Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til

by E.R. Geehan (Editor)

Throughout his long career, Cornelius Van Til--a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and a renowned apologist--raised and discussed issues such as the authority of the Scriptures, the effects of the fall, and the existence of "common ground" between believers and unbelievers. Such issues are as significant in our day as they were in his. First published in 1971 and now back in print, Jerusalem and Athens goes beyond the scope of a typical festschrift. As a point of reference for what follows, it opens with Van Til's clear and simple introduction to his own thought, in which he defends the Christian's commitment to the "self-attesting Christ of Scripture" "I have never met Christ in the flesh. No matter, he has written me a letter." This is followed by twenty-five critical essays on theology, theological method, philosophy, and apologetics written by contributors such as J. I. Packer, G. C. Berkouwer, Richard Gaffin, Herman Ridderbos, and Rousas Rushdoony. Van Til replies to a number of these essays, sharpening the impact of this unique and useful book.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology

498 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 1971

Reviews

[Steven H]

A ‘PRO/CON’ WRITTEN SYMPOSIUM ON VAN TIL AND HIS PHILOSOPHICAL APOLOGETICS

The introductory page of this 1971 book explains, “The critical essays in this book are dedicated to Cornelius Van Til on … his 75th birthday and 40th anniversary as professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary… his influence has been both strategic and controversial… Cornelius Van Til was born into a large family on May 3, 1895, in The Netherlands. His family migrated to the United States in 1905… settling in Indiana. They farmed … The family faith was Reformed, and church membership Christian Reformed… [He] is a graduate of Calvin College, of Princeton Theological Seminary, and Princeton University… After a year in the pastorate he spent one year (1928-1929) as Instructor of Apologetics at Princeton Theological Seminary… [he then accepted] the position of Professor of Apologetics in the newly formed Westminster Theological Seminary… This symposium is composed of essays which deal… with the problems and issues raised and discussed in the apologetics of Cornelius Van Til. A basic, non-philosophical introduction to his own thought is … ‘My Credo.’ The impact of the book is sharpened by Van Til’s response to those essays which he felt necessitated a reply.”

Van Til wrote in ‘My Credo,’ “The self-attesting Christ of Scripture has always been my starting point for everything I have said.” (Pg. 3) “all men are God’s children; they all bear his image. But the first pair… sinned against God… Both Jews and Greeks … have nevertheless exchanged the truth of God for a lie… As children of Adam they … see every fact as other than it really is… This, then, is the message … to the whole Church by Christ himself… How else… can anyone be a follower of the Reformation?… it was natural that … I first used the works of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck… all so-called ‘evangelical’ non-Reformed theologies … have an inadequate view of sovereign grace… A God who cannot control history because of countless men with wills… can only make salvation a bare ‘possibility.’ … The emphasis … on human autonomy… plays havoc with the Scriptural message of salvation by grace alone… For this reason no non-Reformed theology can … be called a ‘theology of the Holy Spirit.’… Deciding… to follow the Reformer in theology, it was natural that I attempt also to do so in apologetics…

“[T]he issue[s] between ... an Arminian and … a Calvinist… are total. There are no ‘fundamentals’ in common between us… They are different not only in their CONTENT but also in the very METHOD of their construction... on a position such as mine the Christian does not accept the non-Christian scheme wherein the non-Christian determines that are ‘good reasons’ and ‘valid proofs.’ … the Christian offers the self-attesting Christ … as the only foundation upon which a man must stand in order to give any ‘reasons’ for anything at all… only after accepting the biblical scheme of things will any man be able to understand and account for his own rationality.” (Pg. 3-18)

Herman Dooyeweerd comments on Van Til, “[you say] the entire transcendental method hangs in the air except for the fact that it rests upon the fullness and unity of truth accepted on the authority of Scripture.’ But by a transcendent criticism, as opposed to the transcendental critique of theoretical thought, I understood something quite different from what you suppose. I meant by ‘transcendent criticism,’ the dogmatic manner of criticizing philosophical theories from a theological or from a different philosophical viewpoint without a critical distinction between ‘theoretical propositions’ and the ‘supra-theoretical presuppositions lying at their foundation.’ … I reject such a TRANSCENDENT critique… What is actually a complex of philosophical ideas dominated by unbiblical motives, may be accepted by dogmatic theology and accommodated to the doctrine of the church… [and] passed off as an article of Christian faith… I was therefore really quite surprised by your comment on the ambiguous use of the term ‘religious’ in my transcendental critique.” (Pg. 75, 78) “I find myself confronted with, what I fear to be, a typical rationalistic scholastic tendency in your theological thought… obeying the voice of God … means [that] … man has to ‘think God’s thoughts after him.’ Is this really a biblical view? I am afraid not. Nowhere does the Bible speak of… subjecting every human thought to divine thought.” (Pg. 81, 84)

Van Til states in his response to Dooyeweerd, “Roman Catholics and Arminians attribute some measure of autonomy to man. They start from their naive experience of freedom as an ultimate. Doing this they … conclude that it is logically impossible to hold that man is both free and determined by the plan of God. Thus they …. ADD the Scripture teachings to their already constructed interpretation of man and the world. Of course Roman Catholics and Arminians are often much better than their systems indicate…” (Pg. 124-125) Later, he adds, “[At] Princeton I had familiarized myself with the terminology and thinking of … philosophy… I had not the genius that you have. I decided to approach my non-Christian friends … I put Christian meanings into their words. I would tell them that my view of reality and knowledge … is taken from Scripture… My ‘system’ is attained by thinking upon all the aspects of reality in the light of the Christ of Scripture. I try to think God’s thoughts after him.” (Pg. 125-126)

G.C. Berkouwer notes, "I approached Van Til’s book on the ‘Sovereignty of Grace’ in the expectation that here EXEGESIS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE would play a decisive role. That this was not the case disappointed me theologically. That Van Til is a philosopher and a dogmatician and professionally not an exegete does not solve the Reformed problem. Certainly each dogmatician has this problem---he is not an expert in the exegesis of the Old and New Testaments---but this does not diminish his responsibility to be occupied with the INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures. If he fails to do so, he must certainly be found on the way of an unreformed sanctioning of tradition.” (Pg. 200)

Paul K. Jewett observes, “As I turned to Van Til’s book about the Jews, there was a measure of disappointment that this question of Christianity and anti-Semitism was not touched upon. True, the book ‘Christ and the Jews’ is in a series dealing with philosophy and theology, not ethics. And as the title indicates, it is concerned with ‘CHRIST and the Jews,’ not ‘CHRISTIANS and the Jews.’ … it seems difficult to see how in 1969 a book on the broad theme of Christ and the Jews could be written from a Christian perspective with no mention of these problems.” (Pg. 222-223)

Robert D. Knudsen explains, “The powerful Dutch Reformed tradition had virtually abandoned apologetics under the influence of the penetrating criticism of Abraham Kuyper. To his mind apologetics meant taking a defensive position against the attacks of unbelief. This was too weak, too passive… That dreary history arose, Van Til thought… because the defenders of the Christian faith had allowed the attackers to occupy some ground in their own right… If, on the other hand, the invader could be denied all right to truth, he would be denied a foothold altogether. The entire terrain could be claimed for Christ, and the invader challenged as to his right to be there at all. Thus Van Til sought to reinstate apologetics, but on a new basis. He admitted the force of Kuyper’s criticism of apologetics as it was carried on traditionally… Nevertheless, he recognized that even a good offense demanded that the enemy be denied any foothold behind the defensive lines.” (Pg. 275-276)

Van Til responded to Knudsen, “From the very beginning of this philosophical movement I have been both interested and appreciative of its efforts. I was especially delighted with Vollenhoven’s work on the necessity of a Christian methodology… In this early work of Vollenhoven I saw a truly Christ-oriented and therefore truly biblical life and world view… For years I made use of … the new ‘Calvinistic’ philosophy [of] Prof. Dooyeweerd. In the course of time, however, I began to see certain foreign elements in Dooyeweerd’s thinking… the basic point of the matter… is that whereas I attempt to show the non-Christian that NOTHING, no fact or law, can be seen as it truly is except in the light of the revelation of God in Christ through Scripture. Dooyeweerd attempts to speak intelligently with unbelievers about … states of affairs which are intelligible up to a point prior to the introduction of a Christ scheme of things. This difference between us is basic.” (Pg. 303-305)

Gordon R. Lewis says of Van Til and Edward John Carnell, “Carnell faces the very real possibility that a person can surrender his autonomy not only to God, but also to the devil. Men also surrender their autonomy to the unitarian God of the Koran, or to the flesh and bones God of the Mormon’s ‘Doctrines and Covenants,' or to the impersonal Principles of ‘Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures'…. It is all well and good to say that their messages were self-authenticating after the messengers had adequate credentials. Mormons claim the witness of the Holy Spirit to authenticate their sacred writings. The claim that Scripture is self-authenticating does not make it so for any particular individual who does not accredit its writers as spokesmen for God. Its credentials need to be checked. If the claims of Scripture for itself cannot be checked by principles of truth, goodness, and fact, then by what?” (Pg. 355)

John Warwick Montgomery argues, “by accepting aprioristic circularity, [Van Til] at the same time eliminates all possibility of offering a positive demonstration of the truth of the Christian view… all the non-Christians whom Van Til chooses to criticize could employ his own two-edged sword against him, crying… ‘Such criticisms are irrelevant, for right reason… begins with commitment to MY presuppositional starting point!’ … When world views collide, an appeal to common facts is the only preservative against philosophical solipsism and religious anarchy.” (Pg. 387-388) He adds, “Apologetics is directed to UNBELIEVERS---to those who by definition do not accept God’s Word as divine utterance.” (Pg. 391)

Van Til responds to Montgomery: “When exegesis seems to lead into so-called ‘antinomies’ such as the relation of the all-controlling sovereignty of God to the freedom and responsibility of men, I simply admit that I cannot logically penetrate the situation. The Bible teaches God’s sovereign electing grace. It also teaches the universal offer of the gospel. I cannot logically comprehend the relation between the two, but this fact does not lead me to a denial of either one of them.” (Pg. 399) Van Til imagines Luther saying to Montgomery, “He does not seem to realize that his inductive method… implies, as it is implied by, a metaphysics of pure chance. I hope he won’t continue to try straddling the fence.” (Pg. 403)

W. Stanfoed Reid points out to Montgomery, “In his debate with Professor Stroll… he presented what he believed to be the empirical evidence for Christianity, but we have no evidence that he convinced Stroll … [nor] than he did Professor [Thomas] Altizer… or Bishop [James] Pike… The fact is, Montgomery’s view of the nature and efficacy of the scientific method is wrong… While one must admit, with Montgomery, that probability is undoubtedly the basis upon which many decisions are made in this life, one must also ask: is that an adequate basis upon which to settle one’s eternal destiny?” (Pg. 409-410)

This vastly informative book will absolute “must reading” for anyone seriously studying Van Til and his apologetic/theological method.

[Aaron]

In Jerusalem and Athens, P&R presents critical discussions on the philosophy and apologetics of Cornelius Van Til.

Edited by E. R. Geehan, this book is an academic introduction to the thinking of author and apologist Cornelius Van Til, professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary. Presented as a festschrift, these 25 critical essays are profound. Van Til’s responses are recorded here, making for an educational and sharpening read.

A Christ-Centered Apologetic

Van Til offers his own essay to open the book by summarizing his main beliefs. He writes on the self-attesting Christ of Scripture, and what it means to have a Christ-centered apologetic. He is clear and convincing, and I found reading his writing to be inspiring.

I learned much about the world of academic apologetics after reading this book. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes’ essay on crucial biblical passages for Christian apologetics includes the biblical doctrine of creation, the doctrine of the fall, the testimony to the existence of God, the total and ultimate incapacitation of man through sin, salvation, by grace, through faith, and eschatology.

Critical Christian Thinking

I was pleased to read an essay by J. I. Packer, on biblical authority, hermeneutics, and inerrancy. Reading these defenses strengthened my faith and made me want to learn more. I found Van Til’s responses to critical essays to be fascinating. I was challenged to be thoughtful and engaging when faced with criticism and feedback.

This book introduced me the works and apologetics of Cornelius Van Til. It testifies to a man who thought and taught the depths and wonders of God. It is a great witness to critical Christian thinking that influences the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I received a media copy of Jerusalem and Athens and this is my honest review.

[Lu Tsun]

This book is only useful for those who seriously desires penetrating the thoughts of Van Til. There are a lot of first-hand materials of Van Til's correspondence with his colleagues and critics.