognized some of Van Til’s classic quotes on apologetics and theology has its origin in this book.
• Van Til’s discussion shows how theology is interdependent. Van Til goes from discussion of philosophy of facts to doctrines of revelation and God’s sovereignty. I am reminded of how theology and the various theological disciplines are all inter-related.
WEAKNESS
• Since the book is a collection of various essays on common grace it did not feel as systematic as it should be in its presentation. The nine chapters varied in its origin as pamphlets, articles for theological journals and appendix to Van Til’s class syllabus.
• I wished Van Til was more exegetical and explicitly biblical. Don’t get me wrong Van Til’s work is driven by biblical doctrines but for the most part he assumes his readers already grant the truth of a lot of doctrines already. Here is where I must say that I appreciate John Frame’s discussion of the biblical texts for common grace in his Doctrine of God.
December 6, 2021
Van Til engages those within the reformed tradition that deny CG (Houksema is primarily in focus), along with those that do hold to a form of CG, but with epistemic/apologetic consequences Van Til wishes to avoid (Kuyper and Bavinck - both of whom allow for a degree of neutrality). Van Til is wonderfully thorough and evidences why such doctrines have significant consequences in other academic and doctrinal areas.
Read
June 3, 2020Very important.
December 11, 2023
It’s no secret that the Reformers often interacted with the Medievals not through direct sources but through intermediaries. You didn’t need to read Augustine and Aquinas to disagree with them when you could just read why someone else disagreed with them. My interaction with Van Til has been very similar. Most of what I know of Van Til is through reading Kline, Poythress, Grudem, and Frame. This may be my first actual interaction with Van Til in his own pen, and it felt like an incredibly long diss-track on Dutch NeoCalvinism.
In this collection of essays, Van Til sets out to track his view of Common Grace. Van Til particularly sets his ideas on the subject against the Dutch theologians like Hoekema, Bavink, and Kuyper. Obviously Van Til is a household name in Reformed Theology and for good reason, his brilliance is evident. However, I don’t know how much of an actual issue this controversy actually is. At times it feels like Van Til is arguing semantics.
Not to mention, the fact that many of the Dutch works Van Til is interacting with weren’t yet translated into English and many of the authors were dead and couldn’t defend themselves. If people wanted to interact with what Van Til was disagreeing with, they’d have to go and learn Dutch. In light of the recent rediscovery of Dutch NeoCalvinism in American Reformed circles, I think it would be very interesting for this work to be republished into today’s Reformed Academy.
At the end of the day, I just don’t think Van Till actually offers substantive insights beyond what Kuyper or Bavink have already expressed, or how distinct his ideas are from those of American scholars like Hodge and Alexander in their interpretations of Common Grace. This work would serve as a great introduction to the Reformed view of Common Grace. However, I wouldn't recommend it to lay readers due to its unnecessarily academic nature. I also wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who isn’t actively engaged with the works of Bavink, Kuyper, and Hoekema.
In this collection of essays, Van Til sets out to track his view of Common Grace. Van Til particularly sets his ideas on the subject against the Dutch theologians like Hoekema, Bavink, and Kuyper. Obviously Van Til is a household name in Reformed Theology and for good reason, his brilliance is evident. However, I don’t know how much of an actual issue this controversy actually is. At times it feels like Van Til is arguing semantics.
Not to mention, the fact that many of the Dutch works Van Til is interacting with weren’t yet translated into English and many of the authors were dead and couldn’t defend themselves. If people wanted to interact with what Van Til was disagreeing with, they’d have to go and learn Dutch. In light of the recent rediscovery of Dutch NeoCalvinism in American Reformed circles, I think it would be very interesting for this work to be republished into today’s Reformed Academy.
At the end of the day, I just don’t think Van Till actually offers substantive insights beyond what Kuyper or Bavink have already expressed, or how distinct his ideas are from those of American scholars like Hodge and Alexander in their interpretations of Common Grace. This work would serve as a great introduction to the Reformed view of Common Grace. However, I wouldn't recommend it to lay readers due to its unnecessarily academic nature. I also wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who isn’t actively engaged with the works of Bavink, Kuyper, and Hoekema.
October 16, 2020
First time reading Cornelius Van Til. It took me back to philosophy classes where I would read a dozen pages and realize I had understood very little of what was written.
This is a collection of writings on the theme of common grace with brief commentary from a former student of Van Til. The forward and comments are very helpful.
Van Til is trying to propose a third way of viewing common grace among two other Reformed alternatives. He argues for the reality of common grace while rejecting any notion of neutrality in the world. Common grace is actually grace towards believers and nonbelievers.
I was not expecting as much relating to epistemology and apologetics. There is a lot of groundwork that is laid for Van Til to present his position. The other challenge is he is interacting with earlier and contemporary individuals, and one needs to understand the ideas, vocabulary, and theology of the times to follow well.
This is a collection of writings on the theme of common grace with brief commentary from a former student of Van Til. The forward and comments are very helpful.
Van Til is trying to propose a third way of viewing common grace among two other Reformed alternatives. He argues for the reality of common grace while rejecting any notion of neutrality in the world. Common grace is actually grace towards believers and nonbelievers.
I was not expecting as much relating to epistemology and apologetics. There is a lot of groundwork that is laid for Van Til to present his position. The other challenge is he is interacting with earlier and contemporary individuals, and one needs to understand the ideas, vocabulary, and theology of the times to follow well.
November 3, 2020
First foray into Van Til—whee! I understand why most laypeople don’t make the attempt. But they SHOULD. Because lessons of the character and nature of God emerge differently from faithful scholars of epistemology, cosmology, and teleology, and our “with legs” knowledge (turn your stewing into doing) in our Christian lives finds a steadier foot launch. Devotional and encouragements drive your pace, systematic theology and dogmatics define your path, but endeavors like Van Til give you the advanced running technique to plant each foot firmly/properly/optimally along the path.
Winning nod in this tome goes not to particular chapter, but two concepts in close enough importance and impact that I’ll consider it a tie: ontological trinity and fearless anthropomorphism. Sneaking suspicion I’m going to need to up the bar for what qualifies for “mind blown” status with Van Til.
Winning nod in this tome goes not to particular chapter, but two concepts in close enough importance and impact that I’ll consider it a tie: ontological trinity and fearless anthropomorphism. Sneaking suspicion I’m going to need to up the bar for what qualifies for “mind blown” status with Van Til.
August 12, 2023
BRAIN HURTS.
This was, by far, the most difficult Van Til I've gotten through, evidenced by the fact that its sat on my "in progress" shelf for 2 months because I dreaded picking it up every time. I tried my best to finish it today, with only 70 pages left, and I ended up being bored to tears and falling asleep. Finally, it's over.
It's not that the book is bad, but the subject matter feels incredibly difficult to grasp, but I think that is because of Van Til's difficult presentation of issues. As much as I wanted to enjoy this book (and I did enjoy bits and pieces), it was rough reading for me. Probably because of LBS (little brain syndrome).
This was, by far, the most difficult Van Til I've gotten through, evidenced by the fact that its sat on my "in progress" shelf for 2 months because I dreaded picking it up every time. I tried my best to finish it today, with only 70 pages left, and I ended up being bored to tears and falling asleep. Finally, it's over.
It's not that the book is bad, but the subject matter feels incredibly difficult to grasp, but I think that is because of Van Til's difficult presentation of issues. As much as I wanted to enjoy this book (and I did enjoy bits and pieces), it was rough reading for me. Probably because of LBS (little brain syndrome).
January 25, 2021
I think the theme of common grace is an important one to study and be aware of in the midst of current conversations on the relationship between science and theology, especially in regards to whether there is common ground between the Christian & nonChristian in the area of reason. However, I believe there are better books on the subject by better writers. I found Van Till difficult to follow and stay interested in. That said, I do appreciate his knowledge of Bavinck, Kuyper, and the Old Princetonians. He provided helpful critique of all three.
August 14, 2025
A great collection of essays to read for anyone who wants clarification on Van Tillianism and what his exact stance is on the idea of “no neutral ground” with the non believer. Tough I read because he’s quite a static writer, but I found myself understanding his thought much better after this, likely because it is polemical, would recommend over his systematic or defending the faith if one wants to read a clarification on his thought.
July 17, 2017
Chapter four is the best, very readible, lucid and relevant.
December 27, 2019
Really helpful if you want to understand Van Til's thought a little more deeply, especially how he interprets biblical paradoxes and his philosophy of history and it's apologetic implications.
August 26, 2020
Considering the source, shocking I could actually understand what he said
September 25, 2015
Those who are in the reformed circles for some time, will quickly be aware of the importance of Cornelius Van Til. And If you have dabble into various works by the students of Van Til (Frame, Oliphint, etc), you would often see them refer to this work by Van Til. However, you would quickly realised that this book was last published in the 1970s, that is until now.
P&R Publishing has very recently republished this very title, and so I eagerly picked up this book to read and review it. This book has been one of the most enlightening and thought-provoking book on common grace I have read so far. 7 to 49
K. Scott Oliphint has written an excellent forward for this book that alone is worth the price of the book. The forward is around 40 pages, which spells out clearly what the Van Til will address within the book. For any readers who intends to read this book, it is recommended that you do not skip the forward. Instead take time to read through the forward which will be a sure guide for the book.
As the readers of the book will quickly see, Van Til is addressing what he sees to be incorrect understanding of common grace by Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, Schilder and Herman Hoeksema. As compared to other writings by Van Til, this is surprisingly very readable. What one will take away from reading this book is how Van Til desires to remain faithful to the Word of God, not matter what. He is willingly to disagree when scripture shows clearly that they are wrong.
Well this book is surprisingly readable as compared to Van Til’s some other book, it can be difficult to follow at times. But for those who reflect deeply on what Van Til has written, they will benefit much from this valuable volume.
Recommended for those who wants to have a good understanding of common grace, however this book is not meant to be an introduction to those who are unfamiliar to the topic. Seminary students or avid fans of Van Til will find this volume to be extremely rewarding.
Rating: 5 / 5
Disclaimer: I was given this book free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review
P&R Publishing has very recently republished this very title, and so I eagerly picked up this book to read and review it. This book has been one of the most enlightening and thought-provoking book on common grace I have read so far. 7 to 49
K. Scott Oliphint has written an excellent forward for this book that alone is worth the price of the book. The forward is around 40 pages, which spells out clearly what the Van Til will address within the book. For any readers who intends to read this book, it is recommended that you do not skip the forward. Instead take time to read through the forward which will be a sure guide for the book.
As the readers of the book will quickly see, Van Til is addressing what he sees to be incorrect understanding of common grace by Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, Schilder and Herman Hoeksema. As compared to other writings by Van Til, this is surprisingly very readable. What one will take away from reading this book is how Van Til desires to remain faithful to the Word of God, not matter what. He is willingly to disagree when scripture shows clearly that they are wrong.
Well this book is surprisingly readable as compared to Van Til’s some other book, it can be difficult to follow at times. But for those who reflect deeply on what Van Til has written, they will benefit much from this valuable volume.
Recommended for those who wants to have a good understanding of common grace, however this book is not meant to be an introduction to those who are unfamiliar to the topic. Seminary students or avid fans of Van Til will find this volume to be extremely rewarding.
Rating: 5 / 5
Disclaimer: I was given this book free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review
September 11, 2018
Gained a lot from this book. Pretty heavy read, got bogged down a few times but well worth the time.
The books is a collection of Cornelius Van Til's writings on the topic of Common Grace. Many are responses to other articles or letters written by theologians with different perspectives.
The footnotes of this specific version are helpful in some areas, and frankly redundant in others.
The books is a collection of Cornelius Van Til's writings on the topic of Common Grace. Many are responses to other articles or letters written by theologians with different perspectives.
The footnotes of this specific version are helpful in some areas, and frankly redundant in others.
Read
June 14, 2013Retarded.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews