What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Theistic Ethics
This syllabus claims with the historic Reformed creeds that the good is good because God in Christ through the Scriptures, says it is good. Without the presupposition of the self-sufficient moral consciousness of the triune God revealed in Scripture, man's moral consciousness would operate in a vacuum. Part 1 deals with Christian Ethical Principles and Part II traces the development of apostate man's principle of "inwardness" or moral self-sufficiency in order to show that it has led and cannot but lead to moral chaos.
251 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1980
4 people are currently reading
92 people want to read
About the author
Cornelius Van Til
156 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 27, 2014
I always enjoy reading VT and 'Christian Theistic Ethics' was no exception. VT does a spectacular job at destroying natural law theories as a basis for doing ethics. He does this much in the same way as he has destroyed natural, or autonomous, epistemologies in his other works. Unfortunately, he doesn't capitalize on the link between epistemology and ethics and as such, there is no discussion of the relation of the two in this text. John Frame is probably the only one I am aware of that discusses that relation (particularly in his 'Doctrine of the Knowledge of God').
On page 134, VT says the following, "There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy." This is a profound admission for VT and one in which I agree with entirely. But nothing in VT's writings would lead you to believe he was a theonomist. In fact, one might even get the impression he flatly rejected theonomy. Consider this quote from a letter he wrote to Gregg Singer in 1972, “Then too I am frankly a little concerned about the political views of Mr. Rushdoony and Mr. North and particularly if I am correctly informed about some of the views Gary North has with respect to the application of Old Testament principles to our day. My only point is that I would hope and expect that they would not claim that such views are inherent in the principles I hold”
Now there is a rather broad spectrum of thought and application in the theonomic world. And it may very well be the case that VT was only rejecting the theonomic views of Rushdoony and North (both of which have their differences to each other). But sadly nothing in VT's writings really shed light on the subject. The quote from 'Christian Theistic Ethics' referenced above does force the dichotomy. VT was either a theonomist OR he was an antinomian. He left room for no other alternative.
On page 134, VT says the following, "There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy." This is a profound admission for VT and one in which I agree with entirely. But nothing in VT's writings would lead you to believe he was a theonomist. In fact, one might even get the impression he flatly rejected theonomy. Consider this quote from a letter he wrote to Gregg Singer in 1972, “Then too I am frankly a little concerned about the political views of Mr. Rushdoony and Mr. North and particularly if I am correctly informed about some of the views Gary North has with respect to the application of Old Testament principles to our day. My only point is that I would hope and expect that they would not claim that such views are inherent in the principles I hold”
Now there is a rather broad spectrum of thought and application in the theonomic world. And it may very well be the case that VT was only rejecting the theonomic views of Rushdoony and North (both of which have their differences to each other). But sadly nothing in VT's writings really shed light on the subject. The quote from 'Christian Theistic Ethics' referenced above does force the dichotomy. VT was either a theonomist OR he was an antinomian. He left room for no other alternative.
December 19, 2022
Cornelius van Til (1895-1987) is a reputable theologian in the Reformed tradition. Judge my surprise when reading his Christian Theistic Ethics (1940). In my judgment, it consists of sophomoric theology that flies in the face of time-honoured Christian thought. He understands the kingdom of God as man’s summum bonum, the perfect society where evil has been destroyed. Although this cannot be fully realized before the Parousia, we must work to destroy evil in ourselves and others: “The destruction of all evil everywhere is the negative but unavoidable task of every member of the kingdom of God” (p. 71). In the OT, the righteous Israelites destroyed evil in the form of pagan people. Van Til argues that we must continue in this vein, although not by murdering civilian people and little children anymore. Rather, we must destroy the evil inside other people. This is the change from exterior to interior inaugurated by the NT. Otherwise it’s the same concept: “[T]he commands of complete extermination of the enemies of the people of God marks off the Old Testament ethics as being essentially one with New Testament ethics rather than the contrary” (p. 72).
How does this square with Jesus’s saying that we mustn’t judge others? “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matt. 7:2). According to traditional theology evil cannot be destroyed. It is bound to increase with increased good, because evil is parasitic on good. Luther has thoroughly explained how evil acquires its impetus from good. Anyway, how is evil destroyed according to Van Til? It is not by wrestling with the moral problems. Quite the reverse; it is by acquiring moral perfection through spontaneity and swiftness of reaction: “Man was created so that he spontaneously served God. For this reason he must grow in spontaneity” (p. 38). In this way man develops his self-determination so that his will becomes strong and good: “[I]f man thus develops his swiftness and stability of reaction to the will of God, he develops momentum for the doing of the will of God” (p. 42). It follows that we may contribute to the destruction of evil by spontaneously correcting others. (Good luck with that!) This is a heretic Pelagian idea, i.e., that we are capable of restoring mankind’s corrupt will and bring it in accordance with the will of God.
The author adheres to the theocratic ideal: “[The theocracy] answers to all four of the requirements of the redemptive ethical ideal…” (p. 81). Other theologians, such as Augustine and Luther, have rejected the theocratic ideal. Van Til opposes “modernism” and revives archaic religious thought. Sickness, poverty and adversity are the consequences of sin whereas health and prosperity are the blessings of righteousness and holiness. But it’s not so simple that prosperous people are always good and poor people always sinful. This is because the blessings could be temporarily separated from righteousness. The poor and sick person might not have received his reward yet, and the rich person not yet his punishment for his sins (p. 111). He also says that “God loves those who love him and hates those who hate him even while they are on the earth. It will not do to say with respect to all men on earth that God hates only the sin but not the sinner. God hates the sinner” (p. 109). I find this very hard to reconcile with the Gospel.
The author has a beef with Immanuel Kant. But I find the Kantian discussion irrelevant, considering that Kantianism is today more or less obsolete. The author uses sophomoric arguments to promulgate a vulgar and archaic theology irreconcilable with the Christian spirit. How could this nincompoop rise to such prominence?
How does this square with Jesus’s saying that we mustn’t judge others? “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matt. 7:2). According to traditional theology evil cannot be destroyed. It is bound to increase with increased good, because evil is parasitic on good. Luther has thoroughly explained how evil acquires its impetus from good. Anyway, how is evil destroyed according to Van Til? It is not by wrestling with the moral problems. Quite the reverse; it is by acquiring moral perfection through spontaneity and swiftness of reaction: “Man was created so that he spontaneously served God. For this reason he must grow in spontaneity” (p. 38). In this way man develops his self-determination so that his will becomes strong and good: “[I]f man thus develops his swiftness and stability of reaction to the will of God, he develops momentum for the doing of the will of God” (p. 42). It follows that we may contribute to the destruction of evil by spontaneously correcting others. (Good luck with that!) This is a heretic Pelagian idea, i.e., that we are capable of restoring mankind’s corrupt will and bring it in accordance with the will of God.
The author adheres to the theocratic ideal: “[The theocracy] answers to all four of the requirements of the redemptive ethical ideal…” (p. 81). Other theologians, such as Augustine and Luther, have rejected the theocratic ideal. Van Til opposes “modernism” and revives archaic religious thought. Sickness, poverty and adversity are the consequences of sin whereas health and prosperity are the blessings of righteousness and holiness. But it’s not so simple that prosperous people are always good and poor people always sinful. This is because the blessings could be temporarily separated from righteousness. The poor and sick person might not have received his reward yet, and the rich person not yet his punishment for his sins (p. 111). He also says that “God loves those who love him and hates those who hate him even while they are on the earth. It will not do to say with respect to all men on earth that God hates only the sin but not the sinner. God hates the sinner” (p. 109). I find this very hard to reconcile with the Gospel.
The author has a beef with Immanuel Kant. But I find the Kantian discussion irrelevant, considering that Kantianism is today more or less obsolete. The author uses sophomoric arguments to promulgate a vulgar and archaic theology irreconcilable with the Christian spirit. How could this nincompoop rise to such prominence?
June 22, 2012
This is really good.
March 29, 2017
I cannot speak highly enough of this book. The pages are littered with Van Til's usual brilliant insights, some of which are incredibly profound. This may be the best book on ethics that has ever been written (IMHO). It's not perfect, it contains many of Van Til's usual flaws, but what a gift this man was to the Church of Christ!
Any Christian who wrestles earnestly with this book (and it will take some real wrestling) will benefit immensely.
I hope somebody builds a comprehensive and well-ordered work on ethics from a reformed perspective on the back of this work. It is well and truly needed, and it will well and truly need the insight provided by Van Til in this book too.
I would give this book six stars if I could. Do yourself a favour: read it. In fact, read as much Van Til as you can get your hands on.
Any Christian who wrestles earnestly with this book (and it will take some real wrestling) will benefit immensely.
I hope somebody builds a comprehensive and well-ordered work on ethics from a reformed perspective on the back of this work. It is well and truly needed, and it will well and truly need the insight provided by Van Til in this book too.
I would give this book six stars if I could. Do yourself a favour: read it. In fact, read as much Van Til as you can get your hands on.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews