What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for Calvinism
Paper back. Green is lighter than depicted on image. Great book for one of the best Christian apologist of our time.
- GenresTheology
154 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1963
About the author
Cornelius Van Til
157 books126 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 16, 2026
VAN TIL CRITIQUES ‘LIBERALISM’ AND OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON CHRISTIANITY
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 of this 1963 book, “The title of this little book was suggested by … three small volumes: ‘The Case for a New Reformation Theology’ by William Hordern; ‘The Case for Theology in Liberal Perspective’ by L. Harold DeWolf; and ‘The Case for Orthodox Theology’ by Edward John Carnell. These books were published … in 1959… The present little volume is written… [to show] (a) that the first two positions… really represent the same view, which we may call the non-biblical view, (b) that the third position, that of Carnell, while seeking earnestly to present the biblical point of view, does not do it at all adequately.” (Pg. vii)
He said in the Introduction, “When in 1923 the late J. Gresham Machen wrote his book on ‘Christianity and Liberalism,’ he found only two theological positions in the Protestant world. He knew, of course, the differences between Lutherans and Calvinists. He knew of many other differences…. But there was one difference … that cut across all others. On the one hand there was what he, for want of a better term, called ‘liberalism’ or ‘modernism.’ The movement of liberalism, he said… ‘[is] rooted in naturalism---that is, in the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God … in connection with the origin of Christianity.’ … The liberal speaks as though he is merely rejected antiquated interpretations of Christ and his work. In reality his attack is ‘against the Bible and against Jesus Himself.’” (Pg. xi)
He continues, “Machen holds that ‘our religion must be abandoned altogether unless at a definite point in history Jesus died as a propitiation for the sins of men.’ … He is not ‘presuming to say whether such and such a person is a Christian or not.’ He is only concerned to point out that ‘liberalism is not Christianity.’ … If we are to manifest the love of Christ and our fellow men as Machen did in his day, it is our solemn responsibility to seek to clarify the religious issue today. The religious issue of our day is even more complicated than it was in Machen’s time. This is particularly the case because of … the movement connected with…. Karl Barth.” (Pg. xiii-xv)
He explains, “How shall a theology such as is presented by Hordern and DeWolf be challenged?… It can and must be done… by setting the truly Christ-centered position of the historic Protestant faith, especially… as found in Calvin and his followers, over against the man-centered position of Hordern and DeWolf. Carnell, it appears, is unwilling to do this.” (Pg. xviii)
He asserts, “the basic commitment of Hordern is… to a typically post-Kantian, rational-irrational, monism… his modern reconstruction of Christianity … cannot possibly be identified with or said to have any basic resemblance to the theology of the Reformation, notably not to that of Calvin.” (Pg. 22)
He asserts, “There are those who want demonstration for whatever they will believe. But this can be shown to be unreasonable. It is only in mathematics that demonstration can be had. It is really only in purely formal relations that demonstration is needed. In no field of factual research is it possible to have demonstration. So why should reasonable men object to Christianity on the ground that it cannot furnish demonstration for its assertions with respect to God and Christ?” (Pg. 33)
He notes, “the ‘Christian story’ as told by DeWolf and … Hordern is told in terms of the … non-Christian idea of analogy. This … combines the idea of a God who is both ‘wholly other’ and therefore wholly irrational and at the same time wholly identical with man. Hordern accepts and DeWolf reject Kierkegaard’s notion of the incarnation as the absolute paradox. But this is nothing more than a family quarrel… Both therefore interpret the historical Chalcedon creed as being on the one hand contradictory or irrational and on the other hand too explanatory and rationalistic.” (Pg. 58-59) He summarizes, “The question now facing us is whether Carnell himself has brought out … the factors separating a theology based on the modern freedom-nature scheme from a theology based on the work of the Reformers.” (Pg. 60)
He argues, “Carnell openly expresses his belief in the direct revelation of God in history, but his method can allow for no such thing. His method requires God to be fully hidden till the autonomous man permits him to speak through the categories of Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason.’ … But in spite of this fact, that his method requires a rejection of the whole body of Christian beliefs, Carnell holds on to them.” (Pg. 84-85)
He asserts, “The covenant-breaking attitude is expressed in man’s virtual denial of his creaturehood. It is expressed in man’s assumption of autonomy. The autonomous man may PROVE God’s existence or DISPROVE it. This is a matter of indifference. A God whose existence is proved from the standpoint of autonomy is not the God of Christianity at all.” (Pg. 97)
He states, “Too anxious about making Christianity acceptable to its cultured despisers, both Hordern…. And DeWolf… have told the modern man what the modern man has already told himself. Would that Carnell had signalized the fact that modern theology has in their case capitulated to the method of modern philosophy and modern science with devastating result.” (Pg. 104)
He says, “The New Reformation theology is ‘new’ precisely because it agrees with the natural man in these his demands and yet claims to follow Luther and Calvin. But no theology that seeks to satisfy the false requirements of the natural man can fairly be said to be a reformation theology. So the New Reformation theology is, in effect, a NEW natural theology which is… more destructive of the gospel presented by the Reformers than was the older Liberalism.” (Pg. 108-109)
He contends, “At this basis point … the Christian and the Kantian position stand diametrically opposed to one another. The autonomous man of Kant says ‘I am’ and allows nothing more ultimate than itself. The Christian says ‘I am’ in terms of Christ and God as the great ‘I AM.’ It is Descartes OR Calvin. It is Kant OR Calvin.” (Pg. 116)
He continues, “In other words, the most basic ethical choice is that between the interpretation of man in terms of God’s self-sufficient inwardness or in terms of God’s self-sufficient inwardness as revealed in Scripture.” (Pg. 118)
He asserts, “Kant’s supposed advance upon earlier forms of philosophy is found merely in the fact that he has combined an abstract rationalism such as that of Parmenides or Spinoza with that of an equally abstract brute factualism such as that of the most extreme process philosophers of history. This is all that anyone who does not start his thinking on the presupposition of the God of Christianity and his revelation through Christ speaking in Scripture can do. All men do their thinking on the basis of a position accepted by faith.” (Pg. 128)
He concludes, “It appears than that if there is to be any intelligible encounter between the Christian and the non-Christian, it must be in terms of the two mutually exclusive visions that each entertains. To appeal to the ‘law of contradiction’ and/or to ‘facts’ or to a combination of these apart from the relation that these sustain to the totality-vision of either, the believer or the unbeliever, is to beat the air. It is well to say that he who would reason must presuppose the validity of the laws of logic. But if we say nothing more basic than this, then we are still beating the air. The ultimate question deals with the foundation of the validity of the laws of logic. We have not reached bottom until we have seen that every logical activity in which any man engages is in the service of his totality-vision.” (Pg. 137)
This book will appeal to fans of Van Til.
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 of this 1963 book, “The title of this little book was suggested by … three small volumes: ‘The Case for a New Reformation Theology’ by William Hordern; ‘The Case for Theology in Liberal Perspective’ by L. Harold DeWolf; and ‘The Case for Orthodox Theology’ by Edward John Carnell. These books were published … in 1959… The present little volume is written… [to show] (a) that the first two positions… really represent the same view, which we may call the non-biblical view, (b) that the third position, that of Carnell, while seeking earnestly to present the biblical point of view, does not do it at all adequately.” (Pg. vii)
He said in the Introduction, “When in 1923 the late J. Gresham Machen wrote his book on ‘Christianity and Liberalism,’ he found only two theological positions in the Protestant world. He knew, of course, the differences between Lutherans and Calvinists. He knew of many other differences…. But there was one difference … that cut across all others. On the one hand there was what he, for want of a better term, called ‘liberalism’ or ‘modernism.’ The movement of liberalism, he said… ‘[is] rooted in naturalism---that is, in the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God … in connection with the origin of Christianity.’ … The liberal speaks as though he is merely rejected antiquated interpretations of Christ and his work. In reality his attack is ‘against the Bible and against Jesus Himself.’” (Pg. xi)
He continues, “Machen holds that ‘our religion must be abandoned altogether unless at a definite point in history Jesus died as a propitiation for the sins of men.’ … He is not ‘presuming to say whether such and such a person is a Christian or not.’ He is only concerned to point out that ‘liberalism is not Christianity.’ … If we are to manifest the love of Christ and our fellow men as Machen did in his day, it is our solemn responsibility to seek to clarify the religious issue today. The religious issue of our day is even more complicated than it was in Machen’s time. This is particularly the case because of … the movement connected with…. Karl Barth.” (Pg. xiii-xv)
He explains, “How shall a theology such as is presented by Hordern and DeWolf be challenged?… It can and must be done… by setting the truly Christ-centered position of the historic Protestant faith, especially… as found in Calvin and his followers, over against the man-centered position of Hordern and DeWolf. Carnell, it appears, is unwilling to do this.” (Pg. xviii)
He asserts, “the basic commitment of Hordern is… to a typically post-Kantian, rational-irrational, monism… his modern reconstruction of Christianity … cannot possibly be identified with or said to have any basic resemblance to the theology of the Reformation, notably not to that of Calvin.” (Pg. 22)
He asserts, “There are those who want demonstration for whatever they will believe. But this can be shown to be unreasonable. It is only in mathematics that demonstration can be had. It is really only in purely formal relations that demonstration is needed. In no field of factual research is it possible to have demonstration. So why should reasonable men object to Christianity on the ground that it cannot furnish demonstration for its assertions with respect to God and Christ?” (Pg. 33)
He notes, “the ‘Christian story’ as told by DeWolf and … Hordern is told in terms of the … non-Christian idea of analogy. This … combines the idea of a God who is both ‘wholly other’ and therefore wholly irrational and at the same time wholly identical with man. Hordern accepts and DeWolf reject Kierkegaard’s notion of the incarnation as the absolute paradox. But this is nothing more than a family quarrel… Both therefore interpret the historical Chalcedon creed as being on the one hand contradictory or irrational and on the other hand too explanatory and rationalistic.” (Pg. 58-59) He summarizes, “The question now facing us is whether Carnell himself has brought out … the factors separating a theology based on the modern freedom-nature scheme from a theology based on the work of the Reformers.” (Pg. 60)
He argues, “Carnell openly expresses his belief in the direct revelation of God in history, but his method can allow for no such thing. His method requires God to be fully hidden till the autonomous man permits him to speak through the categories of Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason.’ … But in spite of this fact, that his method requires a rejection of the whole body of Christian beliefs, Carnell holds on to them.” (Pg. 84-85)
He asserts, “The covenant-breaking attitude is expressed in man’s virtual denial of his creaturehood. It is expressed in man’s assumption of autonomy. The autonomous man may PROVE God’s existence or DISPROVE it. This is a matter of indifference. A God whose existence is proved from the standpoint of autonomy is not the God of Christianity at all.” (Pg. 97)
He states, “Too anxious about making Christianity acceptable to its cultured despisers, both Hordern…. And DeWolf… have told the modern man what the modern man has already told himself. Would that Carnell had signalized the fact that modern theology has in their case capitulated to the method of modern philosophy and modern science with devastating result.” (Pg. 104)
He says, “The New Reformation theology is ‘new’ precisely because it agrees with the natural man in these his demands and yet claims to follow Luther and Calvin. But no theology that seeks to satisfy the false requirements of the natural man can fairly be said to be a reformation theology. So the New Reformation theology is, in effect, a NEW natural theology which is… more destructive of the gospel presented by the Reformers than was the older Liberalism.” (Pg. 108-109)
He contends, “At this basis point … the Christian and the Kantian position stand diametrically opposed to one another. The autonomous man of Kant says ‘I am’ and allows nothing more ultimate than itself. The Christian says ‘I am’ in terms of Christ and God as the great ‘I AM.’ It is Descartes OR Calvin. It is Kant OR Calvin.” (Pg. 116)
He continues, “In other words, the most basic ethical choice is that between the interpretation of man in terms of God’s self-sufficient inwardness or in terms of God’s self-sufficient inwardness as revealed in Scripture.” (Pg. 118)
He asserts, “Kant’s supposed advance upon earlier forms of philosophy is found merely in the fact that he has combined an abstract rationalism such as that of Parmenides or Spinoza with that of an equally abstract brute factualism such as that of the most extreme process philosophers of history. This is all that anyone who does not start his thinking on the presupposition of the God of Christianity and his revelation through Christ speaking in Scripture can do. All men do their thinking on the basis of a position accepted by faith.” (Pg. 128)
He concludes, “It appears than that if there is to be any intelligible encounter between the Christian and the non-Christian, it must be in terms of the two mutually exclusive visions that each entertains. To appeal to the ‘law of contradiction’ and/or to ‘facts’ or to a combination of these apart from the relation that these sustain to the totality-vision of either, the believer or the unbeliever, is to beat the air. It is well to say that he who would reason must presuppose the validity of the laws of logic. But if we say nothing more basic than this, then we are still beating the air. The ultimate question deals with the foundation of the validity of the laws of logic. We have not reached bottom until we have seen that every logical activity in which any man engages is in the service of his totality-vision.” (Pg. 137)
This book will appeal to fans of Van Til.
March 19, 2023
Van Til is absolutely fantastic in this work. He is so quotable and I will share some of my favorite quotes at the end of this. While it is a short work, and the majority of it is dedicated to the analysis of New Reformation theology, the final chapter is a defense of the traditional, Calvinistic view, and boy oh boy is it good. It was pretty easy to follow with, although I wish I knew more about the philosophies that Van Til is criticizing for more context, but it is still useful to me regardless.
"Throughout history, since the fall of all men in Adam, men have tried to suppress and push aside the truth in unrighteousness. They have blinded their eyes and then complained that God has created them in darkness. They search with great diligence for the existence of a God while they are walking every minute in the light of His presence."
"If Scripture is thus self-authenticating, it is beacuse Christ speaks to us through it."
"The autonomous man of Kant says 'I am' and allows nothing more ultimate than itself. The Christian says 'I am' in terms of Christ and God as the great 'I am.' It is Descartes or Calvin. It is Kant or Calvin."
"The Christian accepts his entire view of things on authority. But he knows that those who are unwilling to live by this authority have nothing on which to stand when they oppose it."
"God says 'I am' and is able to fully justify this assertion. He is able to make it stand because only on the basis of this assertion does the thinking and willing activity of man have any possible meaning at all."
"The wrath of God rests upon us if, in seeking truth, we ignore and reject Him who alone is truth. The search for truth is an existential matter. One's attitude toward Christ is always involved. Our every thought in science, in philosophy, and in theology must be made captive to the obedience of Christ. The ultimate source of truth in any field rests in Him. The world may discover much truth without owning Christ as Truth. Christ upholds even those who ignore, deny, and oppose Him. A little child may slap his father in the face, but it can do so only because the father holds it on his knee. So modern science, modern philosophy, and modern theology may discover much truth. Nevertheless, if the universe were not created and redeemed by Christ no man could give himself an intelligible account of anything. It follows that in order to perform their task aright the scientist and the philosopher as well as the theologian need Christ."
"If there is a case for Calvinism, it is only in so far as it presents the Christ of the Scriptures to men as the Saviour and Lord in every field of human endeavor. Every individual 'Calvinist' should be the first to admit that he himself falls far short of doing this as he ought." Amen to that :)
Van Til lays down some serious zingers. Glory be to the Father, Son, and Spirit.
"Throughout history, since the fall of all men in Adam, men have tried to suppress and push aside the truth in unrighteousness. They have blinded their eyes and then complained that God has created them in darkness. They search with great diligence for the existence of a God while they are walking every minute in the light of His presence."
"If Scripture is thus self-authenticating, it is beacuse Christ speaks to us through it."
"The autonomous man of Kant says 'I am' and allows nothing more ultimate than itself. The Christian says 'I am' in terms of Christ and God as the great 'I am.' It is Descartes or Calvin. It is Kant or Calvin."
"The Christian accepts his entire view of things on authority. But he knows that those who are unwilling to live by this authority have nothing on which to stand when they oppose it."
"God says 'I am' and is able to fully justify this assertion. He is able to make it stand because only on the basis of this assertion does the thinking and willing activity of man have any possible meaning at all."
"The wrath of God rests upon us if, in seeking truth, we ignore and reject Him who alone is truth. The search for truth is an existential matter. One's attitude toward Christ is always involved. Our every thought in science, in philosophy, and in theology must be made captive to the obedience of Christ. The ultimate source of truth in any field rests in Him. The world may discover much truth without owning Christ as Truth. Christ upholds even those who ignore, deny, and oppose Him. A little child may slap his father in the face, but it can do so only because the father holds it on his knee. So modern science, modern philosophy, and modern theology may discover much truth. Nevertheless, if the universe were not created and redeemed by Christ no man could give himself an intelligible account of anything. It follows that in order to perform their task aright the scientist and the philosopher as well as the theologian need Christ."
"If there is a case for Calvinism, it is only in so far as it presents the Christ of the Scriptures to men as the Saviour and Lord in every field of human endeavor. Every individual 'Calvinist' should be the first to admit that he himself falls far short of doing this as he ought." Amen to that :)
Van Til lays down some serious zingers. Glory be to the Father, Son, and Spirit.
March 15, 2022
Van Til is notoriously difficult to digest. The site below may be helpful.
Frame-poythress.org/a-van-til-glossary/
It’s also helpful to understand the dialectical method and perhaps some history with Aquinas and the problem of faith vs. reason. To the discerning reader, it is an excellent proof as to how Calvinism (the Biblical view of the sovereignty of God), is the only way to account for our reality. Arminianism and fundamentalism will not be able to engage in a consistent methodology of engaging the unbelieving thought in our day and going forward. Will likely have to read more than once to fully digest.
Frame-poythress.org/a-van-til-glossary/
It’s also helpful to understand the dialectical method and perhaps some history with Aquinas and the problem of faith vs. reason. To the discerning reader, it is an excellent proof as to how Calvinism (the Biblical view of the sovereignty of God), is the only way to account for our reality. Arminianism and fundamentalism will not be able to engage in a consistent methodology of engaging the unbelieving thought in our day and going forward. Will likely have to read more than once to fully digest.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews