"VAN TIL MADE ME REFORMED"

"New Horizons" ^ | October, 2004 | Eric H. Sigward

[jude24]

Perhaps when you get down to simple Christianity you wind up with Reformed doctrine.

An alternate possiblity is that, when you strip away all the fluff of "technical theology," as I call it, you get to the essence of Chrstianity, which we all, as Christians, agree with, and no one finds anything too far from what he himself believes.

In other words, except for the hardliners, we have much more in common than we have different. I bet you C.S. Lewis and I, even though we probably don't see eye-to-eye on what "predestination" means, would get along well, and have some great discussions.

[jude24]

He's big - among the elders, anyway - in the Bible Presbyterian denomination, too. At least, among the elders I know.

[blue-duncan]

Van Til, Machen, Kuyper and Warfield are not just big, they are giants to anyone wanting a strong foundation for a reasonable faith. They have excited more men and women, even those who do not buy completely into all of their Reformed positions, to look deeply into the scriptures to see if it is so and then bring the scriptures to judge the philosophies of men rather than demystifying scriptures by higher criticism and philosophies of the day.

[thePilgrim]

***you get to the essence of Chrstianity***

Hey, you are the one who identified mere Christianity, that you now call "the essence of Christianity," as Calvinistic. I simply noted that, perhaps when you get down to this simple Christianity you wind up with Reformed doctrine.

This is the truth. Strip man from imposing his own complications on the Gospel and you arrive at the simplified truth and beauty of the Scriptures which have in latter days been identified with Reformed doctrine.

***I bet you C.S. Lewis and I, even though we probably don't see eye-to-eye on what "predestination" means, would get along well, and have some great discussions.***

I already have great discussions and drink plenty of beer with my Arminian brothers. Just ask Colin. I simply can't stand being around jerks and whinny asses. Fortunately, I have been blessed to be around some great friends. They help my sojourn through the land of cotton candy theology and nutrasweet people tolerable.

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.

[blue-duncan]

Jacob Neusner was like a biblical rabbi with disciples from the University of Denver sitting at his feet. Avery Dulles had his students from the Catholic Seminary there in Denver and Vernon Grounds brought a few of us from the Conservative Baptist Seminary. We were like kids watching the grown ups play grown up games. When it came time for questions we didn't know where to begin or what the questions were. Later at the debriefing, Grounds was very patient in interpreting what went on and the historic implications. Dulles, from Georgetown, went on to be Cardinal, Neusner, from Brown, went on to chair the religious department at a Florida University and contribute to Biblical Archeology and had/has a warm rapprochement with evangelicals, and John went on to his richly deserved reward, although, I suspect, he would say "I only did what was required."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Van Til, Machen, Kuyper and Warfield are not just big, they are giants to anyone wanting a strong foundation for a reasonable faith. They have excited more men and women, even those who do not buy completely into all of their Reformed positions, to look deeply into the scriptures to see if it is so and then bring the scriptures to judge the philosophies of men rather than demystifying scriptures by higher criticism and philosophies of the day.

That is as well-stated as anything in the original article. Thank you.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

My source is wrong, then.

Depends on what your source said, i can see how a mistake might have occured.

Here's the skinny on the situation: Dr. John H. Gerstner (RIP) was a STUDENT of Dr. Van Til (RIP). Both Dr.R.C. Sproul, and Dr. Arthur Lindsley were students of Gerstner. i know Dr. Lindsley personally, and consider him a friend.

You will find that the book Classical Apologetics is dedicated to Dr. Cornelius Van Til. It was by no means a slam at Van Til.

Having read the book, and argued points of it with Dr. Lindsley, i must say that the thesis is pretty compelling. Especially true is the idea that if Paul is correct in Romans 1:18-32, then Immanuel Kant MUST BE WRONG.

A postulate of the Classical Method is that all apologetics are Presuppositional at some point. The difference between "Presuppositionalists" and "Classicalists" is in where they place the presuppositions. In the case of Gerstner, Lindsley, Sproul, once the bible is established as God's particular revelation to mankind, REASON MUST SUBMIT TO REVELATION. From that point on, the two approaches are virtually identical. The Presuppositionalist would argue objective evidence from the rightly divided Word, and so would the Classicalist.

Van Til must have done his work pretty well, look at the disciples he left behind. Whether they agree with him on everything he postulated is of no bearing to the observation.

[suzyjaruki]

Thank you CDL.
Van Til must have done his work pretty well, look at the disciples he left behind.

What a great legacy, to teach those who teach to be great thinkers and not just parrots!

[Tares]

For an alternate view of Van Tilianism, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis and Why I Am Not a Van Tilian .

[blue-duncan]

Boy, if we start down the Van Til - Gordon Clark trail, we will have to bring in other, more obscure scholars, like Edward Carnel, to interpret the interpretors. I am too old to outlive the debate. Quoting from another outstanding scholar, "Can't we all just get along?".

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thanks, Tares, for those links. I just read the second one.

I haven't yet fully understood the problem some Reformed seem to have with Van Til. I think his outlook is pretty simple -- all men bring to all life their innate predispositions which filter and color their perception of the world around them.

All men are fallen creatures and thus, without Christ, men approach life from a God-denying position. Their presuppositions are base and temporal and egocentric.

The elect, once regenerated by God's grace through faith in Christ, will perceive everything in life differently from a now-saved position. Instead of our carnal natures defining existence, God's sanctifying hand will define and direct everything in our lives.

Even logic.

I'm not a fan of Clark because I think he tends to dissect Van Til for political reasons, rather than theological ones.

Here's a first-up on google which is some review of Van Til written in 1948. I scanned it and came to this quotation by Van Til and then the author's comment of it. I think this very clearly expresses why some people think they have a dispute with Van Til.

Fountainhead of Presuppositionalism

Van Til is quoted:

"If God is the ultimate cause, back of whatsoever comes to pass, Pighius [an opponent of Calvin] can, on this basis, rightly insist that God is the cause of sin. Calvin knew this. From the point of view of a non-Christian logic the Reformed Faith can be bowled over by means of a single syllogism. God has determined whatsoever comes to pass. Man's moral acts are things that come to pass. Therefore man's moral acts are determined and man is not responsible for them.

Then the reviewer comments:

"Now as a matter of fact, the Scripture nowhere declares that God is the ultimate cause back of whatsoever comes to pass, but that he" has foreordained" whatsoever comes to pass and "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will," (Eph. 1:11) a very different statement. To say that Calvin knew that his opponent could "rightly insist that God is the cause of sin," is a direct contradiction of the statement, based upon many scores of Scripture passages, that "neither is God the author of sin."

"It is of course characteristic of the school of thought to which Dr. Van Til belongs to deny the possibility of any distinction between God's permissive decrees and his compelling decrees."

The more Reformed I become, the less distinction I see, too, between God's permissive decrees and God's compelling decrees. He is either God, ultimately the very real "cause back of everything whatsoever comes to pass," or He is not.

All men resist the sovereign paradox that God displays before our eyes daily. Rather than denying it, I think Calvin and Van Til both embraced that paradox.

It is all of God and it is therefore, ultimately, all good. Perhaps that notion makes evangelism more difficult. But that doesn't negate its truth. It just requires of us a greater effort and commitment to testify Christ Risen to all men everywhere. All glory to God.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

LOL. I agree. Ping to #52, then let's all take a nap. 8~)

[RnMomof7]

The more Reformed I become, the less distinction I see, too, between God's permissive decrees and God's compelling decrees. He is either God, ultimately the very real "cause back of everything whatsoever comes to pass," or He is not.

Me too Doc

[Tares]

All men resist the sovereign paradox that God displays before our eyes daily. Rather than denying it, I think Calvin and Van Til both embraced that paradox.

There is no paradox. That would make God irrational and untrustworthy. What is sin for man is not sin for God. God is the lawmaker, he is above the law. Take murder. God cannot murder (kill unjustly), all men deserve death. The response would be, yes, God can't murder, but he ordained that murderers would murder, hence he is the author of sin. This is wrong because in spite of the fact that God ordains all things whatsoever that come to pass, God did not force anyone to sin. Knowing someone will sin is not the same as forcing someone to sin. Did God ever force you to sin, or do you sin of your own free will?

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. - James 1:13-15

There are no paradoxes with God. Only faulty logic of men. God does not sin, and he does not force men to sin.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:" -- James 1:13

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." -- Isaiah 45:7.

That's the paradox men are subject to. I really like what Greg Ganhsen had to say about this in the following link:

"The Problem of Evil, Part I and II"

Resolving the Alleged Paradox

The unbeliever might at this point protest that, even if he as a non-Christian cannot meaningfully explain or make sense of the view that evil objectively exists, nevertheless there still remains a paradox within the set of beliefs which constitute the Christian's own worldview. Given his basic philosophy and commitments, the Christian certainly can and does claim that evil is real, and yet the Christian also believes things about the character of God which together seem incompatible with the existence of evil. The unbeliever might argue that, regardless of the ethical inadequacy of his own worldview, the Christian is still -- on the Christian's own terms -- locked into a logically incoherent position by maintaining the three following propositions:

1. GOD IS ALL-GOOD.

2. GOD IS ALL-POWERFUL.

3. EVIL EXISTS.

However the critic here overlooks a perfectly reasonable way to assent to all three of these propositions.

If the Christian presupposes that God is perfectly and completely good -- as Scripture requires us to do -- then he is committed to evaluating everything within his experience in the light of that presupposition. Accordingly, when the Christian observes evil events or things in the world, he can and should retain consistency with his presupposition about God's goodness by now inferring that God has a morally good reason for the evil that exists. God certainly must be all-powerful in order to be God; He is not to be thought of as overwhelmed or stymied by evil in the universe. And God is surely good, the Christian will profess -- so any evil we find must be compatible with God's goodness. This is just to say that God has planned evil events for reasons which are morally commendable and good.

To put it another way, the apparent paradox created by the above three propositions is readily resolved by adding this fourth premise to them:

4. GOD HAS A MORALLY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THE EVIL WHICH EXISTS.

When all four of these premises are maintained, there is no logical contradiction to be found, not even an apparent one. It is precisely part of the Christian's walk of faith and growth in sanctification to draw proposition 4 as the conclusion of propositions 1-3.

Think of Abraham when God ordered him to sacrifice his only son. Think of Job when he lost everything which gave his life happiness and pleasure. In each case God had a perfectly good reason for the human misery involved. It was a mark or achievement of faith for them not to waver in their conviction of God's goodness, despite not being able to see or understand why He was doing to them what He did. Indeed, even in the case of the greatest crime in all of history -- the crucifixion of the Lord of glory -- the Christian professes that God's goodness was not inconsistent with what the hands of lawless men performed. Was the killing of Christ evil? Surely. Did God have a morally sufficient reason for it? Just as surely. With Abraham we declare, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25). And this goodness of God is beyond challenge: "Let God be true, though all men are liars" (Romans 3:4).

[blue-duncan]

Before you people take your naps and leave me with a waiting room full of clients read the partial statement from "Corny" (some of us older Van Til fans are allowed liberties). After he raises your conscious to such heights that your spiritual nose begins to bleed, he lowers you softly and you begin to believe that he is one of us.

"And if my unity is comprehensive enough to include the efforts of those who reject it, it is large enough even to include that which those who have been set upright by regeneration cannot see. My unity is that of a child who walks with its father through the woods. The child is not afraid because its father knows it all and is capable of handling every situation. So I readily grant that there are some "difficulties" with respect to belief in God and His revelation in nature and Scripture that I cannot solve. In fact there is mystery in every relationship with respect to every fact that faces me, for the reason that all facts have their final explanation in God Whose thoughts are higher than my thoughts, and Whose ways are higher than my ways. And it is exactly that sort of God that I need. Without such a God, without the God of the Bible, the God of authority, the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all.

So you see when I was young I was conditioned on every side; I could not help believing in God. Now that I am older I still cannot help believing in God. I believe in God now because unless I have Him as the All-Conditioner, life is Chaos." Amen and amen. I can't wait to walk hand in hand with his Father and our Father throughout eternity; starting yesterday.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Greg Bahnsen. I was being rushed. Harumph. 8~)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Always a wonderful read.

"WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD" by Cornelius Van Til

"...In fact there is mystery in every relationship with respect to every fact that faces me, for the reason that all facts have their final explanation in God..."

No inklings there. Just granite faith given by God alone.

"There is not one blade of grass, there is no color in this world that is not intended to make us rejoice." -- John Calvin

[thePilgrim]

Maybe God is either

#1 Not all Good.

or

#2 The definition of "all good" is not Biblical, but humanism imposing itself on the right character of God.

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.