What do you think?
Rate this book
The Defense of the Faith
Restoring the full text of the original 1955 work, this annotated edition sets forth and explains a method of apologetics that is consistent with the nature of Christianity.
480 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1955
120 people are currently reading
1439 people want to read
About the author
Cornelius Van Til
149 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 - 30 of 65 reviews
April 2, 2023
Superb.
April 20, 2010
This is the landmark work by Dr. Cornelius Van Til as far as Biblical apologetics. There is much to be said for the work in apologetics in the evidential approach and the men who have labored so fruitfully in that field. But as far as the Biblical 'method' is concerned or the 'theology' of apologetics as a discipline, Van Til's presuppositionalism has no equal in taking every thought captive to Christ, and showing how the Bible must be one's authority at the very outset of defending the faith.
Leading up to apologetics and then discussing it in length, the book is divided into 11 sections as follows:
1. Christian Theology
2. The Christian Philosophy of Reality
3. The Christian Philosophy of Knowledge
4. The Christian Philosophy of Behavior
5. Christian Apologetics (Point of Contact)
6. Christian Apologetics (The Problem of Method)
7. Christian Apologetics (Authority and Reason)
8. Common Grace and Scholasticism
9. Argument by Presupposition
10. The Defense of Christianity
11. Amsterdam and Old Princeton
The beginning (chapters 1-4) is a huge help into understanding the basic Christian worldview as a whole and the foundation from where Van Til develops his approach to apologetics. Then in chapters 5-7 he does a masterful job of contrasting the differing approaches to the discipline.
Chapter 9 is by far the most compelling treatise I have ever read on the subject of a truly Biblical approach to apologetics. It is here where Van Til makes his famous statement:
"Both Thomas Aquinas and Butler contend that men have done justice by the evidence if they conclude that God probably exists....I consider this a compromise of simple and fundamental Biblical truth. It is an insult to the living God to say that his revelation of himself so lacks in clairty that man, himself through and through revelation of God, does justice by it when he says that God probably exists.
The argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity is objectively valid. We should not tone down the validity of this argument to the probability level. The argument may be poorly stated, and may never be adequately stated. But in itself the argument is absolutely sound. Christianity is the only reasonable position to hold. It is not merely as reasonable as other positions, or a bit more reasonable than other positions; it alone is the natural and reasonable position for man to take." - p. 197
He goes on then to confirm over and over again the truth of his claim that Christianity alone (and no other system) can make sense of the world. In Chapter 10 he continues to contrast presuppositional apologetics with approaches less faithful to the Scriptures and gives an insightful dialogue between Mr. Black, Mr. White, and Mr. Grey.
In the concluding chapter he gives an account of other theologians and apologists and critiques where they were in line with Scriptures and where they departed in regard to Scriptural authority and apologetics.
Overall, while sometimes this book was a little tough to read in stretching the mind to think things through more adequately, I cannot but recommend this book with my highest recommendation to all believers (because truly we are all called upon to give a defense of the faith - 1 Pet. 3:15-16).
May the Lord Christ bless you in your studies!
Leading up to apologetics and then discussing it in length, the book is divided into 11 sections as follows:
1. Christian Theology
2. The Christian Philosophy of Reality
3. The Christian Philosophy of Knowledge
4. The Christian Philosophy of Behavior
5. Christian Apologetics (Point of Contact)
6. Christian Apologetics (The Problem of Method)
7. Christian Apologetics (Authority and Reason)
8. Common Grace and Scholasticism
9. Argument by Presupposition
10. The Defense of Christianity
11. Amsterdam and Old Princeton
The beginning (chapters 1-4) is a huge help into understanding the basic Christian worldview as a whole and the foundation from where Van Til develops his approach to apologetics. Then in chapters 5-7 he does a masterful job of contrasting the differing approaches to the discipline.
Chapter 9 is by far the most compelling treatise I have ever read on the subject of a truly Biblical approach to apologetics. It is here where Van Til makes his famous statement:
"Both Thomas Aquinas and Butler contend that men have done justice by the evidence if they conclude that God probably exists....I consider this a compromise of simple and fundamental Biblical truth. It is an insult to the living God to say that his revelation of himself so lacks in clairty that man, himself through and through revelation of God, does justice by it when he says that God probably exists.
The argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christianity is objectively valid. We should not tone down the validity of this argument to the probability level. The argument may be poorly stated, and may never be adequately stated. But in itself the argument is absolutely sound. Christianity is the only reasonable position to hold. It is not merely as reasonable as other positions, or a bit more reasonable than other positions; it alone is the natural and reasonable position for man to take." - p. 197
He goes on then to confirm over and over again the truth of his claim that Christianity alone (and no other system) can make sense of the world. In Chapter 10 he continues to contrast presuppositional apologetics with approaches less faithful to the Scriptures and gives an insightful dialogue between Mr. Black, Mr. White, and Mr. Grey.
In the concluding chapter he gives an account of other theologians and apologists and critiques where they were in line with Scriptures and where they departed in regard to Scriptural authority and apologetics.
Overall, while sometimes this book was a little tough to read in stretching the mind to think things through more adequately, I cannot but recommend this book with my highest recommendation to all believers (because truly we are all called upon to give a defense of the faith - 1 Pet. 3:15-16).
May the Lord Christ bless you in your studies!
December 8, 2025
The Defense of the Faith is nowhere in the realm of "Top Ten Answers for Your Atheist Friend's Questions" apologetics books. However, it is by far the most concrete and substantial, biblically-based take on apologetics I have ever encountered. Some of you may be disappointed to hear that the book is actually split between Van Til giving a full overview of the Reformed Theological position, and him responding to the critics of his philosophy of Apologetics. But the fact that Van Til is responding to his critics comes in clutch. If you've read any Van Til, you'll know he's not the clearest writer. So having him respond to some of his critics who also clearly don't understand his position, was very helpful for me (also the vital explanatory footnotes by Dr. Oliphint.)
This book strengthened, challenged, and changed my thinking. Whether you agree with Reformed Theological thought or not, this is truly a powerhouse of a book to know.
"Wherever autonomy is hailed in theology, why should it not also be welcomed in apologetics? But when autonomy is over and over regarded as the root of all evil in theology, why then should it be welcomed in apologetics?" -Van Til (Defense of the Faith p.364)
This book strengthened, challenged, and changed my thinking. Whether you agree with Reformed Theological thought or not, this is truly a powerhouse of a book to know.
"Wherever autonomy is hailed in theology, why should it not also be welcomed in apologetics? But when autonomy is over and over regarded as the root of all evil in theology, why then should it be welcomed in apologetics?" -Van Til (Defense of the Faith p.364)
September 27, 2010
On page 3...can already tell this is going to be a hard book.
March 4, 2025
No thinker/theologian has had a bigger impact on my own thinking and worldview than Cornelius Van Til. Cannot recommend this book highly enough.
June 6, 2018
What Van Til does here is remarkable. He pioneers important territory here as it relates to Christian apologetics. He points out that often our preaching and apologetics don't match up, and we should strive to be, above all, submissive to Scriptural authority when it comes to defending the faith.
In essence, Roman Catholocism (building on Aquinas) and Arminianism seek to find a point of contact with fallen man and convince him to believe in a god. What Van Til points out is that this makes the mind and will of man ultimate, assuming that man's reason can actually interpret the facts of the universe correctly.
Van Til starts from the fact that the Creator-creature divide must be forefront in our preaching and apologetic efforts. The Scriptures are the authority which should govern our efforts to persuade. Van Til insists that we remember that ALL men know God, but sinful man suppresses this knowledge.
Van Til slices things really thin at certain points. He takes folks in his own Calvinist camp to task for various compromises with erroneous thinking. At times he is tedious, perhaps unnecessarily, and the text at times is dense reading (could've used some editorial sandpaper).
On the whole, this was a remarkably helpful book. It kicked my rear end at times, and had me up and cheering at other points. I think this will prove to be a seminal work for generations to come.
In essence, Roman Catholocism (building on Aquinas) and Arminianism seek to find a point of contact with fallen man and convince him to believe in a god. What Van Til points out is that this makes the mind and will of man ultimate, assuming that man's reason can actually interpret the facts of the universe correctly.
Van Til starts from the fact that the Creator-creature divide must be forefront in our preaching and apologetic efforts. The Scriptures are the authority which should govern our efforts to persuade. Van Til insists that we remember that ALL men know God, but sinful man suppresses this knowledge.
Van Til slices things really thin at certain points. He takes folks in his own Calvinist camp to task for various compromises with erroneous thinking. At times he is tedious, perhaps unnecessarily, and the text at times is dense reading (could've used some editorial sandpaper).
On the whole, this was a remarkably helpful book. It kicked my rear end at times, and had me up and cheering at other points. I think this will prove to be a seminal work for generations to come.
July 27, 2012
Definitely outlived its usefulness in apologetics. If secularism takes another hard turn towards Hegelianism, then this book will see a small renaissance. Until then...
Van Til wrote in the Idealist tradition, sometimes against Hegel, but always assuming that terminology. Young reformed pups who come reading Van Til almost always have no clue what he's talking about, except that they think they do.
That's the danger of the book. For all his dense writing, Van Til was a masterful aphorist, and his students end up spouting his lines while uncomprehending his philosophy.
Van Til sets Calvinism as the only consistent Christian worldview, and it is the task of the Calvinist apologist, on his gloss, to bring the non-Christian to consistency by showing the incoherence of his worldview.
Except Van Til rarely, if ever, demonstrates that incoherence.
Van Til wrote in the Idealist tradition, sometimes against Hegel, but always assuming that terminology. Young reformed pups who come reading Van Til almost always have no clue what he's talking about, except that they think they do.
That's the danger of the book. For all his dense writing, Van Til was a masterful aphorist, and his students end up spouting his lines while uncomprehending his philosophy.
Van Til sets Calvinism as the only consistent Christian worldview, and it is the task of the Calvinist apologist, on his gloss, to bring the non-Christian to consistency by showing the incoherence of his worldview.
Except Van Til rarely, if ever, demonstrates that incoherence.
Read
June 11, 2008In my mind, Van Til is the most under-appreciated great theologian of the 20th century, probably because his stringent criticisms of Barth obscured him as a mere sectarian. His specialization was apologetics, and this is the central work in his apologetics project. Not a light read, especially because his vocabulary is steeped in really old technical philosophical terminology. One of the few really imaginative, constructive theologies from a 20th century conservative.
June 2, 2018
Okay content (good in the basics, and weird to not good in the key arguments) packaged in a terrible reading experience. The rumors about VT's writing are all true.
There's really something to his method in evangelism, but he overplays his hand again and again, culminating in an attempt to "expose" the problems in Kuyper, Bavinck, Warfield, and others, all while claiming to carry the truly Reformed mantle.
There's really something to his method in evangelism, but he overplays his hand again and again, culminating in an attempt to "expose" the problems in Kuyper, Bavinck, Warfield, and others, all while claiming to carry the truly Reformed mantle.
October 5, 2023
Van Til’s thesis is fantastic and I agree with little reservation. Argument by presupposition is the most effective and only Biblically faithful means of apologetics.
The book is also an unorganized pile of slop. Kinda feels like you made a really good lasagna, but then the slice fell apart when you put it on the plate and now you’re staring at a delicious combination of sauce, cheese, pasta, and meat all jumbled together haphazardly.
The book is also an unorganized pile of slop. Kinda feels like you made a really good lasagna, but then the slice fell apart when you put it on the plate and now you’re staring at a delicious combination of sauce, cheese, pasta, and meat all jumbled together haphazardly.
August 20, 2012
A really good book. I suspect his presuppositionalism might be right, which is challenging.
February 19, 2015
Cornelius brings some fascinating thoughts to the table but his system in the end leaves something to be desired. To put his thought as briefly as possible he argues that Christianity, if it is to be known, cannot probably be known but only certainly known. Moreover it is only the fully confessional reformed Christian faith which can be known. This is because if we are to say that Christianity is true we must also say that it is only by the Christian God that anything can be known. But if God only has provided us with the ability to know things in part, that is only know them to be probably true than he is only probably God, because He cannot fail to make what can be known about Himself absolutely clear. Thus what is revealed about God is revealed to all men and it is revealed to them without any doubt to be left in their minds. Thus all men truly know God but suppress this truth in unrighteousness. It is the wickedness of men that is their desire to pervert the revelation of God which alone allows them to say that God does not exist. Given this, there is at bottom only the true perspective of the regenerate Christian and the unregenerate non-Christian. Yes the unbeliever can achieve truths about nature and the sciences but this is only because he operates inconsistently. Logically his belief in his own autonomy from God and the rejection of God's certain revelation leaves him in an endless ocean of chances and probabilities with no ultimate foundation of truth. It is this fact that the Christian must point to in witnessing to the unbeliever if the unbeliever is truly to be challenged to see and believe in Christianity for what it truly is. Unless this is done the unbeliever will never actually be presented with Christianity but only a vague sterilized supernatural deity much like that of Aristotle.
From this brief introduction of Van Til we can definitely see the force of what he is getting at. If the Christian truly believes that God is the source of all being and truth how can the Christian not conclude that the Christian God is the only way to account for truth? Further if the Christian God is the only way to account for truth then how can the Christian not argue for God's existence without reference to God as the ultimate source of truth? Otherwise this God being described is not truly the God of the Bible!
This is all well and good but Van Til makes a number of assumptions that I don't think he succeeds in defending. First of all there is the assumption that the Christian has to say only the Christian God could ever account for truth. We would want to say that only the Christian God does truly account for truth, but I fail to see the necessity in saying only the triune God ever could. And here we must be careful, it is true that if the Christian God exists, of course only He could account for truth because if He exists then no other God actually exists which could account for truth. But at the same time, it is logically consistent that the Islamic or Deistic God could account for truth. It is these two senses of the phrase; only the Christian God of the Bible can account for truth that Van Til equates.
Secondly, Van Til assumes that it is logically possible for finite beings to know anything with infinite and exhaustive certainty. I do not think it is possible. It seems to me that the only way for us to know any one thing with absolute certainty is to have absolute knowledge of everything. This Van Til admits is the kind of knowledge only God has. So we are forced to only know things in part because there is always the slightest possibility everything we know is wrong. But of course, if God actually does exist this creates no absurdity because he allows us to come to reasonable knowledge of truths despite our inabilities and of course we don't have to realize God is doing this for it to happen.
Thirdly Van Til overestimates his case for a Presuppositional apologetic Biblically, particularly in Romans 1. We can interpret Romans 1 as simply saying this; God has revealed in nature his basic attributes and his moral character. Mankind has a deep sense of these truths and is confronted with these truths through all of creation. He has this sense, not with certainty, but with an existential level of intuition. An intuition or sense that can be suppressed but only by perverting God's revelation. It is this plain intuition and the denial of it by the unbeliever which still leaves the unbeliever without excuse before God. There seems to be no inconsistency in this account of Romans 1. Moreover, Van Til fails to account for the testimony in Acts where the Apostles do clearly, over and over again, make reference to their empirical witness of Christ's resurrection as demonstrating the truth of Christianity, something Van Til sees as impossible.
Finally, scripture itself does not seem to speak of itself in the way Van Til describes. It never testifies to itself as a completely unique system of truths which can be known with certainty. Instead scripture acts as God's narrative to mankind. It is God's story, not His treatise.
Now all this being said, Van Til certainly brings some important insights for the Christian. He is right to point out that all reasoning is in some sense circular. That is all of our accounts for truth and searches for the content of truth have embedded in them assumptions of what truth is and what content it contains. Where I disagree with Van Til is his claim that these interpretations and this circularity is absolute, that is we either can know something certainly or can't know it at all. That is, only one system of thought can be truly logically consistent and allow for reason and evidence to bear. As discussed above we do not have to claim this, but it also is philosophically impossible to prove. How could you ever show that an entire system of thought is self-evident? This would require you to think through every possible system of thought and demonstrate its inconsistencies and this, in turn, again requires you to be omniscient. Van Til wants to say that we can analyze one worldview at a time and show that it implies the fallacious presuppositions of autonomy and chance but this will never get you to certainty, even if you demonstrate that autonomy and chance (as Van Til defines them) are logically inconsistent because you can't show that every system logically implies autonomy and chance.
In conclusion, I actually do think we need to have some kind of presuppositional apologetic, the failure of modernism to establish all truths on the basis of reason alone without any authority requires this. However, this presuppositionalism must seek to express Christianity as a narrative, not as a system. Christianity must be seen as an utterly unique story, which while not known with certainty, is nevertheless unmatched by the narrative of modern man. Our Christian interpretation of reality may not be infallible, but it can be said to be the best interpretation we have.
January 10, 2025
Probably Van Til's magnum opus. I say this not because this is the best one-stop to Van Til's theological apologetic system but it is the most comprehensive and saturated of all his works. Another commentator has noted that this is probably the last of all Van Til's books you should read because it contains all the intersections of his thoughts on theology and apologetics, and it also contains much of the materials from his earlier books (Christian Apologetics, Introduction to Systematic Theology, A Christian Theory of Knowledge) as he cites them in large chunks persistently.
The premise of this book is mainly to answer to his theological-academic critic in the Dutch-American Reformed circles. Something that has not been duly highlighted about Van Til's critics today, is that Van Til's contention of his theological-apologetic system is an unabashedly Reformed and Calvinistic one. Hence, it would of course be a contradiction to those who do not already hold to a Reformed soteriology or all its related doctrines (common grace, total depravity, etc.). This book can be seen as an "in house" discussion amongst those who hold to Reformed theology. So what of famous modern apologists like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek's incessant disagreement with Van Til's system? Why bother? They don't begin with the premises of Reformed theology anyway.
So this is Van Til's most comprehensive volume because he begins by highlighting how his critics have accused him of departing from the premises of the Reformed faith. He then builds up, chapter by chapter, how Reformed theology actually shaped his Christian view of metaphysics (reality), ethics (human nature), epistemology (revelation and Scripture), and how they ought to differ from the Roman-Aquinas, Arminian, or generic evangelical systems and how their systems would have a differing view of metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology, and how they all fail the test of biblical orthodoxy. He then labours to show, the problems of "traditional apologetics" that is not consciously Reformed. Insofar as they are sub-biblical, they betray a non-biblical portrait of God and give grounds to the skeptics for the "suppression of truth." Indeed, the lifeworks of Van Til is to construct a consistently Reformed apologetics that is most biblical and most honouring to God, while highlighting the weaknesses/limitations of traditional apologetic" that is constructed upon non-Reformed/biblical systems. This advocating for Reformed Apologetics makes up the main bunk of this book, indeed, the major tour-de-force motif of the totality of his works. Hence, I cannot succinctly summarize all the great contributions of Van Til's thoughts and theological apologetics in this work. Much of which is also covered in his other works.
What is also often unappreciated is that Van Til, in the discussion of "reformed" vs "traditional" apologetics, contends that these disagreements are mainly in principle (in theory) and that in actuality God can use any means to save. He gives no doubt to those outside the Reformed tradition, even with their sub-biblical views of theology and apologetics that they do possess sincere hearts and pious evangelistic zeal for the lost:
"We repeat that many Arminians are much better than their position. We also stress the fact that many of the things that they say about points of detail are indeed excellent. In other words our aim is not to depreciate the work that has been done by believing scholars in the Arminian camp. Our aim is rather to make better use of their materials than they have done by placing underneath it an epistemology and metaphysic which make these materials truly fruitful in discussion with non-believers."
Because it is mainly an academic response, it is relatively hard to read (not that any of Van Til's work is easy anyway). If you are somewhat unfamiliar with the works of his critics in the Dutch-American Reformed circles (though Van Til cites them in chunks), some of the conversations might fly above you. But the main bunk of his content is pretty similar to his earlier works, mainly from Christian Apologetics and An Introduction to Systematic Theology (the former being the best one-stop introduction to his system), as his aim is to restate his system in a purposeful manner that engages his opponents.
The highlight for me is Van Til's conscious demonstration of how he is standing on the shoulders of the Old Princeton (Warfield) and Amsterdam (Kuyper, Bavinck), both having their unique apologetic systems in the Reformed tradition. Van Til demonstrates that both Reformed traditions, in their disagreement of apologetic methodology (Kuyper's antithesis vs Warfield's Common Sense realism/Common grounds), stop short of being consistently reformed in their entirety. Hence it can be said that Van Til marries the principles of Amsterdam and Old Princeton by uniting them together through shaping an apologetic system that is consciously and consistently Calvinistic-Reformed in metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, indeed, in its entire worldview. In summary, if you are looking to get into Van Tilian apologetics, pick up his Christian Apologetics instead. If you are into the nitty-gritty debates concerning his system, quite familiar with philosophical-theological categories along these lines, sitting on the fence with this Van Til thing, a critic trying to examine the subject, or just a generic fanboy like me, then maybe this is for you.
"The point is that we are now speaking of theological systems. When Warfield makes the high claim that Calvinism is “nothing more or less than the hope of the world,” he is speaking of the Reformed system of theology and of the Reformed point of view in general. Other types of theology are supernaturalistic in patches. To some extent they yield to the idea of autosoterism, to the idea that man to some degree is saved by his own effort. Therefore, argues Warfield, “Calvinism is just Christianity.” But then, by precisely the same reasoning, Reformed apologetics is the hope of the world."
The premise of this book is mainly to answer to his theological-academic critic in the Dutch-American Reformed circles. Something that has not been duly highlighted about Van Til's critics today, is that Van Til's contention of his theological-apologetic system is an unabashedly Reformed and Calvinistic one. Hence, it would of course be a contradiction to those who do not already hold to a Reformed soteriology or all its related doctrines (common grace, total depravity, etc.). This book can be seen as an "in house" discussion amongst those who hold to Reformed theology. So what of famous modern apologists like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek's incessant disagreement with Van Til's system? Why bother? They don't begin with the premises of Reformed theology anyway.
So this is Van Til's most comprehensive volume because he begins by highlighting how his critics have accused him of departing from the premises of the Reformed faith. He then builds up, chapter by chapter, how Reformed theology actually shaped his Christian view of metaphysics (reality), ethics (human nature), epistemology (revelation and Scripture), and how they ought to differ from the Roman-Aquinas, Arminian, or generic evangelical systems and how their systems would have a differing view of metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology, and how they all fail the test of biblical orthodoxy. He then labours to show, the problems of "traditional apologetics" that is not consciously Reformed. Insofar as they are sub-biblical, they betray a non-biblical portrait of God and give grounds to the skeptics for the "suppression of truth." Indeed, the lifeworks of Van Til is to construct a consistently Reformed apologetics that is most biblical and most honouring to God, while highlighting the weaknesses/limitations of traditional apologetic" that is constructed upon non-Reformed/biblical systems. This advocating for Reformed Apologetics makes up the main bunk of this book, indeed, the major tour-de-force motif of the totality of his works. Hence, I cannot succinctly summarize all the great contributions of Van Til's thoughts and theological apologetics in this work. Much of which is also covered in his other works.
What is also often unappreciated is that Van Til, in the discussion of "reformed" vs "traditional" apologetics, contends that these disagreements are mainly in principle (in theory) and that in actuality God can use any means to save. He gives no doubt to those outside the Reformed tradition, even with their sub-biblical views of theology and apologetics that they do possess sincere hearts and pious evangelistic zeal for the lost:
"We repeat that many Arminians are much better than their position. We also stress the fact that many of the things that they say about points of detail are indeed excellent. In other words our aim is not to depreciate the work that has been done by believing scholars in the Arminian camp. Our aim is rather to make better use of their materials than they have done by placing underneath it an epistemology and metaphysic which make these materials truly fruitful in discussion with non-believers."
Because it is mainly an academic response, it is relatively hard to read (not that any of Van Til's work is easy anyway). If you are somewhat unfamiliar with the works of his critics in the Dutch-American Reformed circles (though Van Til cites them in chunks), some of the conversations might fly above you. But the main bunk of his content is pretty similar to his earlier works, mainly from Christian Apologetics and An Introduction to Systematic Theology (the former being the best one-stop introduction to his system), as his aim is to restate his system in a purposeful manner that engages his opponents.
The highlight for me is Van Til's conscious demonstration of how he is standing on the shoulders of the Old Princeton (Warfield) and Amsterdam (Kuyper, Bavinck), both having their unique apologetic systems in the Reformed tradition. Van Til demonstrates that both Reformed traditions, in their disagreement of apologetic methodology (Kuyper's antithesis vs Warfield's Common Sense realism/Common grounds), stop short of being consistently reformed in their entirety. Hence it can be said that Van Til marries the principles of Amsterdam and Old Princeton by uniting them together through shaping an apologetic system that is consciously and consistently Calvinistic-Reformed in metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, indeed, in its entire worldview. In summary, if you are looking to get into Van Tilian apologetics, pick up his Christian Apologetics instead. If you are into the nitty-gritty debates concerning his system, quite familiar with philosophical-theological categories along these lines, sitting on the fence with this Van Til thing, a critic trying to examine the subject, or just a generic fanboy like me, then maybe this is for you.
"The point is that we are now speaking of theological systems. When Warfield makes the high claim that Calvinism is “nothing more or less than the hope of the world,” he is speaking of the Reformed system of theology and of the Reformed point of view in general. Other types of theology are supernaturalistic in patches. To some extent they yield to the idea of autosoterism, to the idea that man to some degree is saved by his own effort. Therefore, argues Warfield, “Calvinism is just Christianity.” But then, by precisely the same reasoning, Reformed apologetics is the hope of the world."
February 7, 2021
It was true...
This is a difficult book...
Anyway, I enjoyed it. I can't say that I fully understood the apologetics method developed by Van Til but at least I know what he wanted to do. He wanted to develop a truly reformed apologetics method, in other words, a biblical one.
Here you will learn how Van Til considers the evidences approach of apologetics as based on a romanist or arminian theology. He strongly argues that we can't have reformed theology and romanist/arminian apologetics. Also, you will see how Van Til derives this approach from the Scriptures, from Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Warfield and more. You see his response to many of his critics. And a lot of philosophical dialogue which is why it was difficult for me.
It would be good to read it again in the future, that's for sure.
Recommended.
This is a difficult book...
Anyway, I enjoyed it. I can't say that I fully understood the apologetics method developed by Van Til but at least I know what he wanted to do. He wanted to develop a truly reformed apologetics method, in other words, a biblical one.
Here you will learn how Van Til considers the evidences approach of apologetics as based on a romanist or arminian theology. He strongly argues that we can't have reformed theology and romanist/arminian apologetics. Also, you will see how Van Til derives this approach from the Scriptures, from Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Warfield and more. You see his response to many of his critics. And a lot of philosophical dialogue which is why it was difficult for me.
It would be good to read it again in the future, that's for sure.
Recommended.
December 6, 2020
A lot of gold in Van Til’s Defense of the Faith but the book is all over the place. Recommended for those who want to understand why the Reformed view of Presuppositional Apologetics is sufficient over Roman Catholicism and Arminianism as well as understanding what he pulls from Calvin.
For those looking for a straightforward book on Presuppositional Apologetics without the extra philosophy and analysis of other approaches, read any Apologetic work by Bahnsen.
For those looking for a straightforward book on Presuppositional Apologetics without the extra philosophy and analysis of other approaches, read any Apologetic work by Bahnsen.
March 25, 2020
YAY! I made it through what is certainly one of the hardest books I’ve read (so far!) That said, it was absolutely excellent and Van Til is unapologetically biblical and consistent in his apologetics. Although this was challenging to read, I certainly learned a great deal.
January 6, 2021
Compelling central thesis that you can't do theology one way, and then your apologetics another way. But at times it felt like I was reading Japanese.
March 5, 2021
Excellent. An essential understanding for the reformed Christian, laid out fully and interacted with on all sides.
One secondary thing Van Til achieves brilliantly: he stands on the shoulders of giants (Calvin, Kuyper, and Bavinck) and honors them by insisting on seeing further while remaining faithful.
One secondary thing Van Til achieves brilliantly: he stands on the shoulders of giants (Calvin, Kuyper, and Bavinck) and honors them by insisting on seeing further while remaining faithful.
July 31, 2009
Few men have the accolades of the Reformed community when it comes to apologetics as does Dr. Cornelius VanTil. Adherents to his system are referred to as “Vantillian,” and his presuppositional system appears to be the closest apologetic method that upholds a biblical framework. Based on VanTil’s work, men such as Greg Bahnsen have taken this paradigm and gone even further, clarifying this obvious chasm that separates sinful man from a holy God.
With this background knowledge, I was excited to finally read VanTil for myself, hoping to get a better understanding of the purpose of apologetics, and how it relates to the atheist or unbeliever. However, it did not take long for me to realize that I was in way over my head when it comes to VanTil.
I freely confess, the initial two-thirds of the book left me in a state of confusion. I am not accustomed to reading philosophers, and when I have in the past, I have always wondered why they make everything so complicated! I spent a considerable amount of time just trying to figure out what VanTil was saying, and oftentimes, I never did come to a solid conclusion. Many hours were spent in frustration, and I just attributed my lack of comprehension to the fact that I am just not as bright as some of these men. I tried to lay hold of his musings, but was left with more questions that when I had begun.
While I did not grasp much of his complex argumentation, I did walk away with the big picture. Man, in his attempt to make the gospel more palatable to the lost sinner, often uses methods that are against what we know to be clearly revealed in Scripture. There is no such thing as “neutral ground,” and attempting to start from scratch with an atheist will only result in an exercise in frustration. The author regularly compared these systems with the beliefs of the Roman Catholic and Arminian, and showed how bankrupt it is to begin a discussion about God apart from appealing to His revelation to mankind. It is akin to defending the belief that the President of the United States exists, yet agreeing beforehand that you will not look inside the White House for evidence.
While the majority of this work left me in a daze, the last 4 chapters were worth the entire price of the book. Here VanTil gets a little more practical, discussing the outcome of false methods, and contrasting those with the biblical model. His mock discussion between Mr. White and Mr. Black provided a fascinating look into what kind of fruit these methods might bear, and how one of these apologetic methods will only get the unbeliever to a certain point, but will fail in revealing to him the Triune God of the Bible.
Man’s reason is not the starting point for a discussion about God. It is flawed, sinful, and inconsistent. Or, as Scripture so eloquently states, he “loves darkness.” I commend the work that VanTil has done in the area of apologetics, and am thankful that these truths have been made known and become popular in certain circles over the last 50 years. I am also thankful that men like Greg Bahnsen have done a great work in making these complex philosophical truths more understandable to those who are not so academically inclined. Perhaps in years to come I can revisit this work again with the hopes of being more knowledgeable about the things discussed. (The 4 stars are the average rating. It would be unfair to give it less because I did not understand much of it)
With this background knowledge, I was excited to finally read VanTil for myself, hoping to get a better understanding of the purpose of apologetics, and how it relates to the atheist or unbeliever. However, it did not take long for me to realize that I was in way over my head when it comes to VanTil.
I freely confess, the initial two-thirds of the book left me in a state of confusion. I am not accustomed to reading philosophers, and when I have in the past, I have always wondered why they make everything so complicated! I spent a considerable amount of time just trying to figure out what VanTil was saying, and oftentimes, I never did come to a solid conclusion. Many hours were spent in frustration, and I just attributed my lack of comprehension to the fact that I am just not as bright as some of these men. I tried to lay hold of his musings, but was left with more questions that when I had begun.
While I did not grasp much of his complex argumentation, I did walk away with the big picture. Man, in his attempt to make the gospel more palatable to the lost sinner, often uses methods that are against what we know to be clearly revealed in Scripture. There is no such thing as “neutral ground,” and attempting to start from scratch with an atheist will only result in an exercise in frustration. The author regularly compared these systems with the beliefs of the Roman Catholic and Arminian, and showed how bankrupt it is to begin a discussion about God apart from appealing to His revelation to mankind. It is akin to defending the belief that the President of the United States exists, yet agreeing beforehand that you will not look inside the White House for evidence.
While the majority of this work left me in a daze, the last 4 chapters were worth the entire price of the book. Here VanTil gets a little more practical, discussing the outcome of false methods, and contrasting those with the biblical model. His mock discussion between Mr. White and Mr. Black provided a fascinating look into what kind of fruit these methods might bear, and how one of these apologetic methods will only get the unbeliever to a certain point, but will fail in revealing to him the Triune God of the Bible.
Man’s reason is not the starting point for a discussion about God. It is flawed, sinful, and inconsistent. Or, as Scripture so eloquently states, he “loves darkness.” I commend the work that VanTil has done in the area of apologetics, and am thankful that these truths have been made known and become popular in certain circles over the last 50 years. I am also thankful that men like Greg Bahnsen have done a great work in making these complex philosophical truths more understandable to those who are not so academically inclined. Perhaps in years to come I can revisit this work again with the hopes of being more knowledgeable about the things discussed. (The 4 stars are the average rating. It would be unfair to give it less because I did not understand much of it)
July 1, 2017
Maybe the best book of Van Til to be read. For 2 reasons : it gives a good overview of his thought (his theology & apologetics) and there are the excellent explanatory of Oliphint, but only in the new edition of 2008 (a lot of times, without them, I would probably be impossible to understand what Van Til is meaning). To my mind, this book includes one of the best writing of Van Til : a conversation between a non-christian and two christians in chapter 12, page 312 t 341 (one who is following "traditional apologetics", that is classical & evidential apologetics whose exponents are for example Sproul, Lane Craig and Swinburne ; and the other who is commited to covenantal apologetics, commonly called "presuppositionalism"). Curiously the part two which contains answers to criticisms is far easier to understand. By grasping what Van Til reproachs evidentialists for, we do understand better (than the first part which is meant to expose his thought) what his method of apologetics is and why it's really unique, necessary and devastating for unbelief in whatsoever form (his insights apply for all non-christian worldview). Nevertheless, the book demands a lot of time to understand.
May 29, 2016
Van Til is brilliant- a wonderful but challenging read. Every sentence is chalk-full of theological intrigue.
October 26, 2011
Great ideas/ philosophy. I found Dr. Oliphant's notes were pretty helpful.
September 16, 2024
“Our knowledge of the universe must be true since we are creatures of God who has made both us and the universe. Then too our knowledge of the universe cannot be comprehensive because our knowledge of God cannot be comprehensive.
"A word must here be said about the question of antinomies.
It will readily be inferred what as Christians we mean by antinomies? They are involved in the fact that human knowledge can never be completely comprehensive knowledge. Every knowledge transaction has in it somewhere a reference point to God. Now since God is not fully comprehensible to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradiction in all our knowledge. Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical. We say that if there is to be any true knowledge at all there must be in God an absolute system of knowledge. We therefore insist that everything must be related to that absolute system of God. Yet we ourselves cannot fully understand that system.
"We may, in order to illustrate our meaning here, take one of the outstanding paradoxes of the Christian interpretation of things, namely, that of the relation of the counsel of God to our prayers. To put it pointedly: We say on the one hand that prayer changes things and on the other hand we say that everything happens in accordance with God's plan and God's plan is immutable."
(44)
“A truly Protestant method of reasoning involves a stress upon the fact that the meaning of every aspect or part of Christian theism depends upon Christian theism as a unit. When Protestants speak of the resurrection of Christ they speak of the resurrection of him who is the Son of God, the eternal Wo through whom the world was made. The truth of theism involved in this claim that Christians make with respect to the domain of history. And what is true of the resurrection of Christ is true with respect to all the propositions about historical fact that are made in Scripture. No proposition about historical fact is presented for what it really is till it is presented as a part of the system of Christian theism that is contained in Scripture. To say this is involved in the consideration that all facts of the created universe are what they are by virtue of the plan of God with respect to them. Any fact in any realm confronted by man is what it is as revelational through and through of the God and of the Christ of Christian theism.”
(115)
“Common grace is an attitude of favor of God toward men as men, as creatures made by himself in his own image. Common grace is the giving of good gifts to men though they have sinned against him, that they might repent and mend their evil ways. Common grace provides for the doing of relatively good deeds by sinful men who are kept from working out to its full fruition the principle of total depravity within them.
"Common grace thus is a means by which God accomplishes through men his purpose in displaying his glory in the created world, in history, before the judgment day. So there is no common grace in hell.”
(165)
“Every form of intellectual argument rests, in the last analysis, upon one or the other of two basic presuppositions.
The non-Christian's process of reasoning rests upon the presupposition that man is the final or ultimate reference point in human predication. The Christian's process of reasoning rests upon the presupposition that God, speaking through Christ by his Spirit in the infallible Word, is the final or ultimate reference point in human predication.”
(180)
"The natural man's god is always enveloped within a Reality that is greater than his god and himself. He always makes Reality, inclusive of all that exists, the All the final subject of which he speaks."
(203)
"But this is also in effect to say that the Christian apologist should never seek to be an inductivist only. He should present his philosophy of fact with his facts. He does not need to handle less facts in doing so. He will handle the same facts but he will handle them as they ought to be handled."
(205)
"The Christian concept of analogical thought and the non-Christian concept of univocal thought stand over against one another as diametrical opposites.
"Non-Christian thought holds to the ultimacy of the created universe. It holds therefore to the ultimacy of the mind of man itself and must in consequence deny the necessity of analogical thought. It holds to the normalcy of the human mind as well as to its ultimacy."
"Since the Romanist-evangelical apologist does not make the Creator-creature distinction basic to the very first thing that he says about man or the universe, he is willing to join hands with the natural man and together with him 'discover' many 'truths' about man and the universe."
(224)
"Either one presupposes God back of the ideas of possibility or one presupposes that the idea of possibility is back of God."
(252)
"A word must here be said about the question of antinomies.
It will readily be inferred what as Christians we mean by antinomies? They are involved in the fact that human knowledge can never be completely comprehensive knowledge. Every knowledge transaction has in it somewhere a reference point to God. Now since God is not fully comprehensible to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradiction in all our knowledge. Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical. We say that if there is to be any true knowledge at all there must be in God an absolute system of knowledge. We therefore insist that everything must be related to that absolute system of God. Yet we ourselves cannot fully understand that system.
"We may, in order to illustrate our meaning here, take one of the outstanding paradoxes of the Christian interpretation of things, namely, that of the relation of the counsel of God to our prayers. To put it pointedly: We say on the one hand that prayer changes things and on the other hand we say that everything happens in accordance with God's plan and God's plan is immutable."
(44)
“A truly Protestant method of reasoning involves a stress upon the fact that the meaning of every aspect or part of Christian theism depends upon Christian theism as a unit. When Protestants speak of the resurrection of Christ they speak of the resurrection of him who is the Son of God, the eternal Wo through whom the world was made. The truth of theism involved in this claim that Christians make with respect to the domain of history. And what is true of the resurrection of Christ is true with respect to all the propositions about historical fact that are made in Scripture. No proposition about historical fact is presented for what it really is till it is presented as a part of the system of Christian theism that is contained in Scripture. To say this is involved in the consideration that all facts of the created universe are what they are by virtue of the plan of God with respect to them. Any fact in any realm confronted by man is what it is as revelational through and through of the God and of the Christ of Christian theism.”
(115)
“Common grace is an attitude of favor of God toward men as men, as creatures made by himself in his own image. Common grace is the giving of good gifts to men though they have sinned against him, that they might repent and mend their evil ways. Common grace provides for the doing of relatively good deeds by sinful men who are kept from working out to its full fruition the principle of total depravity within them.
"Common grace thus is a means by which God accomplishes through men his purpose in displaying his glory in the created world, in history, before the judgment day. So there is no common grace in hell.”
(165)
“Every form of intellectual argument rests, in the last analysis, upon one or the other of two basic presuppositions.
The non-Christian's process of reasoning rests upon the presupposition that man is the final or ultimate reference point in human predication. The Christian's process of reasoning rests upon the presupposition that God, speaking through Christ by his Spirit in the infallible Word, is the final or ultimate reference point in human predication.”
(180)
"The natural man's god is always enveloped within a Reality that is greater than his god and himself. He always makes Reality, inclusive of all that exists, the All the final subject of which he speaks."
(203)
"But this is also in effect to say that the Christian apologist should never seek to be an inductivist only. He should present his philosophy of fact with his facts. He does not need to handle less facts in doing so. He will handle the same facts but he will handle them as they ought to be handled."
(205)
"The Christian concept of analogical thought and the non-Christian concept of univocal thought stand over against one another as diametrical opposites.
"Non-Christian thought holds to the ultimacy of the created universe. It holds therefore to the ultimacy of the mind of man itself and must in consequence deny the necessity of analogical thought. It holds to the normalcy of the human mind as well as to its ultimacy."
"Since the Romanist-evangelical apologist does not make the Creator-creature distinction basic to the very first thing that he says about man or the universe, he is willing to join hands with the natural man and together with him 'discover' many 'truths' about man and the universe."
(224)
"Either one presupposes God back of the ideas of possibility or one presupposes that the idea of possibility is back of God."
(252)
May 12, 2023
I get that Van Til is the father of presuppositionalism, but I don't think he should be the first stop for understanding it. His writing is not the clearest in the world, and he seems too prone to being misunderstood. This book is the perfect example, as it is his defense of his methodology against misunderstandings from contemporaries. The footnotes by Scott Oliphint are helpful in contextualizing Van Til, but solidify further that he is not the easiest to understand.
I'm still convinced of the presuppositional methodology, but it should not be dismissed. Some helpful considerations here, but also somewhat opaque and overly long.
An observation I about apologetics I have noticed is that many apologists only focus on atheists/naturalism, and Van Til is no exception. His description of the natural man almost exclusively assumes an atheist and seems weak in approaching non-Christian theistic systems.
I'm still convinced of the presuppositional methodology, but it should not be dismissed. Some helpful considerations here, but also somewhat opaque and overly long.
An observation I about apologetics I have noticed is that many apologists only focus on atheists/naturalism, and Van Til is no exception. His description of the natural man almost exclusively assumes an atheist and seems weak in approaching non-Christian theistic systems.
Read
November 14, 2022Summary statement: The main issue with Aristotle, Arminians, Barth, Bavinck, C. de Boer, J. de Boer, Bishop Butler, Daane, Greene, Hegel, Hepp, Hodge, Hoeksema, Idealism, Kant, Kierkegaard, Kuhn, Kuyper, Lewis, Lutherans, Masselink, Pighuis, Plato, Ridderbos, Schilder, Spinoza, Thomas, Vriend, and Warfield is that they do not start with the self-contained ontological trinity that voluntarily condescends to covenant with humanity and who made Adam historically in Eden with an unfallen, good nature and who...
March 16, 2019
Following Kuyper and Machen, Van Til is the most important thinker in the development of dominionism in America. This, his most widely known work, he argues that all knowledge is impossible without previously assuming that his definition of Christianity is true (literal history, without error, etc). His work would provide the excuse conservative Christians needed to ignore and reject the accumulated knowledge and history of real science, history, psychology, sociology, politics, and more.
June 2, 2023
Great overview of Van Til's thinking and a defense of his apologetics, and far more engaging than his book on Christian apologetics. This was a tough book to get through, but definitely worth it. I'm not sure how much I understand or will keep from it, but it will be a handy reference time and again as I revisit Van Til's brilliant drive towards a truly consistent and reformed view of man and worldview. Highly recommend to make anyone a Calvinist.
December 27, 2019
A must read for anyone interested in apologetics. Not always the easiest to digest, but I highly recommend the version of this book with commentary by Scott Oliphant published by P&R. He helps a lot to distill Van Til's terms down to more familiar language and concepts, and he gives a lot of helpful information on other authors with whom Van Til was interacting.
January 30, 2025
Tough but fruitful and persuasive reading. The last part of the book gets most tedious when quoting and interacting with other theologians to demonstrate deficiencies in the apologetic method. There are easier reads out there on presuppositional apologetics. To them, I turn.
February 7, 2019
Where does one even start with this book? It's such a heavy volume and a taxing read, but without doubt the best book on apologetics by Van Til himself.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews