# Which Van Til book on Barth to get?



## RamistThomist (Dec 27, 2014)

Which book represents Van Til's more polished critique of Barth, _Christianity and Barthianism_ or _The New Modernism_?


----------



## Philip (Dec 27, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> Which book represents Van Til's more polished critique of Barth, Christianity and Barthianism or The New Modernism?



Neither. There are few who are not Van Tillians who think his critique of Barth is fair, while Barth himself claimed not to recognize himself in the critique. The best way to understand Barth and where he goes wrong is to read _Dogmatics_ Volume I part 1 and then read the treatment of his overall project in Grenz and Olson's _20th Century Theology_. Very briefly, Barth suffers from fatal inconsistency in volume I on the doctrine of revelation. ie: He isn't an inerrantist, but his logic ought to lead him there. And fatal consistency on the doctrine of election. ie: His understanding should lead to universalism, but then he obfuscates with ambifuity on limited atonement--if Barth holds to particular redemption, then he is a universalist.

In general one should read and understand the primary source before diving too deep into secondary material.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 27, 2014)

Jacob:

_Christianity and Barthianism_ is his more mature work. I appreciate that you are asking about CVT and his assessment of Barth, not asking to be lectured about whether you should be reading such and certainly not to be judged inadequate in the original sources. Any casual reader of this board should know that you are not unread in the primary sources about what interests you. 

For someone who knows Barth well, let me recommend my friend Jim Cassidy, who is pastor of the OP church in South Austin, TX. Jim has a Ph.D. in Barth from WTS. I know of no one better to interact with on this question than he. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Jacob:
> 
> _Christianity and Barthianism_ is his more mature work. I appreciate that you are asking about CVT and his assessment of Barth, not asking to be lectured about whether you should be reading such and certainly not to be judged inadequate in the original sources. Any casual reader of this board should know that you are not unread in the primary sources about what interests you.
> 
> ...



Thank you, Prof. Strange for your kind words. I read Pastor Cassidy's article the other day. I am currently reading through Church Dogmatics right now (I'm about 2300 pages in). I am even trying to read small sections of Barth in the German. Fear not, I am not a Barthian, though I find his criticisms of Neo Protestantism and Rome quite interesting. I gathered _Christianity and barthianism_ is the later work, since _New Modernism_ was written quite early in the discussion.

I love Van Til and I owe it to myself to at least read this book because of my OPC background. I am iffy on his apologetics but I find his comments on chain of being to be spot on (I even found Barth to make similar comments).


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2014)

Philip said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Which book represents Van Til's more polished critique of Barth, Christianity and Barthianism or The New Modernism?
> ...



I read CD I/1 about three years ago. I am on CD II/2 right now. And I am trying to read all of Bruce McCormack's stuff on Barth.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 28, 2014)

While we are on this topic, does anyone know of a reasonable analysis of the alleged overlap (real or imagined) between Barthian and Van Tillian thinking? I mean something other than the Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley _Classical Apologetics_ book, which I already own.


----------



## Philip (Dec 28, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> I read CD I/1 about three years ago. I am on CD II/2 right now. And I am trying to read all of Bruce McCormack's stuff on Barth.



Well, as Prof Strange alluded to but graciously didn't state outright, I probably assumed the worst here. I find Barth at once fascinating and maddening but have found modern Evangelical appraisals to be rather helpful at appropriating the good stuff. In particular, Thomas McCall (who is a Wesleyan, I believe) had an essay in _Analytic Theology_ on Barth that was a really helpful attempt to save Barth's understanding of revelation from Barth. And I know VanHoozer has done some stuff that has been interesting.



Reformed Covenanter said:


> While we are on this topic, does anyone know of a reasonable analysis of the alleged overlap (real or imagined) between Barthian and Van Tillian thinking?



I haven't found a lot, but this may be due to a lack of scholarship on Van Til from outside Van Tillian circles. The common sense/Reidian guys tend to ignore Kant and post-Kantian philosophy/theology in favour of the analytic tradition. There is a commonality in structure between the two, except that Van Til's is more robust and allows natural theology (of a sort) in through the back door. Again, this is probably due to the fact that both were trained in more continental ways of thinking, whereas Old Princeton, and the Scottish Common Sense tradition, are proto-analytic in their approach.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 28, 2014)

Given he was required reading in my seminary (yeah, I know, I know...sigh), my recommendations on consuming Barth would be:

1. Read The Doctrine of God: The Election of God; The Command of God first (Volume II, Part 2)

2. Next read all of Volume IV Chronologically
Volume IV Part 1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation
Volume IV Part 2: Doctrine of Reconciliation: Jesus Christ the Servant As Lord
Volume IV Part 3, 1st and 2nd halves: Doctrine of Reconciliation: Jesus Christ the True Witness
Volume IV Part 4: Doctrine of Reconciliation: The Foundation of the Christian Life (Baptism) (was never finished and can be skipped as it is not one of his finest efforts)

By the time you finish with the above, you will be smart enough about the man to decide where you want to go next. My favorite would be to read Volume II Part 1: The Doctrine of God: The Knowledge of God; The Reality of God.

But, having said all of that, I recommend you find Webster's Barth (see here) for a starter read to get the lay of the land.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 28, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> While we are on this topic, does anyone know of a reasonable analysis of the alleged overlap (real or imagined) between Barthian and Van Tillian thinking? I mean something other than the Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley _Classical Apologetics_ book, which I already own.



This could be a topic unto itself in that I have found that many of the otherwise reformed misunderstand how God is totally incomprehensible and thus it is impossible to know God as He is in Himself (in se) or In other words, in His divine essence. I say this in all humility knowing that Sproul and Gerstner, who is now with The Lord, are well respected pastors in our churches. The overlap is indeed real in that both Van Til and Barth understood this correctly but from what I read hear is that Van Till may not have stressed the real comprehensiveness of revealed revelation as depicted in scripture and Our Lord Jesus.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> While we are on this topic, does anyone know of a reasonable analysis of the alleged overlap (real or imagined) between Barthian and Van Tillian thinking? I mean something other than the Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley _Classical Apologetics_ book, which I already own.



To add to Philip's post. I see similarities, if not causes. Both men (rightly) rejected the pagan chain of being/analogia entis. Barth denied there was a hidden God behind God stuffed away in hyper-ousia, and Van Til affirmed the Trinity as a "concrete universal."

I see Barth as a "Shadow Van Til."


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2014)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Given he was required reading in my seminary (yeah, I know, I know...sigh), my recommendations on consuming Barth would be:
> 
> 1. Read The Doctrine of God: The Election of God; The Command of God first (Volume II, Part 2)
> 
> ...



I just finished Volume II.1 a few minutes ago. I read I.2 around this time last year and I.1 a few years ago. I have Webster's stuff requested on Interlibrary Loan, as well as George Hunsinger's. 

My go to guy has been Bruce McCormack. I know he isn't actually "Reformed" but it was his lectures on Election and Christology that broke the spell Eastern Orthodoxy had on me, which subsequently led to many, many nigh-eternal blessings for my family. I hope to receive McCormack's _Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology_ (easily the greatest title of all time) sometime in the mail next week.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 28, 2014)

The Reformed Forum has some interesting programs on this area Search Results for â€œvan til barthâ€ - Reformed Forum


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The Reformed Forum has some interesting programs on this area Search Results for â€œvan til barthâ€ - Reformed Forum



They interview Hart. Interesting, since I planned on reading Hart's essay in the next few days. I did chuckle at this comment:



> The disputes get hard to follow after awhile. First we learn about Jesus from the Bible.
> Then we learn about Barth’s take on Jesus.
> Then we learn about Van Til’s take on Barth’s take on Jesus.
> Then we learn about McCormack’s take on Van Til’s take on Barth’s take on Jesus.
> Then we learn about Jim Cassidy’s take on McCormack’s take on Van Til’s take on Barth’s take on Jesus. It’s enough to make you want to go back to reading just the Bible to get your information about Jesus.


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 28, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Given he was required reading in my seminary (yeah, I know, I know...sigh), my recommendations on consuming Barth would be:
> ...



Are these the lectures you speak of? Bruce McCormack, "The God who Graciously Elects" | Kantzer Lectures | Henry Center


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 28, 2014)

earl40 said:


> his could be a topic unto itself in that I have found that many of the otherwise reformed misunderstand how God is totally incomprehensible and thus it is impossible to know God as He is in Himself (in se) or In other words, in His divine essence. I say this in all humility knowing that Sproul and Gerstner, who is now with The Lord, are well respected pastors in our churches. The overlap is indeed real in that both Van Til and Barth understood this correctly but from what I read hear is that Van Till may not have stressed the real comprehensiveness of revealed revelation as depicted in scripture and Our Lord Jesus.



I think you're correct in the analysis that Gerstner/Sproul criticize for the sense that Van Til and Barth share the idea that God is incomprehensible but, having read both, they come to that conclusion for different reasons. Van Til, from my reading, approaches the issue based on the Reformed archetypal/ectypal distinction. Archetypal theology is God's knowledge of Himself _a se_. In contrast, ectypal theology is revealed theology accomondated to creaturely capacity. Van Til writes in _The Infallible Word_:


> How does Greek natural theology and the natural theology of Kant result in denying any rationality higher than itself?
> Neither allow analogical reasoning to understand the world. They start from nature and try to argue for a god who must be finite in nature. It starts with a "mute" universe that has no revelation and makes it revelational only with respect to the autonomous mind of man. No distinction is made between Creator and creature.
> Kant's great contribution to philosophy consisted in stressing the activity of the experiencing subject. It is this point to which the idea of a Copernican revolution is usually applied. Kant argued that since it is the thinking subject that itself contributes the categories of universality and necessity, we must not think of these as covering any reality that exists or may exist wholly independent of the human mind. The validity of universals is to be taken as frankly due to a motion and a vote; it is conventional and nothing more.
> Plato and Aristotle, as well as Kant, assumed the autonomy of man. On such a basis man may reason univocally (have the same mind as God) and reach a God who is just an extension of the creature or he may reason equivocally and reach a God who has no contact with him at all. Man is left with either God being part of nature (pantheism) or being so transcendent that He cannot get into nature (deism).
> ...



I don't know if there has ever been attempt to "match up" a philosophical system with the classical Reformed view of archetypal and ectypal theology. The very idea of ectypal theology is not that we know things at a different "intensity" than God but that we can't know anything the way God does because we're creatures. I personally think that those who took the basic ideas that Van Til was trying to point out theologically and turned them into a whole philosophical system go beyond the fundamental point being made above. At one level, Van Til is trying to say that man cannot create any system outside of relation to God and try to fit God and man inside of it to examing how it all works. "Facts" cannot be differentiated from the revealing God. If that's a philosophical system then so be it but I see a lot stated that has "Van Tillian" on it that I think go beyond this basic point.

As for Barth, his fundamental reason for an incomprehensible God would owe to the critique above. I have read a good swath of his works and Bruce McCormack's work. His critically, realistic dialect theology is of the post-Kantian type above. It begins with differentiations that fundamentally violate the archeypal/ecytpal theological paradigm. I found Van Til's work on Barth to be confusing but I did grasp that Van Til is constantly critiquing this idea of arriving at truth by the way of dialectic.

I suspect Sproul and Gerstner differed fundamentally with Van Til primarily on the issue of this archeypal/ectypal distinction and believe there is some influence from Clark who believed that our knowledge of things is univocal with God's. It's one of the reasons I find Clarkian approaches fundamentally dangerous because they undermine what I believe is fundamental to the Reformed hermeneutic. The more I try to learn philosophy and theology the more I see people either accepting or rejecting the Creator/creature distinction. The further they move away from it, the more I see them being willing to assume that their conception of something philosophically will control what they accept theologically.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2014)

arap said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Ask Mr. Religion said:
> ...



Yes. Email me if you want them in more accessible format.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2014)

arap said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Ask Mr. Religion said:
> ...



A lot of Eastern Orthodox guys would say that Calvin is Nestorian because of certain interpretations of Cyrillene Christology. McCormack took that thesis and smashed it in the mouth.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 29, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I suspect Sproul and Gerstner differed fundamentally with Van Til primarily on the issue of this archeypal/ectypal distinction and believe there is some influence from Clark who believed that our knowledge of things is univocal with God's. It's one of the reasons I find Clarkian approaches fundamentally dangerous because they undermine what I believe is fundamental to the Reformed hermeneutic. The more I try to learn philosophy and theology the more I see people either accepting or rejecting the Creator/creature distinction. The further they move away from it, the more I see them being willing to assume that their conception of something philosophically will control what they accept theologically.



I will have to read your post a few times (maybe 5 or 6) to comprehend all what you wrote though the above I have seen in spades all over our reformed churches and this saddens me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 29, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect Sproul and Gerstner differed fundamentally with Van Til primarily on the issue of this archeypal/ectypal distinction and believe there is some influence from Clark who believed that our knowledge of things is univocal with God's. It's one of the reasons I find Clarkian approaches fundamentally dangerous because they undermine what I believe is fundamental to the Reformed hermeneutic. The more I try to learn philosophy and theology the more I see people either accepting or rejecting the Creator/creature distinction. The further they move away from it, the more I see them being willing to assume that their conception of something philosophically will control what they accept theologically.
> ...



Let me try to be more concrete. I know I'm opening myself up to much criticism for being philosophically untrained but here's my take on it.

I was smoking a cigar with Mike Horton a few years ago (that was a lot of fun!) and he told me that the seminary had invited William Lane Craig to speak to one of his classes. At the class one of the students asked WLC if he thought our knowledge of things was univocal with God's and he answered in the affirmative.

This sounds all very technical but, basically, if we conceive of something like love or goodness then it differs from God's own understanding by degree if we think univocally like God. That is to say that God is just much, much greater and smarter but we're on the same spectrum of understanding.

This got me thinking as to why WLC takes such liberties with philosophy and the Scriptures to justify something like Molinism. When you listen to WLC, he speaks of things being theologically "fruitful" and that the Scriptures don't "disallow" certain views. The starting point is the mind because, for Craig, he needs to start with what he thinks is loving and just. God is most loving and just. What does that mean? Well, I need to investigate this philosophically. True love requires that men be completely free from any sovereign control because God wants completely free agents (mind you this is not me speaking buy you hear this all the time). This must be true because my mind conceived it and it seems most loving and just and because I thought it AND my knowledge is like God's (only in differing degrees) then God must think the same way. 

Do you see what I'm driving at?

if I reject the Creator/creature distinction then anything that I conceive as being correct gets extended to God. Theology doesn't ultimately depend on me subjecting myself to revelation and recognizing my creaturely limitations but it begins with men investigating things and then extending my thoughts to God's because His thoughts are altogether like my own (only at a higher degree). Thus, the beginning of wisdom is philosophical inquiry where we investigate the true and the good and the experiencing subject extends his philsophical training on facts to God because, if he's using philosophy correctly, then whatever he ascertains will be true of God.

Now, not everybody is as bold as WLC to pretty much justify his Molinism with the idea that the Scriptures don't seem to say anything that would defeat it. Nevertheless, I think that people who reject the distinction that Van Til was trying to highlight above will find themselves much more free to speculate. The reason I love the Reformed tradition is that it rejects speculating beyond what God has revealed. There's a lot of room for GNC but that's different than going into a corner of speculation where God has not spoken and finding it theologically "fruitful" because some philosophical demand has required that we answer it and speak of God in some way.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 29, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> This sounds all very technical but, basically, if we conceive of something like love or goodness then it differs from God's own understanding by degree if we think univocally like God. That is to say that God is just much, much greater and smarter but we're on the same spectrum of understanding.



Do you think that a sound understanding of divine simplicity and the Westminster Confession's affirmation that God is "most absolute" would serve as a cure for this type of thinking? Is there any connection between WLC's denial/questioning of divine simplicity and his notion that we think univocally like God? If you reject divine simplicity, then you are left thinking that God is just a giant version of us. This notion would appear to sit comfortably with idea that our knowledge is univocal with God's knowledge.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 29, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



Wow. I did not expect Craig to say that.



> This sounds all very technical but, basically, if we conceive of something like love or goodness then it differs from God's own understanding by degree if we think univocally like God. That is to say that God is just much, much greater and smarter but we're on the same spectrum of understanding.



Would you see this as analogia entis/chain of being? We are on the same plane of being, per Craig, and God just has more of it. This is why CVT called Rome-Aristotle irrational on this point: man participates in both being and non-being at the same time.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 29, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > This sounds all very technical but, basically, if we conceive of something like love or goodness then it differs from God's own understanding by degree if we think univocally like God. That is to say that God is just much, much greater and smarter but we're on the same spectrum of understanding.
> ...



Well, one would like for WLC to repent of his teaching and turn to Reformed orthodoxy but I'm not holding my breath. He's been reported to have told people that the best way to be an apologist is to focus on philosophy first and then theology. He also has very little respect for theologians who, in his opinion, are poor philosophers.

Personally, I think that you are correct that understanding divine simplicty and is part of the cure but also the clause that: "I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."


ReformedReidian said:


> Would you see this as analogia entis/chain of being? We are on the same plane of being, per Craig, and God just has more of it. This is why CVT called Rome-Aristotle irrational on this point: man participates in both being and non-being at the same time.



I don't know. You are much more knowledgeable in some of these things than I am Jacob. I wish I had the energy/ability to consume as many books as you do. This conversation actually motivated me to do a bit more digging and I'm thinking about buying a few books to sharpen my understanding.

I have heard Craig say that He believes that, once God created time He entered into it and became subject to it. I'm pretty convinced that WLC would have been condemned a heretic in former centuries but, in our own, is celebrated. He tries to deny that he affirms divine aseity but I don't know how one can both believe in the Molinism he believes in on the one hand and then believe in aseity with the same breath.

I think Craig sees God as desiring human libertine free will so much that He "runs the numbers" on what varied universes would look like based on varied conditions given human autonomy. He states that "God has to deal with the cards He is given" and by that I think he thinks that God cannot control the autonomous decisions and so tries different permutations of universes until the maximum number of people are saved given human libertine free will. He even said that countries that have few Christians are most likely inhabited by people that would not respond to the Gospel under any conditions. It's very bizarre and un-Christian and the fact that he's so beloved of many Evangelicals speaks to the poverty of current Evangelicalism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 29, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



For what it's worth, in the past you have turned my attention back to Van Til (especially Van TIl the lecturer). 

I like your comment on God's "running the numbers."


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 30, 2014)

As far as CVT the philosopher he seems to have seen himself as an apologist first and formost. He corrects Dooyeweerd for mistaking his work as philosophical in nature, but it surely has philosopical consequences to it. You are right about WLC Rich. He does believe those things. CVT would rightly fault him from moving from philosophy to theology, that is what is supposidly true in philosophy must determine our theology. 

As far as Barth I'll say that CVT's _Christianity and Barthianism_ is a work to be reckoned with. By far most scholarly work, whether you agree with him or not. The overlaps between CVT and Barth are merely superficial. They may have used the same words but different meanings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 30, 2014)

arap said:


> Are these the lectures you speak of? Bruce McCormack, "The God who Graciously Elects" | Kantzer Lectures | Henry Center


Thanks for pointing out these links. I've been listening to them. You can get a sense for McCormack's theology (which he aligns with Barth's). His major thesis as to what is wrong with Calvinists of our ilk is that we have a pre-modern metaphysics. For instance, he is critical of the idea that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of things because He decrees them arguing that God's knowing would be His decree. There would be no deliberation and only what He decreed He would do. 

Anyway, he points to the development of metaphysics in the last few hundred years and I think he has in mind Hegel in particular as the ground for most modern theology. He even praises Edwards as a mediating position between the old Reformed theology and a movement toward the modern.

The more I listen to him, the more what CVT is noting above comes to mind. I may be wrong but I think the Reformers understood the limits of philosophy as a starting point. I think metaphysics is helpful but cannot be the ground for theology. It seems as if attempts to ground build up from philosophy _to_ theology (whether one uses a modern or pre-modern metaphysic will always limit theology within the limits of human reason. I tend to think that CVT was aware of this and tried to point out that you have to maintain the archetypal/ectypal theological distincition as your grounded starting point and much of his work is aimed at criticizing theology that is grounded in philosophy. I then think that people came after him and saw that he was talking some philosophy and wanted to create a full-orbed philsophy around him and so we talk about pre-suppositional apologetics and worldview analysis as if that was the central concern. I think (and this is me talking) this was not his main project. To simplify, I think CVT wanted us to be creaturely and think of God as the revealer and then work things outward from there. I might be wrong but that's my sense of the thing.


----------

