Van Til: o homem e o mito

by John W. Robbins, Felipe Sabino de Araújo Neto (Translator)

Em círculos presbiterianos conservadores o nome Cornelius Van Til é quase tão conhecido quanto o de João Calvino. Professor de teologia e apologética por 45 anos no Seminário Teológico de Westminster, o dr. Van Til ganhou uma reputação de ser um teólogo de ortodoxia inquestionável, originalidade deslumbrante e profundidade impressionantes. Mas Van Til não parece muito ortodoxo em algumas doutrinas importantes; ele é mais confuso do que profundo e suas ideias originais são quase totalmente falsas. Este livreto lida com as suas próprias palavras.

Genres: Theology, Biography

53 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 1, 1986

About the author

Dr. Robbins was a resident of Unicoi County, Tennessee. Born and reared in Pennsylvania, he received his A. B. from Grove City College (Pennsylvania) in 1969, cum laude, with Highest Honors in Political Science. He pursued graduate studies at The Johns Hopkins University (Maryland), earning his Masters in Political Theory (1970) at age 21, and his Doctorate in Philosophy and Political Theory (1973) at age 24.

In 1973 Dr. Robbins became Legislative Assistant to a Member of Congress from Indiana, Earl Landgrebe, and subsequently worked, over the next 20 years, in several capacities for several public policy institutions: The Heritage Foundation (Economic Analyst), The Templeton Foundation (Consultant), Western Islands (Editor), Tax Reform Immediately (National Director), The Foundation for Economic Education (Editor of The Freeman), and The Institute for Policy Innovation (President). He served as Legislative Assistant (1976, 1979-1981) and Chief of Staff (1981-1985) to a Member of Congress from Texas, Dr. Ron Paul.

In 1977 Dr. Robbins founded a Christian think tank, The Trinity Foundation, and under his direction The Foundation has published 75 books, 180 lectures, and 275 essays; hosted conferences and seminars in several states; and published a monthly newsletter for over 30 years.

Dr. Robbins wrote several books, hundreds of essays, and lectured or taught at several institutions of higher education, including Harvard University, the University of Colorado, the University of Texas, Biola University, College of the Southwest, Western Reformed Seminary, and Chesapeake Seminary. He was a member of two academic societies, the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

Dr. Robbins was elected and ordained Elder in the Presbyterian Church of America, and licensed to preach by Westminster Presbytery, but he left that denomination because of its failure to discipline teachers who were teaching a different gospel. He was an elder in a Reformed congregation called Reformation Church.

Reviews

[Jimmy]

I think this booklet's critique of Van Til was very sloppy. Robbins could have done better. I'm hoping that Lord willing, I will be able to write a response to some of the things he said. I've looked up some of his references from Introduction to Systematic Theology and I'm not impressed from his misquote of Van Til.

In essence, a lot of issues were more peripherals such as "Van Til is really not a presuppositionalist" (in the Clarkian sense), Van Til is for evidence,people don't understand him but they 'worship' him, etc. The real serious charge against Van Til by the author is that Van Til denies the Trinity. But reading the context of what Robbins quoted from Van Til, Van Til clearly uphold the orthodox historical Trinity. One wonders if Robbins is out with an ax to grind with how uncharitable he is.

Stay tuned for in a couple of months from now, I will give links in this review Lord willing, which will show some of Robbin's error and misquote of Van Til. There is a lot on my plate right now as a Seminary student, ministry, work and my own independent studies.

[Robert Murphy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow. Just ... wow. This guy needed to just wear a sandwich board that said, "I'm with Clark and Van Til is a piece of sh*t." That would've saved the ink of printing and my time of reading. Please let me save you time. This book is not a constructive criticism, it is a vindictive slur. I am open to criticism of Van Til but this is just venom masquerading as critique. Don't bother, even with just 40 pages.

[Tiago Sousa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uma crítica voraz ao pensamento vantiliano.

[Timothy Nichols · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've profited from both Clark and Van Til, and haven't ever looked into the controversy between them. This booklet was not a great place to start. If Robbins is correct theologically and historically, then his acerbic tone is probably justified. For me that remains to be seen, so at present the overall effect is of reading a partisan tract. On the bright side, Robbins supplies plentiful citations. A well-documented partisan tract can be a useful tool.

[Fabrício Tavares De Moraes · Rating 3 out of 5]

A leitura de Van Til é intelectualmente insalubre não somente pelas terminologias, sentenças e axiomas obscuros, mas pela tentativa, romântica talvez, de se conceber como o teólogo-filósofo mais original do século XX, o que inevitavelmente faz dele um 'profeta sem ira', um pensador menor valendo-se de bravatas de gigantes. Tal tradução provavelmente causará a ojeriza e a condenação veemente de seus adeptos; sem dúvida, há um quê de proselitismo clarkiano na escrita de Robbins, mas, em essência, suas acusações não são injustificadas. Van Til é o arquétipo do pensamento simbólico que se quer conceitual; da pena poética que se concebe como filosófica. Fruto da falta de clareza moderna e raiz do irracionalismo cristão do século XXI, o mito 'Cornelius Van Til' é literalmente a definição poética de Fernando Pessoa: 'o nada que é tudo'.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A STRONG CRITIQUE OF THE WESTMINSTER PROFESSOR

Author John W. Robbins wrote in this 1986 booklet, “Over the past 45 years a myth has evolved about a theologian in Philadelphia who has singlehandedly defeated the forces of intellectual darkness, a thinker so profound and so orthodox that he is nothing less than a new Copernicus. In this essay I intend to examine this myth and the man behind it, Professor Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Theological Seminary. Professor Van Til is the object of fierce loyalty and reference by many of his students… One of its consequences is an almost total lack of critical discussion of Van Til’s distinctive ideas… If Professor Van Til were all his disciples believe him to be, there would be good reason for the reverence… this writer would be among the first to join his entourage of admirers. But there is a discontinuity between the man and the myth… I shall examine and explain several aspects of his work… it will be seen that he fails to meet scriptural standards for Christian teachers, and in at least two cases, he makes such serious errors that heresy is the only appropriate word to describe his lifelong teaching about God and the Bible.”

He states, “Anyone familiar with the writings of Professor Van Til knows that he had done very little exegesis of Scripture in them. Van Til himself confessed this failure in this regard… The vacuum in his books where exegesis of Scripture should have been found was filled by Van Til’s mistaken representations of philosophers and theologians and his criticisms of their writings… he makes some elementary blunders as an historian of philosophy.” (Pg. 8)

He explains, “Dr. Gordon H. Clark, who taught philosophy for sixty years, wrote that ‘there are historical inaccuracies in Dr. Van Til’s treatment of philosophy.’ The inaccuracies are not merely in interpretation of philosophers… but in representing what the philosophers themselves wrote. They are elementary errors, and there are many more than the two I have mentioned here as examples. Van Til the historian of philosophy does not quite measure up to the legendary Van Til.” (Pg. 11)

He quotes Van Til as saying, “We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person… And even within the ontological Trinity we must maintain that God is numerically one… He takes great pains to make it clear that he rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, one God in three persons, as ‘not the whole truth of the matter.’ God is both one person and three persons, just as his existence both can and cannot be proved… To my knowledge no theologian before Van Til taught that God is both one person and three persons in the same sense. This… ought to be clearly and decisively condemned by the church. At best, Van Til’s unorthodox view of the Trinity is a novelty, and a false one at that… There is good reason that exegesis is lacking in Van Til… Scripture does not support their views. If it were true that ‘Scripture doe refer to God as one person’ and also as three persons, there would be a major contradiction at the heart of Christianity, and it would therefore be false.” (Pg. 19-21)

He asserts, “Kone of Van Til’s disciples, John Frame, has understood that Van Tillianism demands radically new formulations of Christian doctrine. But no one has yet had the courage to tell us exactly how orthodoxy and the Westminster Confession must be changed to conform to Van Tillianism. Perhaps when they do, more will realize that Van Tillianism is a Trojan Horse that some have eagerly wheeled into the church. We ought to beware of Dutch theologians bearing gifts.” (Pg. 28)

He reports, “Professor Van Til’s unorthodox views led to a disruption of the peace and purity of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the 1940s, a disruption from which that church has never recovered… In 1943 and 1944, Professor Gordon H. Clark was called to the pulpit of a congregation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, sought ordination, passed the required examinations, and was ordained… Van Til and some of his colleagues at Westminster … then challenged Professor Clark’s ordination on doctrinal grounds, accusing Clark, among other things of the sin of ‘rationalism.’ … The administrative… proceedings in this attempt to defrock Professor Clark lasted for three years, and Clark was neither deposed from office nor was the Presbytery that ordained him reprimanded… for doing so… Despite, or perhaps because of, their failure to defrock Dr. Clark, the Van Til faction immediately brought charges against one of the men who had been defending Clark… the defenders of Clark left the O.P.C. in disgust, and Dr. Clark went with them. Clark’s defenders saw no point in waging another battle … against a stubborn faction of men who were less than enthusiastic about the peace and purity of the church.” (Pg. 30-31)

He concludes, “Let us turn from Van Tillianism and embrace with passion the Scriptural ideals of clarity in both thought and speech; let us recognize… the indispensability of logic; let us believe and teach… the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; and let us defend the consistency and intelligibility of the Bible. Then, and only then, will Christianity have a bright and glorious future in America and throughout the earth.” (Pg. 40)

This book will appeal to those seeking a critique of Van Til.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay.

[Seth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of the quotations are really almost unbelievable. It is no wonder the Presbyterian church is having such difficulties if Van Til taught so many men such a confusing and contradictory theology.

[Ryan Thomas · Rating 1 out of 5]

This pamphlet is what I would consider a vitriolic attack on the person as much as the apologetic or theology of Cornelius Van Til. While pointing out some of the confusing points of Van Til's thought, the intent seems much more focused on deriding Van Til than on any attempt to understand and critique his thought. There are several pot shot quotes from both Van Til and some of his followers that are used to make the author's point, but a review of the source material in its context leaves one with the impression that Robbins does an injustice to the cited material. Robbins is right to question some of the language and assertions of Van Til because they are indeed confusing. But I detected no genuine attempt to understand or critique Van Til on any level, but rather felt on every page a very hostile spirit toward anything and everything "Van Tilian." As an example, despite the author's repeated claims that Van Til cannot be blamed for the thought or assertions of his followers, he nonetheless uses the assertions of his followers as part of his argumentation, sometimes in the same paragraph! Ironically, it made me want to learn more, not less, about Van Til and his thought. I read this pamphlet as one only vaguely familiar with Van Til or Gordon Clark, who was an opponent of Van Til, and whom Robbins seems to hold in the same mythic status he so vehemently accuses Van Tilians of doing with their hero. So whether in their thought or in their arguments with one another, I had about as much of a neutral view from nowhere as one can get, and I have come away from reading this pamphlet with no further edification or help in understanding either the man or the message of Van Til (or Clark for that matter). In another brief booklet (Van Til: The Theologian), John Frame provides an immensely more helpful "constructive critical analysis" of Van Til, which I would recommend to any who have read or would read this booklet by Robbins. To the rest, by all means, read Van Til's critics and engage critically with him, but this pamphlet by Robbins I found quite unhelpful in this regard.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have read very little Van til, but it was clear to me that this was nothing more than a hit piece by the Clarkian crew. The credentials for the author is listed on the back of the book as "[Robbins] has actually read most of Dr. Van Til's books, including those that claim they are not books."

That about sums up the professionalism displayed throughout this book. Which is not actually a book..

[Christopher David · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is nothing but a vitriolic criticism on Van Til by one of Gordon Clark's disciples that is tantamount to slander.

[Ryan Watkins · Rating 2 out of 5]

More of hit piece than a biography. Robbins is as bombastic as Gary North but with Clark's apologetics.

[Felipe Sabino · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok.