What do you think?
Christianity and Barthianism
Cornelius Van Til's Christianity and Barthianism continues in the tradition of Machen's Christianity and Liberalism. As the title indicates, Van Til is convinced that Barth's mature theology is as destructive of orthodoxy as early nineteenth and twentieth century Liberalism (or Modernism). In this volume, Van Til analyzes and evaluates Barth's trinitarian theology, christology, notion of time and eternity, his formulation of Geshichte, as well as philosophical influences on Barth's thinking. Offering a critique that was years ahead of its time, Van Til's analysis of Barthianism as fundamentally opposed to historic Reformed theology remains as sound today as it was almost fifty years ago. This text is required reading for those interested in a critical analysis of Barth's theology.
512 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2004
About the author
Cornelius Van Til
155 books127 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 16, 2026
VAN TIL’S WIDE CRITIQUE OF BARTH
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) was a Calvinist philosopher and theologian, and perhaps the leading Christian exponent of "presuppositional" apologetics. He taught at Westminster Theological Seminary for more than 40 years, and was one of the leaders in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1962 book, “Some years ago the prediction was made that Karl Barth’s theology would soon disappear from the scene. It was said to be nothing but post-war pessimism. But, as Barth’s recent visit to America has emphasized, he is now regarded as the great prophet of the 20th century… it is through his view of the Christ that Barth has become the great ecumenical theologian of our day. By his return to and by his development of a true Reformation theology, he has, it is said, paved the way for a union of all true Protestants… Roman Catholic and New Protestant theologians alike rejoice as Barth replaces the Christ of Luther and of Calvin with a Christ patterned after modern activist thought…
“The present writer is of the opinion that, for all its verbal similarity to historic Protestantism, Barth’s theology is, in effect, a denial of it. There is, he believes, in Barth’s view no ‘transition from wrath to grace’ in history. This was the writer’s opinion in 1946 when he published ‘The New Modernism.’ A careful consideration of Barth’s more recent writings has only established him more firmly in this conviction.” (Pg. vii)
He explains, “The English word ‘history’ does not adequately convey what Barth means by ‘Geschichte.’ Barth himself distinguishes between ‘Geschichte’ and ‘Historie.’ The latter indicates the facts of the world as the neutral historian sees them. Thus the resurrection appearances of Christ deal with facts that could be seen and felt by the physical eye and hand. But the resurrection must not, says Barth, be directly identified with any such fact. To do so would be to forget that while revelation is historical nothing historical is, as such, revelational… The real resurrection must therefore be seen as Geschichte… The resurrection as ‘Historie’ is only a subordinate aspect of the resurrection as Geschichte. The real relation between God and man takes place in terms of Christ as Geschichte.” (Pg 14) Later, he adds, “If the resurrection if primarily Geschichte and only peripherally Historie when we can boldly assert that our faith is based on a fact, a fact as an EVENT, namely, the meeting of Christ, after his resurrection, with the apostles.” (Pg. 16)
He reports, “recent Reformed theologians … would like to think of [Barth] as one who, against the subjectivism of Schleiermacher and his many followers, proclaims the Christ of the Scriptures. Does not Barth with them seek to interpret all things in terms of revelation in terms of the Christ of God?… Was it not Barth who rejected all natural theology in order to listen to Christ alone? Was it not Barth who refused to speak even of a negative, let alone a positive, point of contact for the gospel of Christ within the autonomous consciousness of man? And was he not professing in all of this to build upon Luther and Calvin and with them calling man back to the Word of God?” (Pg. 119-120)
He summarizes, “two remarks may be made. In the first place… Reformed theologians found it necessary to point out constantly that their views are biblical and Barth’s views are subjective or speculative… The second remark is that the criticisms made by various Reformed theologians… fall into two classes. There is first the … charge that Barth’s actualist view of Christ and his work is based upon a nominalist view of God and his relation to the world… There is, second, that Barth’s view of Christ is based upon a virtually realist view of God and his relation to the world.” (Pg. 170)
He acknowledges, “Through Barth the Bible has had more influence on at least some [liberal/modernist] theologians than it formerly had. Moreover, a number of church people, other than theologians, have learned to have a new respect for the Bible as in some sense the Word of God. For all this, who can help but be grateful to Barth and to God?” (Pg. 209)
He asserts, “Barth cannot… challenge Romanism to forsake its deepest error. The reason for this, in the last analysis, is that Barth himself holds to the same error as does Rome on this point. At no time has he challenged apostate philosophy to forsake its autonomy. At no time has he urged any philosophy to take its pre-theoretical presuppositions from the Scripture. On the contrary, he frankly allows the legitimacy of autonomous philosophy. To be sure, he wants to restrict the field of its operation.” (Pg. 229)
Later, he adds, “It is to be remembered, of course, that there is a supernatural as well as a natural theology in Romanism. Rome wants to use the method of Aristotle for the natural realm only. But the supernatural has on this basis no longer a proper relation to the natural. By the method of natural theology only a god that is reduced to pure form can be allowed to exist. Such a God is not the creator of the world.” (Pg. 236)
He summarizes, “Barth’s theology, together with Roman Catholicism and New Protestantism, is basically informed by dialectical principles that spring from the assumption of human autonomy… The difference between Barth’s theology and that of Romanism and of New Protestantism are differences that operate upon a common dialectical presupposition, and this presupposition is the diametrical opposite of that of Luther and Calvin… a theology that compromises either with Aristotelian or Kantian anthropology can never be a theology of the Word… Barth’s essentially Kantian view of man keeps him from being a theologian of the Word as surely as any Roman Catholic theologian’s view of man keeps him from being a theologian of the Word… Any theology that assumes human autonomy condemns human predication to the necessity of operation in a vacuum.” (Pg. 319)
He says of Catholic theologian Hans Küng’s book comparing Barth with the Catholic doctrine of justification, “It is of interest to note that Küng’s book contains an accompanying letter by Barth. In this letter Barth says that Küng has represented his views fairly. He adds that, if Küng's views are truly those of his church, then his own views are also in basic agreement with those of the [Catholic] church.” (Pg. 358)
He asserts, “Barth says that certian post-Kantian theologians are on their way to Rome. But why should he think that his own way does not lead to Rome? Is there any basic difference between his way and that of those who closely follow Kant or those who subject Kant’s position to an immanent criticism? The answer must be that there is only a difference of degree between Barth’s own theology and that of the men he describes as on the road to Rome. Their system as well as his allows room for the irrational.” (Pg. 411)
Does Barth respond adequately to Feurerbach and/or David Strauss? “Does he propose to return to the theology of the Reformers and start with the presupposition that God has really spoken from above to man? Does he forsake the assumption of the Enlightenment… of Feuerbach and of Strauss and with Calvin set the consciousness of man, from the beginning, in the concrete relationship to God’s unavoidable revelation directly present to man in history? No, he does not!” (Pg. 427)
He concludes, “Speaking as objectively as we can, we must say that, as in [J. Gresham] Machen’s time ‘Liberalism,’ while propagated in the church as though it were the gospel, was in reality a man-made religion, so Barthianism, using the language of Reformation theology, is still only a higher humanism.” (Pg. 446)
It is interesting that Van Til often seems to reserve his harshest criticisms for those theologians who, to most others, seem the ‘closest’ to his own views.
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) was a Calvinist philosopher and theologian, and perhaps the leading Christian exponent of "presuppositional" apologetics. He taught at Westminster Theological Seminary for more than 40 years, and was one of the leaders in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1962 book, “Some years ago the prediction was made that Karl Barth’s theology would soon disappear from the scene. It was said to be nothing but post-war pessimism. But, as Barth’s recent visit to America has emphasized, he is now regarded as the great prophet of the 20th century… it is through his view of the Christ that Barth has become the great ecumenical theologian of our day. By his return to and by his development of a true Reformation theology, he has, it is said, paved the way for a union of all true Protestants… Roman Catholic and New Protestant theologians alike rejoice as Barth replaces the Christ of Luther and of Calvin with a Christ patterned after modern activist thought…
“The present writer is of the opinion that, for all its verbal similarity to historic Protestantism, Barth’s theology is, in effect, a denial of it. There is, he believes, in Barth’s view no ‘transition from wrath to grace’ in history. This was the writer’s opinion in 1946 when he published ‘The New Modernism.’ A careful consideration of Barth’s more recent writings has only established him more firmly in this conviction.” (Pg. vii)
He explains, “The English word ‘history’ does not adequately convey what Barth means by ‘Geschichte.’ Barth himself distinguishes between ‘Geschichte’ and ‘Historie.’ The latter indicates the facts of the world as the neutral historian sees them. Thus the resurrection appearances of Christ deal with facts that could be seen and felt by the physical eye and hand. But the resurrection must not, says Barth, be directly identified with any such fact. To do so would be to forget that while revelation is historical nothing historical is, as such, revelational… The real resurrection must therefore be seen as Geschichte… The resurrection as ‘Historie’ is only a subordinate aspect of the resurrection as Geschichte. The real relation between God and man takes place in terms of Christ as Geschichte.” (Pg 14) Later, he adds, “If the resurrection if primarily Geschichte and only peripherally Historie when we can boldly assert that our faith is based on a fact, a fact as an EVENT, namely, the meeting of Christ, after his resurrection, with the apostles.” (Pg. 16)
He reports, “recent Reformed theologians … would like to think of [Barth] as one who, against the subjectivism of Schleiermacher and his many followers, proclaims the Christ of the Scriptures. Does not Barth with them seek to interpret all things in terms of revelation in terms of the Christ of God?… Was it not Barth who rejected all natural theology in order to listen to Christ alone? Was it not Barth who refused to speak even of a negative, let alone a positive, point of contact for the gospel of Christ within the autonomous consciousness of man? And was he not professing in all of this to build upon Luther and Calvin and with them calling man back to the Word of God?” (Pg. 119-120)
He summarizes, “two remarks may be made. In the first place… Reformed theologians found it necessary to point out constantly that their views are biblical and Barth’s views are subjective or speculative… The second remark is that the criticisms made by various Reformed theologians… fall into two classes. There is first the … charge that Barth’s actualist view of Christ and his work is based upon a nominalist view of God and his relation to the world… There is, second, that Barth’s view of Christ is based upon a virtually realist view of God and his relation to the world.” (Pg. 170)
He acknowledges, “Through Barth the Bible has had more influence on at least some [liberal/modernist] theologians than it formerly had. Moreover, a number of church people, other than theologians, have learned to have a new respect for the Bible as in some sense the Word of God. For all this, who can help but be grateful to Barth and to God?” (Pg. 209)
He asserts, “Barth cannot… challenge Romanism to forsake its deepest error. The reason for this, in the last analysis, is that Barth himself holds to the same error as does Rome on this point. At no time has he challenged apostate philosophy to forsake its autonomy. At no time has he urged any philosophy to take its pre-theoretical presuppositions from the Scripture. On the contrary, he frankly allows the legitimacy of autonomous philosophy. To be sure, he wants to restrict the field of its operation.” (Pg. 229)
Later, he adds, “It is to be remembered, of course, that there is a supernatural as well as a natural theology in Romanism. Rome wants to use the method of Aristotle for the natural realm only. But the supernatural has on this basis no longer a proper relation to the natural. By the method of natural theology only a god that is reduced to pure form can be allowed to exist. Such a God is not the creator of the world.” (Pg. 236)
He summarizes, “Barth’s theology, together with Roman Catholicism and New Protestantism, is basically informed by dialectical principles that spring from the assumption of human autonomy… The difference between Barth’s theology and that of Romanism and of New Protestantism are differences that operate upon a common dialectical presupposition, and this presupposition is the diametrical opposite of that of Luther and Calvin… a theology that compromises either with Aristotelian or Kantian anthropology can never be a theology of the Word… Barth’s essentially Kantian view of man keeps him from being a theologian of the Word as surely as any Roman Catholic theologian’s view of man keeps him from being a theologian of the Word… Any theology that assumes human autonomy condemns human predication to the necessity of operation in a vacuum.” (Pg. 319)
He says of Catholic theologian Hans Küng’s book comparing Barth with the Catholic doctrine of justification, “It is of interest to note that Küng’s book contains an accompanying letter by Barth. In this letter Barth says that Küng has represented his views fairly. He adds that, if Küng's views are truly those of his church, then his own views are also in basic agreement with those of the [Catholic] church.” (Pg. 358)
He asserts, “Barth says that certian post-Kantian theologians are on their way to Rome. But why should he think that his own way does not lead to Rome? Is there any basic difference between his way and that of those who closely follow Kant or those who subject Kant’s position to an immanent criticism? The answer must be that there is only a difference of degree between Barth’s own theology and that of the men he describes as on the road to Rome. Their system as well as his allows room for the irrational.” (Pg. 411)
Does Barth respond adequately to Feurerbach and/or David Strauss? “Does he propose to return to the theology of the Reformers and start with the presupposition that God has really spoken from above to man? Does he forsake the assumption of the Enlightenment… of Feuerbach and of Strauss and with Calvin set the consciousness of man, from the beginning, in the concrete relationship to God’s unavoidable revelation directly present to man in history? No, he does not!” (Pg. 427)
He concludes, “Speaking as objectively as we can, we must say that, as in [J. Gresham] Machen’s time ‘Liberalism,’ while propagated in the church as though it were the gospel, was in reality a man-made religion, so Barthianism, using the language of Reformation theology, is still only a higher humanism.” (Pg. 446)
It is interesting that Van Til often seems to reserve his harshest criticisms for those theologians who, to most others, seem the ‘closest’ to his own views.
November 13, 2014
I read this book because Barth is making a sizeable impression on a whole new generation of churched youth. This is due in large part to the likes of Rob Bell, Ann Voskamp, and others (including the wildly popular Gospel Coalition) who are popular with the young adult crowd. I have read quite a bit of Barth including his Dogmatics while in college (not as a class assignment but because I was attracted to his theology). Barth is profound in many ways and has a way of speaking to the soul in ways that very few have accomplished. This is precisely what makes him so dangerous. Van Til recognized the danger well before anyone else and wrote this incredible book in response to his theology.
While Barth claimed to be a reformed thinker, he denied many tenants of the reformed faith including an interesting twist on the doctrine of election. According to Barth, election is not an absolute decree because to make it absolute is to raise it above God's saving act in Christ. Election is then redefined as God's "yes" in the person of Christ to reconcile all men to himself. Christ then becomes the elect God and the elect man. As the elect God, Barth says he elects all humanity in himself. As the elect man, Barth says that Christ elects all who are in him. Non believers then are also elect in Christ, but not yet aware of their election. This has led to the charge that he is a universalist, something which Barth denied. To Barth it is equally as wrong to affirm universalism as it is to deny it because the question is beyond the duty of the church to speculate.
Van Til was rightly critical of Barth, not only in referring to himself as Reformed, but in his use of Scripture and understanding of the word of God (another long topic).
This book is great for those desiring to understand the presuppositions of many of today's churched youth. While many have not heard of Barth (though this is changing) many have already been influenced by his ideas, which are taught in most major seminaries and bible colleges today.
While Barth claimed to be a reformed thinker, he denied many tenants of the reformed faith including an interesting twist on the doctrine of election. According to Barth, election is not an absolute decree because to make it absolute is to raise it above God's saving act in Christ. Election is then redefined as God's "yes" in the person of Christ to reconcile all men to himself. Christ then becomes the elect God and the elect man. As the elect God, Barth says he elects all humanity in himself. As the elect man, Barth says that Christ elects all who are in him. Non believers then are also elect in Christ, but not yet aware of their election. This has led to the charge that he is a universalist, something which Barth denied. To Barth it is equally as wrong to affirm universalism as it is to deny it because the question is beyond the duty of the church to speculate.
Van Til was rightly critical of Barth, not only in referring to himself as Reformed, but in his use of Scripture and understanding of the word of God (another long topic).
This book is great for those desiring to understand the presuppositions of many of today's churched youth. While many have not heard of Barth (though this is changing) many have already been influenced by his ideas, which are taught in most major seminaries and bible colleges today.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews