The Apologetic Programme of Cornelius Van Til
as an Assault Against the Apologetic Tradition

by Rev Bob Brenton
Minister of the Reformed Church of Wellington

   The following was an address presented to the
Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (Inc.),
on the 2nd December 1994

Introduction

Cornelius Van Til (b. 1895) began his teaching career in 1928 as Professor of Apologetics at Princeton Theological Seminary. In 1929 he was one of four Princeton professors to break away and found a new seminary, Westminster, as a conservative alternative to the more liberal Princeton. Van Til taught apologetics at Westminster from 1929 until his retirement in 1972, a 44 year career, all in all.

Cornelius Van Til
(1895-1987)

My address to you is meant to be a presentation of Van Til's programme, not an apologia of the man. During my own theological training for the ministry I had two apologetics professors: one of them taught from a Van Tilian perspective, the other, an outspoken man named R.C. Sproul, didn't. I've witnessed the cross-fire between the two sides, and the fire wasn't always friendly. I'm not here to re-kindle the old flame or spark controversy, simply to present to you an apologetics programme that is to be reckoned with in our day, especially by evangelical Christians of a conservative bent.

Perhaps you find the title of my address provocative. It is. On the one hand it suggests that there is such a thing as "the apologetic tradition" within Christendom. On the other hand it suggests that one man - Van Til - stands apart from the tradition in order to launch an attack against it.

Let me comment on these two hands. First, that there is an apologetic tradition within Christendom (by Christendom I mean the rule of Christ as manifested in his Church - the embassy of His Kingdom - and in the historical progression of Christian doctrine and practice). In a way this is a remarkable claim for one to make. Nowadays, for better or for worse, we live in a divided Christendom with the church as a denominated institution. From a church-historical point of view we can speak generically of the Christian tradition, believing as we do that a living corpus of truth (sometimes called orthodoxy) has been preserved from the beginning to our time and that there is a discernibly Christian way of life. Yet, along the way men and movements have arisen to challenge and sometimes change the tradition. And change it they have!

Our gathering here this evening I dare say is a rainbow coalition of Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, Calvinists, Charismatics, Baptists, and Brethren. (Sorry if missed your particular stripe!). Now under Christendom's broad umbrella a diversity of traditions find shelter. Ecumenism is the strained effort to find some semblance of unity in the diversity of these traditions. It is in view of this diversity, this plethora of traditions, that the suggestion that Christianity has an apologetic tradition seems incredible. Is it possible that the field of apologetics has survived the stress and the fracturing of Christendom on doctrinal and institutional lines. Strange as it may seem, yes it is possible, and not just possible, actual!

Nearly all the changes, all the battles have been fought over the field of theology, or doctrine. That's Christianity's hard-core, its solid ground. Apologetics forms a kind of soft shell round that hard-core. The field of apologetics escapes battle-action because its ground is too soft. Methodology is softer by far than theology. Traditionally, apologetics has been a method-based field.

Van Til recognised it as such when he came to the realisation that his particular Christian tradition, the Reformed or Calvinist tradition, needed an apologetics programme that was more consistent with its own theological premises. The two - theology and the method of defending and vindicating it - ought to be integrated. Van Til's programme is first and foremost offered to the greater Reformed Community as a positive contribution. The issue is the integrity between doctrine and the practice of defending that doctrine.

In order to positively establish and construct such a programme, Van Til thought he had to negatively attack and tear down all inferior methods. These inferior methods - each one inferior by varying degrees - are all lumped together in Van Til's thinking as "the Apologetic tradition" (however, he does distinguish between Roman Catholic and Arminian approaches). In place of the tradition, Van Til sets his own programme, apparently unwilling to build on top of the existing structure, or even to share the same field alongside it.

Understandably, such wholesale replacement is most unsettling to those who have a vested interest in the field of apologetics. To tear down the old farm house and replow the field is nothing less than an assault. Van Til knows this, but he is ready and willing to be judged by the merits (or demerits) of his programme.

One last introductory comment is called for. While Van Til admits to some originality in respect to the structure or shape of his programme, he freely confesses this debt to John Calvin and the classic Reformed theologians, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper, for the free use of building supplies, not that all of their materials were acceptable to him. Or to use another analogy, what Van Til baked up wasn't made from scratch. To me, Van Til's admission is an honest one. His programme is new without being novel. He uses the ingredients of his own Calvinist tradition for his programme.

Return to Top

Van Til's programme

 Let's consider Van Til's programme along the following lines:

1. Its basis in the biblical revelation of Christian theism.

2. Its point of contact in man's sense of divinity.

3. Its method of argument by presupposition.

4. Its goal in the conversion of the sinner's heart.

Return to Top

1
The Basis of Apologetics:
Biblical revelation

First of all Van Til bases his apologetics in the biblical revelation of Christian theism. What does this mean? This means that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - has revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, a body of truth - or if you will - a system of truth, which comes to us not piecemeal, but as a UNIT.

To Van Til apologetics is the defence and vindication of God's system of truth against any and every form of non-Christian philosophy which rivals the truth of Christian theism. Employing the figure of a fortress to represent Christianity (Christian theism), Van Til sees the apologist as the main defender of the fort (Christianity). As he defends, the other occupants of the fort can work and build under Christ their Head and also enjoy the building.

Since the truth and Christian theism is God's truth, it will ultimately prevail. After all, the kingdom of Heaven, which has been sown in this world's field, is taking root and growing. The leaven of the kingdom is being worked into the lump of dough even now. This world is God's world, and this world's kingdoms belong to His Christ, the King of kings. Nevertheless, there is a warfare going on in which Christ is laying claim to the territory He has won by the triumph of His Cross and Resurrection. Christ is building His Church (His kingdom's embassy) and through His Church He is extending the bounds of His kingdom. However, the world under its prince, Satan, resists and even attacks the Church.

So, Van Til imagines this entire complex of Christian truth as a unit, a kind of fortress that must be guarded and defended and vindicated. He says: If we can successfully defend the fortress of Christian theism we have the whole world to ourselves. There is then no standing room left for the enemy. We wage offensive as well a defensive warfare. The two cannot be separated. But we do not leave the fort in order to wage offensive warfare (Apol. p. 4).

This is a telling statement about Van Til's programme. The church and its apologists stay with the fort; they do not venture out to meet the enemy on some kind of neutral ground. Here Van Til's basis is shown to be different than most others. Consider the truth of his entire programme: In Defence of the Faith. Compare this with Alistair McGrath's book (which is arguably the best book on the market on apologetic method): Bridge-Building: Effective Christian Apologetics. It makes you wonder whether Van Til and McGrath are involved in the same enterprise.

McGrath says that the chief goal of apologetics is to build bridges to faith for unbelievers to cross over (conversion).    Van Til says that the chief goal of apologetics is to defend the faith from the attacks of unbelievers and to vindicate it in their presence: in this way some will be converted. In my view - and I hope in yours, too - there is room for McGrath and Van Til. Both programmes are good and necessary. We want to reach out to unbelievers and take them by the hand and lead them across the gap to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. Don't we? But aren't we also prepared to defend the truth we hold so dear whenever it is under attack? Isn't this also a way we show our allegiance to the King?

Even Van Til sees the merit of the other side. He says: "There is an historical and there is a philosophical aspect to the defence of Christian theism. Evidences deal largely with the historical while apologetics deals largely with the philosophical aspect. Each has its own work to do but they should constantly be in touch with one another."

Van Til has been accused of ignoring evidences, of giving them no place in his apologetic programme. In fact they do have a place - not as proofs for the existence of God - God does not need to be proven - but as attestations that God is true to His Word. Evidences are for bridge builders like McGrath, not fortress defenders like Van Til.

It's back to the basis for his programme. Simply put, Van Til lays an epistemological foundation - a knowledge base - for doing apologetics. The base is God - the Christian God - the fountain of all true knowledge - Creation, Redemption, Consummation, and all that is revealed by Him. God is the only and original uncreated being, who exists as a triunity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; together the three divine persons constitute the exhaustingly personal God (Apologetics, p. 8).

The existence of this God, not of some divine being in general - is the presupposition of a possible predication. In other words, unless we take this God (as revealed in the Bible) as the ground of all reality, then we have nothing solid on which to base any (thing or fact). This God is the ultimate subject for all predication: "In His light we see light." Any other sort of God is no God at all; to prove that any other God exists is to prove that no God exists. As Van Til puts it: "God is the ultimate category of interpretation. Any claim about reality as knowledge must correspond or match what God knows! (Analogical knowledge!)".

Does man know this God - this Bible revealed divine triune being? Yes, he does. First of all, man knows God by virtue of His creation in God's likeness. Man was created in God's image. When God created man, He made him like Himself in certain respects. Man was like God in that he had true knowledge, true righteousness, and true holiness. Man lived in union and communion with his God. But man is not God. He was created as an analogue of God. By this Van Til means that man derived his life and the faculties of thinking, willing and doing from God. Man was not made to act autonomously (a Law unto himself) but was created: a living being dependent on His Creator. As the analogue of God, man was required to think God thoughts (after God), to will God: will and to do the works of God.

The Fall (recorded in Genesis 3) was the consequence of man interpreting reality without reference to God. It was the result of an epistemological rebellion (ethical too). Adam put forth his own thought as the ultimate paradigm of knowing.

In spite of man's epistemological rebellion, which resulted in spiritual death, he could not cut himself off from God ontologically (with respect to his being). Man **** God: creature, and continued to have a true knowledge of God.

Every man - every person - knows God and knows God truly. This does not mean He knows everything God knows (exhaustively). But what He knows, He knows truly. However, the sons and daughters of Adam do all in their power to bury the truth, but they are in contact with it nonetheless! The fallen man is in need of the new birth - a regeneration of the mind and will at the heart of his being so that he will obey God and believe what he knows is true. The unregenerate is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. He needs a new heart, a new life principle to enliven him to God: thought, will and work. Apart from the regeneration (new birth) one cannot respond to and accept the truth of Christianity. Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom.

The new birth, when it occurs, brings the consciousness to life, converting the unbeliever to Christ and Christian truth, so that he believes in the Lord and receives His Word as true. The believer trusts the Lord Jesus Christ because he has been Spirit-moved to receive Him as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In accepting Jesus Christ, the believer accepts in principle the whole revealed truth about Him, for example, that He is the only Saviour and Lord! The Lord of course uses His servants as instruments or vessels of His grace. We proclaim His Gospel, we bear witness, we give the answer to those who ask us about the hope we have. Don't we?

This leads us now to the question of the point of contact the apologist has with the unbeliever. This is where things really begin to get interesting.

Return to Top

2
The Point of Contact the Apologist has with the Unbeliever:
man's sense of divinity

The Apologetic tradition, as Van Til observed, has always operated on the assumption that the mind of fallen man was still fit to judge for himself what is reasonable and true. Simply present the right set of evidences, or marshal a logical appeal, and then leave it to him to judge for himself whether it is the truth. He can do this because he is a rational being with the ability to weigh the evidence or evaluate the strength of your argument. Christian rationality is merely an island in the ocean of universal rationality. So long as the apologist is rational he will have a point of contact with the unbeliever. He may find that point on any particular thing.

McGrath, the bridge-builder, modifies this view, taking into account the effects of the Fall on human knowledge. McGrath admits to a Christian life and word philosophy of reality (as does Van Til), but holds that the non-Christian life and word philosophy of reality overlaps at certain points with the Christian one. The challenge for the creative apologist (of which McGrath is one), is to find the ground where the overlap occurs and build a bridge there for the non-Christian to cross over to the Christian side. This common ground could vary from person to person.

McGrath then looks at Van Til's programme and sees nowhere a point of contact between Christian rationality and secular or non-Christian rationality. No point of contact at all! How does McGrath figure this? He figures that because Van Til begins with the uncompromising acceptance of the Biblical revelation of Christian theism as a unit, and that Van Til simply confronts the non-Christian with the whole truth, saying to him, "this is what God requires you to believe" that this is a disastrous and unwarranted way to do apologetics.

Granted, Van Til is no creative bridge builder. But is his approach really unwarranted and does it yield disastrous results?

Let us consider the point of contact from Van Til's point of view. To begin, Van Til does not believe that the unbeliever, by use of reason, is a fit judge of truth. The fact that the unbeliever, when presented with God's truth - the best "in-your-face" reality there is - so often denies it as truth, is proof that he by his reasoning, fails to make the right judgement. Reason does not naturally operate rightly wherever it is found. Sinners always try to suppress the truth or distrust it exchanging it for a lie. They will use this reason to do that, rather than believe it.

Does this mean then that there are two rationalities: a Christian one and a non-Christian one? Not at all. God's logic or rationality is true not only in the kingdom of Heaven, but on earth - even in that realm which resists and denies it. If the only truth is God's truth, reasons Van Til, why not always impress it on the consciousness of the unbeliever? After all, is this not what he must reckon with ultimately. "Yes," answers Van Til. And he will reckon with it every time you put that truth in his face. He will because he is God's creature made in God's image, man has a built-in sense of deity (sensus divinitas) from which he cannot escape.

Using the parable of the prodigal son to illustrate, Van Til likens the unbeliever to the prodigal who originally lived in the father's house. When he left his father's house he could not immediately efface from his memory the look and voice of his father. Though the prodigal did not want to remember his past, he could not forget it. It required a constant act of suppression to do so, but ironically the very act of suppressing truth keeps the truth alive in the consciousness. He is even mindful that he has despised the riches of his father's goodness, not realising that this goodness was given to lead him to repentance (Rom. 2:4).

This act of despising his father and goodness as shown by his time and distance away from his father's house was tantamount to a "kicking against the pricks" (to use the pauline expression). By denying his father, the sinner sins against better knowledge. He knows who he is (his father's son), where he has come from (his father's house), and that he ought to turn around and go back home. He knows better!

And because he does, the apologist has a point of contact with him. Just tell him the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The unbeliever may deny it to your face, but he is nevertheless being made to face up to the better knowledge his "heart of hearts" knows to be true. He cannot really get away from his father. Even if he makes his bed in Sheol, God is there! (Ps. 139:8).

Return to Top

3
The Method of Apologetics:
argue from presupposition

Just tell the truth! But how? Does Van Til have a method of telling the truth to the unbeliever? He does. The method is argument (or reasoning) by presupposition. It's back to the basis approach. Van Til describes his method as an indirect approach - even as circular. He says:

"The issue between believers and non-believers cannot be settled by a direct appeal to "facts" or "laws" whose nature is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate (why? because the Christian and non-Christian won't agree on the nature of the facts)."

"The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the facts and laws intelligible. Are the facts and laws what the non-Christian assumes they are. Or, are they what the Christian-theistic revelation presupposes they are?"

"To settle the issue the Christian apologist must place himself upon the position of his opponent, assuming the correctness of his method merely for argument's sake, in order to show him on such a position that the facts are not facts and the laws are not laws. That is, his framework of interpretation will not support the reality he is committed to.

He must also ask the non-Christian to place himself upon the Christian position for argument's sake in order that he may be shown that only on such a basis do facts and laws appear intelligible."

In other words, the beliefs of the unbeliever must be shown to have their true basis in biblical revelation.

This method Van Til believes to be in line with the Biblical proverb: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly and he will be wise in his own eyes." (Prov. 26:4,5) By making the unbeliever (the fool) give account of his belief based on his own presuppositions, the apologist can show him the folly of his ways. Conversely, he can stick uncompromisingly with the truth he knows is from God and make an unashamed apologia (as Paul was wont to do) based on this presupposition of biblical revelation.

Does this method work? Or as McGrath would say: "Is it effective?" If by "effective" one means that the non-Christian is converted to faith in Christ, Van Til would say "yes". The method is effective whenever it pleases God by His Spirit to take the scales from the unbeliever's eyes and the mask from his face. It is upon the power of the Holy Spirit that the apologist relies when he tells men that they are lost in sin and in need of a saviour. He does not tone down his message to make it more agreeable to the unregenerate mind. Instead he keeps telling the truth knowing that the unbeliever remains God's creature, always accessible to the truth; accessible to the penetration of the truth by the Spirit of God. This leads to the goal of apologetics: the conversion of the sinner's heart.

 Return to Top

4
The Goal of Apologetics:
the conversion of the sinner's heart

Conversion means change: a change of will of heart, or direction with reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. On this Van Til says:

The first requirement for effective witnessing is that the position to which witness is given be intelligible. The second requirement is that he to whom the witness is given must be shown why he should forsake his own position and accept what is offered to him. Why should the unbeliever change his position if he is not shown that he is wrong? And in particular, why should he change if the one who asks him to change is actually encouraging him in thinking he is right? Why not go to the heart with God's truth. Uncompromisingly. Why compromise Christianity in order to win men to acceptance of it?

That's the challenge Van Til lays at the feet of the apologetic tradition. Therein lies the assault and the offence ... something indeed to reckon with! The question you will and I will have to answer is this:

Is the offence with Van Til?

Or, is it with the Gospel?!

God is Truth!

Return to Top

Return to Top