Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought

by John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Til

The insights of Cornelius Van Til have generated intense discussion among friends and foes alike. Until now nearly everything written about Van Til has come from either uncritical followers or unsympathetic critics.This volume, marking the one hundredth anniversary of Van Til’s birth, combines deep appreciation with incisive critical analysis of the renowned Westminster apologist’s ideas. John M. Frame offers warm personal reflections on Van Til’s life and a close examination of his thought, including his interaction with prominent figures in the Reformed, evangelical, and secular communities. In terms of its spirit, scope, clarity, and profundity, this volume is must reading for serious students of apologetics and theology.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Biography

463 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 1995

About the author

For his education, Frame received degrees from Princeton University (A.B.), Westminster Theological Seminary (B.D.), Yale University (A.M. and M.Phil., though he was working on a doctorate and admits his own failure to complete his dissertation), and Belhaven College (D.D.). He has served on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary and was a founding faculty member of their California campus. He currently (as of 2022) teaches Apologetics and The History of Philosophy and Christian thought at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL.

Reviews

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finally got around to reading and finishing John Frame’s interpretation of Christian apologist and theologian Cornelius Van Til. This is probably long overdue given how long my interests is with Presuppositional apologetics and also having read so much of Frame’s works daily in my life for the last couple of years. I must say that I probably appreciated this work in the current place in my life than I would have appreciated it ten years ago. I do not always agree with John Frame being myself more in line with Greg Bahnsen’s approach towards apologetics but I have always found that even when I disagree with Frame he certainly gives much fuel for thought and as a result with interacting with his writings I have become more nuanced and achieved a better synthesis of what to believe.


Frame is a bit more critical of Cornelius Van Til the father of Presuppositional apologetics than most of Van Til’s disciples and readers will see that in the book. While Frame does not always agree with Van Til nevertheless he still sees himself as a Presuppositionalist. That means that at times Frame defends the methodology of Presuppositional apologetics from bad criticisms and attacks and when he does he does it well. A great example of Frame’s critique of critiques against Van Til and Presuppositionalism can be seen in appendix A found in the end of the book titled “Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic” in which Frame responds to RC Sproul, John Grestner and Arthur Lindsley’s book titled Classical Apologetics. Even those who disagree with Van Til, Presuppositional apologetics and John Frame has a lot to benefit from reading Frame in general and this book in particular.

The book is divided into six parts. Part one is titled “Introductory Considerations” which has a chapter on Frame’s approach to Van Til with two more chapters on Van Til’s life and character and Van Til’s place in history. The last two chapters mentioned really puts Van Til’s contribution and theology in perspective. I think they are helpful for those who do not know Van Til to read chapters two and three in the book. Part two is on the metaphysics of knowledge and is probably the longest section of the book. It covers a lot of significant theological topics and subjects in the teaching of Van Til that he is known for (the role of God in our knowledge, God’s revelation and presuppositions, etc). Part three is on the ethics of knowledge while part four looks at Van Til’s take on the arguments for Christianity given throughout church history. In part five Frame looks at Van Til as a critic while part six is the conclusion that has a chapter on Van Til’s successors and the future of Van Til’s teachings.

For those who are familiar with Greg Bahnsen’s large work on Van Til’s apologetics (which is also an amazing work) one might be tempted to ask why get Frame’s work on Van Til. I think this work by John Frame on Van Til is still worthwhile since it looks at other topics and theological issues that Bahnsen didn’t spend as much time on: Van Til and the Trinity, a whole chapter on common grace, etc. The paragraphs below are on some of those chapters in the book that I found interesting and helpful; of course given the depth and length of the book not everything can be covered.

I thought chapter seven stood out and made a helpful contribution in the discussion about analogical knowledge. This rather has a history of heated discussion between those who taught at Westminster Seminary and Gordon Clark and his followers. Frame did a good job defining what Van Til meant by analogy which remain so elusive for many, both friends and critics of Van Til. Frame gives us a very helpful summary of the ecclesiastical exchange during the Van Til/Gordon Clark controversy; Frame even corrected my assumption that Clark got kicked out of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church with his ordination revoked, although later Gordon Clark did leave the denomination.

I also enjoyed reading Frame’s chapter on common grace. Here he does a good job not only analyzing Van Til’s theology of common grace but also critiquing two books that was critical of Van Til’s view of common grace. Frame’s discussion of Gary North’s rejection of Van Til’s formulation of common grace also made me see how eschatology plays a role in one’s understanding of how common grace works. Clearly North with his postmillennialism saw common grace increasing in the course of history since there is much progress with the Gospel being preached and forming Christian civilizations while Van Til’s amillennialism saw common grace diminishing with the course of history given the fact that people and society.

I thought at times Frame was much more sympathetic towards certain positions of Classical Apologetics more than I would personally like. But one thing I am glad that Frame is wrong on is on page 389 in the book in which Frame said that he sense interests in Van Til has declined since Van Til’s death in 1987; on the contrary, because of God’s providence presuppositional apologetics has grown beyond what Frame and others would have been able to imagine in 1995 when Frame wrote this book; and with the growth of interests with Presuppositional apologetics, interests in Van Til the theologian and the man himself has grown.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Metaphysics of Knowledge: God as Self-Contained Fullness
This is Frame's favorite aspect of Van Til's thought, and probably the best section in the book. This is another way of saying God's aseity. God is sufficient in himself. From God's self-containment, we may say that God's unity implies his simplicity: "If there is only one God, then there is nothing "in" him that is independent of him" (55). How does God's revelation play into this? Due to the richness of God's nature, we could never know him left to ourselves. However, if God, a self-contained God--and a self-contained God who meets the standards of immanency and transcendence, reveals himself, then we have certain, sure knowledge of who this God is (transcendence) and how his revelation applies to concrete situations (immanence).

Absolute Personality
Non-Christian systems die on the altar of personality. Either they posit personal, but finite gods (Greek pantheon) or impersonal, infinite gods (Eastern religions). Only Christian theism posits a personal, absolute God. They do so because of the Trinity. To quote CVT, "the members of the trinity are exhaustively representational of one another" (qtd. Frame, 59). To end this section with a quote and call to action from Frame, "Impersonal facts and laws cannot be ultimate, precisely because they are not personal. They cannot account for rationality, for moral value, for the causal order of the universe, or for the universal applicability of logic" (60).

The Trinity
Ah, this is where the heresy charges come in! And given the renewed interest in Trinitarianism, this section can be very useful. Van Til begins by stating and affirming what the Church has taught on the Trinity. His position can be summarized in the following moves: Trinitarianism denies correlativism, the belief that God and creation are dependent on one another. God is three persons and one Person. Watch closely. He calls the whole Godhead "one person." He is not saying that God is one in essence and three in essence. The main question is "the one being personal or impersonal?" (67). Van Til is calling the whole Godhood one "person" in order to avoid making the essence of God to be merely an abstraction. Frame argues, "If the three persons (individually and collectively) exhaust the divine essence (are "coterminous" with it), then the divine essence itself must be personal" (68). And if God is an absolute person (he is), and he is one (he is), then there must be a sense in which he is a person. Granting the Augustinian circumincessio, every act of God is a personal act involving all three persons acting in unity (68).

The Problem of the One and the Many
I think Rushdoony was more excited about this than Van Til (see Van Til's response to Rush in Jerusalem and Athens). How do we find unity in the midst of plurality? Unbelief cannot answer this question. It always tends toward one or the other extreme. If abstract being is ultimate, then there are no particulars. If abstract particular is ultimate, then there is no truth. The Trinity is both personal one and many.

Soverignty of God and Analogous Reasoning
Van Til takes the standard, Dordtian view of election and reprobation. He twists it into his own language: equal ultimacy. He defends God against being the author of evil by saying God is the ultimate cause, not the proximate cause. Frame suggests that this doesn't get God off the hook and Van Til would have been better to stick with the Jobian theodicy.
There has been much confusion on Van Til's use of analogy. Aquinas used analogy between God and man in Neo-Platonic terms, suggesting a continuum of being between God and man. Van Til does not espouse Neo-Platonism. He should be interpreted that the language between God and man is different, but we should think God's thoughts after him.

The Clark Controversy
I am not going to review this part. Suffice to say he makes Clark look good.

Revelation
Contrary to popular opinion, Van Til does hold to general revelation. Given his view of God's sovereignty, all things reveal God's decree. (Man is receptively reconstructive of God's revelation. It is his job to re-interpret previously God-interpreted facts.) In short, Van Til holds to the typical Kuyperian view of revelation. From this Van Til posits a three-fold division in God's revelation: a revelation from God, from nature, and from self (120). This is perspectival, btw. As to Scripture, it is self-attesting and bears God's full authority. As such, it must be inerrant.

Presuppositions
A presupposition is not a belief that one must have before (temporally speaking) one comes to believe in other things; rather, it is a belief that is independent of some other knowledge and governs that knowledge to some extent.

CVT also distinguishes between proximate and ultimate presuppositions. Frame didn't develop this section as thoroughly as he could have. One of my few faults with the book.

Evidence
CVT does not disparage the use of evidence, many critics to the contrary. Rather, he denies the use of "brute facts." Given the Trinity, all facts and laws are correlative. Brute facts are "uninterpreted facts" and therefore meaningless, the constituents of a universe of pure chance. This means we cannot separate facts from meaning. We cannot challenge the unbeliever on a particular fact if we do not challenge his philosophy of fact. Again, see RJ Rushdoony on facts and evidence (JBA).

Part 3: The Ethics of Knowledge
Antithesis
Frame argues that Van Til was right in stressing the antithesis but his language rendered his own view of it ambiguous. To state it clearly: The natural man in principle is opposed to the truth of God. Psychologically, however, he does not live that way (cf. Greg Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings

[Grant Van Brimmer · Rating 5 out of 5]

A 25-ish paper is going to be the result of my study in Van Til analyzers.

[Arne Verster · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review: Cornelius Van Til, An Analysis of his Thought by John Frame

Book description

This volume, marking the one-hundredth anniversary of Van Til’s birth, combines deep appreciation with incisive critical analysis of the renowned Westminster apologist’s ideas. John M. Frame offers warm personal reflections on Van Til’s life and a close examination of his thought, including his interaction with prominent figures in the Reformed, evangelical, and secular communities. In terms of its spirit, scope, clarity, and profundity, this volume is a must-read for serious students of apologetics and theology.


About the author

John M. Frame is a retired American Christian philosopher and Calvinist theologian especially noted for his work in epistemology and presuppositional apologetics, systematic theology, and ethics. He is one of the foremost interpreters and critics of the thought of Cornelius Van Til.




At a glance

I strongly recommend ....


Rating: 7.5/10.


If you feel like purchasing the book yourself, please use the link below. Apologetics Central receives a commission for each of our links that convert into purchases. Click the book below, or follow this link.


Contents at a glance

Part 1: Introductory Considerations

Starting Point

Van Til’s Life and Character

Van Til’s Place in History

Part 2: The Metaphysics of Knowledge

God: Self-Contained Fullness and Absolute Personality

The Trinity

The Sovereignty of God

Analogical Knowledge

The Clark Controversy

Revelation

Presuppositions

The Primacy of the Intellect

Logic

The Analogical System

Evidence

Part 3: The Ethics of Knowledge

Antithesis

Common Grace

Rationalism and Irrationalism

Part 4: The Argument for Christianity

The Traditional Method: The Church Fathers

The Traditional Method: Thomas Aquinas

The Traditional Method: Joseph Butler

The Traditional Method: Edward J. Carnell

Spiral Argument

Reasoning by Presupposition

Apologetics in Action

Part 5: Van Til as Critic

Greek Philosophy and Scholasticism

Immanuel Kant and Karl Barth

Herman Dooyeweerd

Part 6: Conclusions

Van Til’s Successors

Van Til and Our Future

Overview

Part 1: Introductory considerations

I enjoyed reading part 1 a lot when I started with the book. It gives some cool insights into what it was like to sit in a class with Van Til and engage with him as a student.


It is clear Frame has a lot of appreciation for Van Til. However, it is interesting that Frame paints Van Til as someone who would shut down students who disagree with him / or question him, (calling them Arminians) but yet also give them low marks if they simply repeat his sayings in their papers whilst rewarding them if they question or disagree with him. Frame lists a few cases where Van Til gave him near-perfect marks for disagreeing with him! This struck me as a slight inconsistency in painting Van Til's character.


Frame's portrayal of Van Til goes contrary to what I've heard from Bahnsen and Oliphint. But this is perhaps because Frame was more critical of him, whereas Bahnsen and Oliphint not so much. Nevertheless, our relationship with people differ from person to person, and it remains interesting to get a glimpse of Van Til's character from Frame's perspective.


Part 2: The metaphysics of knowledge

In part 2, Frame discusses Van Til's metaphysics of knowledge. From Frame's point of view, there's almost no criticism here.


In preparing to write a review (which is hopefully the first of many to come), I read a lot about what other people had to say about the book. Most seem to agree that part 2 is where the heart of the book lies. Part 2 captures Van Til's system in a few pages and describes various aspects that are important toward understanding Van Til (e.g. the problem of the one and the many, analogical reasoning, the central importance of the doctrine of the Trinity).


Part 2 is also by far the longest section of the book.


I do appreciate Frame's attention to the isolated controversies during Van Til's time. After outlining Van Til's analogical system, Frame discusses the Clark controversy in quite some detail. His contribution here is extremely valuable, is it gives us a practical/historical example to see what Van Til meant with his analogical reasoning (which is not like the doctrine of analogy in Aquinas).


Part 3: The ethics of knowledge

In part 3 Frame discusses the antithesis between believers and unbelievers, as well as common grace. It is here where I would place the difference between Van Til and Frame, and it is their differing ideas in this section, that leads to the differences explored in part 4. Although Frame agrees with Van Til in theory on antithesis and common grace, he departs from Van Til in practice when engaging with unbelievers.


Part 4: The argument for Christianity

Frame outlines Van Til's criticism of past apologetics (that of the church fathers, Aquinas, Butler and Carnell). He then outlines how Van Til how believed apologetics to be practised. He spends a great deal of time going through Van Til's popular pamphlet called Why I believe in God which is also a very useful resource to the reader.


Part 5: Van Til as a critic

Part 5 was very tedious for me. I found myself lost in Frame's discussion of Dooyeweerd and Barth, but I was very intrigued by his handling of Scholasticism (Thomism). There's some great food for thought here that I wish Frame could have fleshed out more. I appreciated him adding one of his papers from university (which is in a dialogue format) to the book. It really makes his arguments on Thomism easy to follow.


Part 6: Conclusion

In part 6 Frame outlines the current state of presuppositionalism. He mentions a few familiar names in the field and some names that were "up and coming" that are unknown today. It intrigued me that there was no mention of Bahnsen's passing away in this section, so I looked up the date of the book's publishing to compare dates. It is interesting to note that Frame's book was published in 1995, the same year in which Bahnsen passed away.


There's not much value in this section for someone reading in 2021, but it is interesting to see how the things Frame mentions have panned out.


The great points

Clear language. Easy to read and to follow. I might be a bit biased here because I've spent nearly three years now reading and learning about presuppositional apologetics before reading this book. I wouldn't recommend an outright beginner read Frame's book, but I certainly think that anyone that puts their mind to it will be able to make a great deal of sense out of what Frame wrote. There's something in here for everyone.


Like I mentioned before, if the critics of Van Til were to give Frame's book an honest read before putting pen to paper, we'd be living in a slightly better world!


The book did stimulate my thinking on the role of evidence and traditional arguments a lot. I'll go back and read those sections again soon.


Room for improvement

Frame, unlike Van Til, is wary to be critical of other positions. This isn't in and of itself a bad thing. I've also come to learn that it's best to keep quiet and get to know your stuff before you put pen to paper and humiliate yourself.


Frame discusses Van Til's critique of other thinkers (e.g. Aquinas, Butler, Barth, Dooyeweerd), but Frame is a lot more charitable than Van Til. At the beginning of the book he even makes a joke along the following lines (paraphrased):


Van Til believed he was right, and others were wrong. Frame believes Van Til has most elements right and others have some elements right. Poythress believes everyone's right from a certain perspective!


It's hard for me to place Frame's analysis of these other thinkers in any useful place. He demonstrates that there are ways in which we can interpret other thinkers in more charitable lights than Van Til did and that these charitable interpretations would reduce the antithesis between the two men - but I'm not really convinced that this is the way we ought to go. If we interpret everyone in such a way as to not bring out the differences, how will we make progress?

I agree with Frame that Van Til was very critical when engaging with other thinkers, but this criticism allows them to state their position clearly and articulate themselves better. This is something useful that came out of the Clark controversy.


The not-so-great points

In my opinion, the weakest part of Frame's work is when he discusses Van Til's doctrine of common grace and the transcendental argument.


He rightly points out that unbelievers have no knowledge (in principle), but because of the restriction of their evil via common grace, unbelievers are not wholly destroyed by their rebellious thoughts and commitments.


If, Frame argues, unbelievers can know due to common grace, why can't we give them the traditional arguments? Is it not possible that through common grace someone might actually follow the argument to its conclusion, and that it might be a means by which the Spirit can lead someone to repentance?


I think the answer is an obvious yes. There are numerous testimonies of people who found Christ via the work of a classical or evidentialist apologist. But just because God hits straight blows with a crooked stick does not mean that we must be content with using crooked sticks. We must still strive to develop the best, and most Scripturally sound and consistent arguments we can. That is what Van Til was after.


In discussions with friends in South Africa, a similar question was asked of me. If TAG doesn't lead to a surefire conversion, why can't we just use the other arguments as well as they accomplish the same thing! My counter-point was this: We can also argue with unbelievers by literally throwing rocks at them, which won't lead to a surefire conversion. But is it Biblically faithful? That's the question.


Frame agrees with Van Til's metaphysics of knowledge. The question is then why he doesn't see that any argument that doesn't distinguish between the epistemology of the unbeliever and the epistemology of the Christian, that attempts to build on some kind of neutral ground (facts that are equally available to both believer and unbeliever), already concedes to the unbeliever that they're fine as far as it goes?


I did mention, however, that Frame forced me to think about the role of evidence and argument within presuppositionalism a lot. If someone were to ask me how I know Christ rose from the dead, would I start by giving extra-Biblical arguments? Frame seems to think that would be alright. I wouldn't be against it per se, but as Bosserman notes in his interview with Parker Settecase, there's no way to try and overcome radical scepticism with the simple addition of more facts. We must call the unbeliever to the full submission of his or her intellect from the start. If there is no submission from the start, there'll be no full submission at the end.


Conclusion

I enjoyed Frame's book and look forward to reading more from him. I'd recommend it to people interested in Van Til no matter where they find themselves in their studies. Perhaps it's even better to give it a read whilst you're still early - it might just save you countless hours of head-scratching.


The book ends with an appendix on Van Til as a preacher. I'd like to end this review with the final words of the book, as all-in-all, this book is a testimony to the greatness of Van Til's thought. He was greatly blessed with a mind like no other, and a love for God and zeal for preaching that is rarely matched today.

Amazingly, however, for all the sweep of his vision of preaching, for all the crusading fevour with which he storms the citadels of humanistic pride, Van Til never loses his focus on the gospel. The Christ who is Lord of all is the Christ who was crucified. I like to remember a picture in a Westminster Bulletin that showed Corneluis Van Til preaching the gospel in the open air on Wall Street, New York. At an age when most surviving Ph.D's would be drowsing over a novel, he was still ready to be a street preacher, a fool for Christ's sake, Cornelius Van Til, V.D.M (Verbum Dei Minister)
Edmund P. Clowney, Preaching the Word of the Lord: Cornelius Van Til, V.D.M

[Christian Cunningham · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Frame is a top notch theologian, and he impressively summarizes and clarifies Van Til’s thought in a way that only Frame can.

Van Til has been notoriously difficult to understand since he began writing. I’ve heard it said that Van Til’s writing is like a Dutchman writing in America but getting lost somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. Frame helpfully puts the pieces of Van Til’s thought analytically without shying away from some tensions in Van Til’s thought.

Furthermore, Frame seeks to also critique his famed teacher by helping further the cause of presuppositionalism. You may disagree with Frame’s assessments or critiques of Van Til, but it will definitely help you nuance your position better.

Overall, this is a must read for those that want to understand Van Til’s thought better.

[Josh Shelton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great overview of a significant thinker, that has doubtless influenced much of the reformed epistemology of the recent decades. In reading Frame, I appreciate the difficulty of pinning down Van Til’s views on specifics. Nevertheless, I sense an indebted appreciation for his work, and sense the impact that his teachings have had on my own views.

I would not personally be inclined to study Van Til. Rushdoony and Bahnsen’s work were refreshing. Frame’s review here has been the most incisive in my opinion. Really strong overall.

[Daniel Arter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frame provides exactly what the book claims it is in its title—it is a systematic analysis of what Cornelius Van Til wrote as his primary arguments.

With that said, this book is actually an excellent primer on Van Til’s core corpus from someone who holds to Van Tillian ideology. However, I think the most helpful part of the book is Part 1, which simply tells us about who Van Til actually is as a person.

Worth reading if you’re interested in Van Til or presuppositional apologetics.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good "systematic theology" of Van Til, a critical one. Sometimes it go far away from what Van Til himself taught.

[Aurora Grace · Rating 1 out of 5]

A decent overview of Van Til's thought

[Jason Garwood · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Superb. All that stuff and the like.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Frame is another disciple of Van Til's who wrote a book attempting to summarize Van Til's theolgy and philosophy. While Rushdoony and Bahnsen both summarize his thought, Frame actually critiques it. This is the biggest difference between this volume and "By What Standard?" and "Van Til's Apologetic." The fact that Frame critiques Van Til in no way should diminish the fact that he is "Van Tillian" and agrees with Van Til in all the important ways.

Frame subscribes to Van Til's understanding of the Trinity, the inerrancy of Scripture, metaphysics, epistemology, as well as his apologetic method. Yet Frame is willing to recognize that Van Til, as any human teacher, is not perfect and must be critiqued in light of Scripture. Frame believes that Van Til was often uncharitable in ascribing too much to his opponents and was unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt when questions of orthodoxy arose. He often thought in too systematic of a way that didn't allow him to separate the good from the bad of other systematic thinkers. He would "throw the baby out with the bath water" as the saying goes.

Van Til is also often guilty of overreach. He claims too much for his method. This is Frame's biggest critique of Van Til's apologetic method. Van Til believed his transcendental argument was a sort of magic bullet that would demolish the anti-Christian arguments. Yet Frame recognizes that while it is an important method, it is also a difficult one that takes great skill and understanding to wield. Nor is it always practical. It is a sort of "nuclear option" against heavy-weight debaters, but it is probably impractical when trying to convert your co-worker.

Frame argues that even Van Til would agree that other apologetical methods had their use--though he would often use language that made it sound like he was unwilling to do so. I must admit that I felt like Frame was a bit of a party-pooper after reading Bahnsen, and even Rushdoony. They chose to summarize Van Til without really critiqueing him--leaving their readers with the impression that Van Til's apologetic method is the "be all, end all" of apologetics. Frame disagrees, and as he's famous for doing--he moderates Van Til's positions and brings them down to earth in a wise and practical way. This is a much shorter volume than Bahnsen--written for different purposes. I read Bahnsen first, then Rushdoony, and finally Frame. Doing it again, I would begin with Frame. He does a better job of introducing Van Til without overwhelming his readers with countless excerprts from Van Til's works.

Van Til is the most important apologetist and must be studied. This is the place to start.

[Ray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Van Til is one of the most needlessly obtuse writers to which I have ever given serious attention. Thank goodness for his students who have made his ideas accessible. Well, actually alot of his students have not done his legacy any favors. Some have made his views seem more extreme, smug, and novel than he ever intended.

Not John Frame. A master of making difficult concepts readable and enjoyable, Frame has written a real masterpiece once again.

This is not a slavish Van Tillian diatribe. instead, Frame knowledgably, clearly, and carefully presents Van Tils views, humbly offers some corrections, and lets the reader decide. In the process he utterly changed my mind on the issue of presuppositional apologetics. A long-time fan of Hodge, Warfield, the Old Princetonians, R C Sproul, etc., Frame convinced me of the inconsistencies I was holding onto.

A must read for any serious student of epistemology, apologetics, Reformed history, etc.

[Cbarrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frame offers a nice guide to Van Til's (VT) thought, systematizing it according to the key elements of VT's apologetics. Frame guides the reader through some of the controversies in which VT was involved. Especially helpful was some clarity to the Clark/Van Til debate focusing on the knowledge of God and ours. While helpful, some may not consider Frame's guidance in this debate either helpful or clear. Frame is presuppositional and stands in the legacy of VT, but it not afraid to mention differences he has or weaknesses of VT's thought. Since, VT's works are not always the easiest to read, Frame's book would be a good place to start if wanting to be introduced to presuppositionalism. Also see his Apologetics to the Glory of God.
After working your way through CVT: An Analysis, you may want to pick up Bahnsen's book on Van Til's Apologetic.

[Chris Comis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frame is really good at explaining VT's thought. He also isn't so VT-minded that he can't see any problems and difficulties. This book is full of great explanations, great illustrations, and even great criticisms of VT. If you you're looking for a book that better defends VT against his detractors, then you should read Bahnsen's instead.

[Keegan Hatt · Rating 5 out of 5]

The section on the Metaphysics of Knowledge is some of the best ever published and is itself worth the purchase. Frame deals with almost everything in Van Til's life and thought that is relevant. This alongside his personal interaction with everyone relevant to Van Til's career makes the book not only stimulating, but also plenty of fun!

[Isaac · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterful analysis of Van Til's thought by one of his best students. Anyone who takes Van Til seriously must read this. Frame's personal insights into Van Til as a person especially sparkle, and bring the analysis out of the ideological and into the historical. Enjoyable reading, piercing insights, a very important topic. 5 stars.

[Lu Tsun · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Frame the student of Van Til slightly modified Van Til's view to make his approach more presentable to the philosophical world.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frame was there, but he wasn't the only one.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview and helpful critical analysis from someone friendly to Van Til.