Toward a Reformed Apologetics
As I write this, it has been about a week since my employer, Reformation Bible College, posted an announcement about my forthcoming book on their Facebook page. The book is titled Toward a Reformed Apologetics: A Critique of the Thought of Cornelius Van Til. Most of the comments were generally positive merely in the sense that they expressed interest in seeing what I had to say. What was fascinating to me, however, is that a few commentators made comments that seemed to assume what I would be saying in the book without having ever read the book. Obviously, the subtitle of the book indicates that it will be a critique of Van Til. I think the assumptions about what I say in the book are based on the history of the debate about Van Til’s teaching. To put it mildly, it hasn’t always been a civil discussion, so there is an assumption that my book will carry on in that tradition. But the lack of civility is actually one reason I was initially reluctant to accept the invitation to write it. I’m not interested in running around in circles, and for many years, which is what this debate has sometimes devolved into.
As I write this, it has been about a week since my employer, Reformation Bible College, posted an announcement about my forthcoming book on their Facebook page. The book is titled Toward a Reformed Apologetics: A Critique of the Thought of Cornelius Van Til. Most of the comments were generally positive merely in the sense that they expressed interest in seeing what I had to say. What was fascinating to me, however, is that a few commentators made comments that seemed to assume what I would be saying in the book without having ever read the book. Obviously, the subtitle of the book indicates that it will be a critique of Van Til. I think the assumptions about what I say in the book are based on the history of the debate about Van Til’s teaching. To put it mildly, it hasn’t always been a civil discussion, so there is an assumption that my book will carry on in that tradition. But the lack of civility is actually one reason I was initially reluctant to accept the invitation to write it. I’m not interested in running around in circles, and for many years, which is what this debate has sometimes devolved into.
What I have attempted to do in this book is to come at the issue again with a very modest goal in mind. In one sense, all I am attempting to do in this book is to clear away some of the debris in the road so that the discussion can move forward in a more constructive manner. I am using “debris” here as a metaphor for the large amount of misunderstanding on both sides of the debate. That misunderstanding has come about for many reasons, and both sides bear some of the blame in my opinion. One reason for misunderstanding is due to the fact that Van Til is not always the clearest writer. That is not meant as an insult. It is a fact that even Van Tillians readily acknowledge. Another reason for misunderstanding is due to the fact that some of Van Til’s critics have not read him as charitably as possible. As a result of all of this, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding concerning exactly what Van Til’s doctrine is. However, not only have non-Van Tillians commonly misunderstood Van Til, but many Van Tillians have misunderstood the teaching and concerns of Van Til’s critics. Because some of those concerns have been based on misunderstandings, it is not uncommon to see all of the concerns of non-Van Tillians casually dismissed and chalked up to a lack of integrity or a lack of intelligence or a lack of both. The result of all this is that brothers in Christ are constantly bickering about an issue that has never really been clearly defined.
What I have tried to do, therefore, is clear away as much debris as possible without creating any new debris. In order to do so, I set two goals for the book. First, I attempted to find a way to set forth Van Til’s teaching in as clear and concise a way as possible. I attempted to do this in a way that took into account everything he wrote and in a way that any educated layman could understand. The goal here was to state exactly what Van Til himself taught. In Part One of the book, five chapters are devoted to explaining Van Til’s system of thought. The five chapters approach the issue from a theological perspective to help those not trained in philosophy to understand his train of thought. I discuss his doctrine of the Triune God and the Divine Decree to lay the foundation. I then move to Van Til’s doctrine of creation and revelation in order to understand what he says about the relation between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge. I then look at what Van Til says about the effects of man’s fall on knowledge and the significance of God’s common grace for his system of thought. Next, I turn to God’s work of redemption and the antithesis between believers and unbelievers that results from this. Finally, I examine what Van Til teaches regarding the apologetic implications of the antithesis, namely the necessity of a presuppositional method.
My second goal was to clear away misunderstanding regarding why some confessionally Reformed Christians do not embrace Van Til’s system of thought. Therefore, in Part Two I have devoted five chapters to explaining some of these concerns. I begin with biblical concerns in an attempt to explain why non-Van Tillians see a conflict between Van Til’s teaching and the teaching of Scripture on certain points. I then move to philosophical concerns, with a focus on bringing some clarity to the perennial charge of idealist influence on Van Til. The final chapters discuss various theological, historical, and practical concerns. I have no expectations that this book will resolve the debate over Van Til’s teaching. My hope is merely that it will contribute in some small way in moving the discussion in a more constructive direction by bringing the debate into a little more focus.
