# Machen's apologetic.



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2010)

What school of apologetics did Machen more closley fall into Warfield's or Van Til's? Or some combination of the two maybe? I have always wondered and I have read conflicting things on it. Here are a couple of papers to go along with this.

PA064.
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/srmachen.htm.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 8, 2010)

Bahnsen, "Machen, Van Til, and the Apologetical Tradition of the OPC," in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, ed. Charles G. Dennison and Richard Gamble, (Philadelphia: The Committee for the Historian of the OPC, 1986).


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 8, 2010)

Yeah the first paper I listed is that one but thanks. That is a great paper though isn't it, it is from a great book too?


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 9, 2010)

Don't you love it when two deeply satisfying articles on the same topic come to opposite conclusions?


----------



## Philip (Jun 9, 2010)

I would side with the view that puts Machen with Old Princeton for the following reasons:

1) Machen was himself a product of Old Princeton.
2) His familiarity with the continental tradition that Van Til came out of was limited (by his own admission).
3) Most of the attempts I have seen at placing Machen in the presuppositional camp have been based upon disparate passages in Machen taken out of historical context. The article above is an impressive attempt to reconcile the two men, but does not even try to say that Machen was not the consistent follower of Warfield which he was. If anything, the article waters down Van Til a bit to make him fit with Machen.
4) To call Machen a presuppositionalist or Van Tillian would be anachronistic anyway. Kuyper and the Dutch presuppositionalists were just beginning to influence Presbyterianism and Van Til would be the key figure in that movement after Machen's death.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 10, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> Don't you love it when two deeply satisfying articles on the same topic come to opposite conclusions?



Oh yeah that is why I started this thread to see whateveryone else thought!

---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> I would side with the view that puts Machen with Old Princeton for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) Machen was himself a product of Old Princeton.
> 2) His familiarity with the continental tradition that Van Til came out of was limited (by his own admission).
> ...


 
Good points. What I take from these two papers is that whatever Machens real view both men felt that they were both well withen the reformed camp and mounted credible defenses of the faith. Also the ideal historical apologetics that VanTil had in mind was Machen.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 10, 2010)

There may need to be some clarification as to the meaning of "within the Reformed camp." [Warning: moving somewhat off-topic] As Rosenthal's paper pointed out, the Princeton apologetic was in line with classical Calvinism. That means that Van Tillianism represents something of either a departure or a development. Frankly put, before Van Til, there were no presuppositionalists. That's because presuppositionalism is a development of post-Kantian continental philosophy. However, the real question is not what Calvin or anyone else believed, but whether presuppositionalism is a legitimate development in the Reformed tradition.


----------



## Philip (Jun 10, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> There may need to be some clarification as to the meaning of "within the Reformed camp." [Warning: moving somewhat off-topic] As Rosenthal's paper pointed out, the Princeton apologetic was in line with classical Calvinism. That means that Van Tillianism represents something of either a departure or a development. Frankly put, before Van Til, there were no presuppositionalists. That's because presuppositionalism is a development of post-Kantian continental philosophy. However, the real question is not what Calvin or anyone else believed, but whether presuppositionalism is a legitimate development in the Reformed tradition.


 
To be fair, presuppositionalism predates Van Til by a few decades. Its roots lie in Kuyper and the Neo-Calvinist tradition in Dutch Reformed circles. I consider classic Neo-Calvinism to be largely within the reformed tradition (though there are points of caution) and therefore I would consider presuppositionalism to be safely within the reformed camp.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 10, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> There may need to be some clarification as to the meaning of "within the Reformed camp." [Warning: moving somewhat off-topic] As Rosenthal's paper pointed out, the Princeton apologetic was in line with classical Calvinism. That means that Van Tillianism represents something of either a departure or a development. Frankly put, before Van Til, there were no presuppositionalists. That's because presuppositionalism is a development of post-Kantian continental philosophy. However, the real question is not what Calvin or anyone else believed, but whether presuppositionalism is a legitimate development in the Reformed tradition.


 
P. F. Pugh is exactly right. Go to the Bavink thread I started in the theology section and read the free article links I posted, you will see basically the that the dutch reformed tradition was started by Kuyper and Bavink. Also it was developed by Dooyeweerd and VanTil.


----------



## MW (Jun 10, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> What school of apologetics did Machen more closley fall into Warfield's or Van Til's?


 
The question supposes we must choose between them. CVT maintained he was standing on the shoulders of Princeton as well as Amsterdam. His interpreters might argue between themselves which had the ascendancy in his overall system, but it is an historical fact that CVT belongs to a developing school which was upholding realist values in the face of new metaphysical conflicts. Machen was a part of this developing picture. From the days of Warfield and Bavinck we see a number of interesting presentations of realism from men like McCosh, Orr, and the like, which led to the inclusive system of CVT. If we can see sides of both schools in Machen's writings it is owing to the fact that the reformed tradition was seeking to be true to two equally valid epistemic principles and refused to concede the ground of either rationality-commonality and irrationality-antithesis. If one has access to Vos' "Shorter Writings," his review of Bavinck's Dogmatics will show this concern.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 10, 2010)

Yeah, you guys are right. But still, the point is that it's not necessary that Bavinck or Kuyper reproduce exactly what Calvin said; the point is whether that line of thinking is a legitimate development or an illegitimate deviation. I don't think I'm well versed enough in the issue to answer that definitively.


----------



## Philip (Jun 10, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> Yeah, you guys are right. But still, the point is that it's not necessary that Bavinck or Kuyper reproduce exactly what Calvin said; the point is whether that line of thinking is a legitimate development or an illegitimate deviation. I don't think I'm well versed enough in the issue to answer that definitively.


 
It was an issue that faced reformed circles at the time of Van Til, but it's a bit late for us to be revisiting it. This board alone should be evidence that, like it or not, the Continental/Kuyperian tradition is a part of the landscape in traditional reformed circles. The choice to include them in our fold was made a long time ago by Machen himself, of all people. It's just as silly, in my mind, to dismiss Neo-Calvinist/Continental thinking as "not truly reformed" as it is to dismiss Old Princeton in this manner. There are pitfalls on both sides, which is why it is good to have both---keep the church balanced between recognizing antithesis (Continental) and emphasizing common grace/general revelation (Old Princeton).


----------

