Evaluating the Thought of Cornelius Van Til with Keith Mathison and James Anderson

[Keith Mathison]

Keith, I want to know if you deal with this question in your book. In DF, pp. 340-341, he describes the traditional method as compromising a bunch of doctrines, but it seems to me that it is the traditional method as used by Roman Catholics and Arminians that does the compromising. When he deals with the Reformed (some of whom he freely acknowledges use the traditional method), his only claim is that they, in so doing, prevent "the development of a distinctly Reformed apologetic" (341). This leaves wide open the possibility that the traditional method is not seen by Van Til as being utilized in the same way by the Romanists/Arminians, on the one hand, versus the Reformed on the other. It also leaves open the possibility that Van Til is not accusing the entire Reformed tradition of compromising on those doctrines just because some of them use a traditional apologetic. Do you deal with this question/interpretation in your book?

Hi Lane,

Yes, I do address it. I think it is clear that Van Til does more than say the Reformed who use traditional methods merely prevent the development of a distinctly Reformed apologetic. I don't think there would have ever been any controversy over Van Til if that were all he was saying. He makes it pretty clear throughout his career that Reformed theologians who use any of the traditional methods are compromisers.

He says the traditional method itself compromises Christianity. At the very beginning of that long list in the Defense of the Faith (p. 340), he expressly says: "The traditional method was constructed by Roman Catholics and Arminians. It was, so to speak, made to fit Romanist or Evangelical theology. And since Roman Catholic and Evangelical theology compromises the Protestant doctrines of Scripture, of God, of man, of sin and of redemption so the traditional method of Apologetics compromises Christianity in order to win men to an acceptance of it." It's not merely the Roman Catholics and Arminians who are compromisers. The method itself compromises, so anybody who uses it compromises.

In his little work "My Credo" Van Til says explicitly: "“Deciding, therefore, to follow the Reformers in theology, it was natural that I attempt also to do so in apologetics. I turned to such Reformed apologists as Warfield, Greene, and others. What did I find? I found the theologians of the “self-attesting Christ,” defending their faith with a method which denied precisely that point!” - - Cornelius Van Til, “My Credo,” In Geehan, E. R., ed. Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 1971), p. 10. In other words, Reformed theologians such as Warfield and Greene, by using the traditional methods, were denying the self-attesting Christ.

In another place, he throws all of the Reformed (and Lutheran) scholastic theologians under the bus. He writes: "The entire enterprise of Luther and Calvin was to destroy this scholastic monstrosity by the ideas of solus Christus, sola scriptura and sola fide. But after Calvin the everlasting temptation besetting all Christians, especially sophisticated Christians, to make friends with those that are of Cain’s lineage proved too much for many Lutheran and even Reformed theologians and so Lutheran and Reformed Scholasticism were begotten and born.” - - Cornelius Van Til, “Herman Dooyeweerd and Reformed Apologetics” Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary mimeo, 1974. Syllabus.

Given Van Til's definition of "scholasticism" as a synthesizing of biblical and pagan ideas, to say that the Reformed scholastics revived this monstrosity by virtue of their traditional methods, is more than saying they were hindering the development of a distinctly Reformed apologetics. He's saying that they revived something that completely compromises every doctrine of Christianity.

Those are just a few of the places where he makes this point.

I just located a copy for sale in Australia. I will keep an eye out for this particular discussion in the book.

How do you work with this from a reformed systematic standpoint? If it is part of the system it seems to me we cannot escape its exclusivity.

I'm not 100% sure I follow what you're asking. If you're saying "If the method of presupposition is part of the system of Reformed theology, we cannot escape its exclusivity," my response would be that I don't believe the method of presupposition is part of the system of Reformed theology. Van Til thinks it is. I don't. If it were, it's difficult to explain the existence of Reformed theology for 400 years before Van Til was even born.

But is that what you're asking?

 

[Keith Mathison]

Hi Lane,

If I might add, look at the first quote by Van Til again:

"The traditional method was constructed by Roman Catholics and Arminians. It was, so to speak, made to fit Romanist or Evangelical theology. And since Roman Catholic and Evangelical theology compromises the Protestant doctrines of Scripture, of God, of man, of sin and of redemption so the traditional method of Apologetics compromises Christianity in order to win men to an acceptance of it."

Note, the traditional method was constructed by Roman Catholics and Arminians.

It was made by them "to fit" their theology. That makes the traditional method an integral part of Roman Catholic and Arminian theology.

Roman Catholic and Arminian theology "compromises the Protestant doctrines of Scripture, of God, of man, of sin and of redemption."

So "so the traditional method of Apologetics compromises Christianity."

In other, words, Van Til says that the traditional method compromises Christianity just as Roman Catholic and Arminian theology compromises Christianity. For a Reformed theologian to use the traditional method is no different than a Reformed theologian incorporating elements of Roman Catholic or Arminian theology into their system. That's because, for Van Til, the traditional method is part of the Roman Catholic/Arminian theological system. It was made by Roman Catholics and Arminians to fit their theology, and it assumes their theology.

Only the method of presupposition is consistent with Reformed theology.

That's what Van Til consistently says throughout all of his writings over the course of his entire career. It's certainly how most Van Tillians prior to Frame interpreted him. There's no good explanation for the rhetoric Van Til uses when talking about other Reformed theologians if he doesn't hold this exclusivistic view of his method.

 

[greenbaggins]

Keith, unfortunately, I do not find your reading of VT convincing here. Three reasons. One is well explained by Ron. The other is simply this: if you're right, then there is absolutely zero reason for VT to wear proudly the label of a confessional Reformed and Presbyterian theologian his entire life if he is canning that tradition as thoroughly as you say he is. You prove too much. Thirdly, you don't seem to be allowing for the possibility of different varieties of compromising. VT is most likely saying that Reformed authors who use the traditional methodology are using a method that is inconsistent with these various doctrines as properly and confessionally understood (which would thus vindicate the idea that VT held to the confessionality of those doctrines as defined in the confessional tradition, incidentally). Of course he believes his is the only consistent method. That is quite different from saying that VT is claiming that these authors are undermining the Reformed tradition. It seems to me you extend the argument too far, an extension dependent on an unvarying variety of "compromise." Are you suggesting that VT believes that Reformed authors compromise key doctrines in exactly the same way as Roman Catholicism/Arminianism compromises them? That sounds reductionistic to me.

 

[Keith Mathison]

Keith, unfortunately, I do not find your reading of VT convincing here. Three reasons. One is well explained by Ron. The other is simply this: if you're right, then there is absolutely zero reason for VT to wear proudly the label of a confessional Reformed and Presbyterian theologian his entire life if he is canning that tradition as thoroughly as you say he is. You prove too much. Thirdly, you don't seem to be allowing for the possibility of different varieties of compromising. VT is most likely saying that Reformed authors who use the traditional methodology are using a method that is inconsistent with these various doctrines as properly and confessionally understood (which would thus vindicate the idea that VT held to the confessionality of those doctrines as defined in the confessional tradition, incidentally). Of course he believes his is the only consistent method. That is quite different from saying that VT is claiming that these authors are undermining the Reformed tradition. It seems to me you extend the argument too far, an extension dependent on an unvarying variety of "compromise." Are you suggesting that VT believes that Reformed authors compromise key doctrines in exactly the same way as Roman Catholicism/Arminianism compromises them? That sounds reductionistic to me.

Hi Lane,

That's fine if you understand him differently. I have little argument with Van Tillians who don't accuse most historically Reformed theologians of being compromisers of Reformed theology. But my book wasn't addressing all the many schools of Van Tillianism. I was focused solely on Van Til and his writings.

In any case, it's not me saying that Van Til is doing this. It's Van Til saying this. If he doesn't mean it, why would he assert it so many times over the course of a half a century? Why would so many of his students for so many years accuse non Van Tillians of being compromisers? Why did so many Van Tillians over the years accuse Dr. Sproul of being a closet Romanist for using traditional methods? Why would I have been called all the things I've been called for the last thirty years for not being a Van Tillian? I'm being called those same things online right now by the Van Tillians who recognize how adamant he was on this point.

I think the reason Van Til proudly wore the label of a confessional Reformed theologian his whole life is because he believed he was, and for the most part he was - I discuss that in the book. Van Til, for example, would have had zero patience for the students of his who are messing around with confessional Reformed theology by altering the doctrine of God's attributes, or creating federal vision theology. He would have thrown them out. But he also believed he was removing inconsistencies in confessional Reformed theology that weakened and compromised it. His entire life's project was to develop an apologetic that did not compromise Reformed confessional theology - a Reformed apologetic that was fully consistent with that Reformed theology and that did not compromise it in the way that the Reformed scholastics, and Warfield, and Greene, etc. did compromise it. He clearly and repeatedly affirms both - that he is confessional and that the Reformed theologians who came before him unintentionally compromised confessional Reformed theology by adopting a Roman Catholic/Arminian methodology. He's trying to finish what they started.

If some of his students like Frame want to say something different about traditional methods, that's fine. But it's not what Van Til said, and its revisionary to read that kind of thing back into Van Til himself. I spent months slowly and carefully reading everything he wrote. I would recommend everyone interested in this question do that (I'm not saying you haven't. I have no idea). I think too many Van Tillians have gotten their view secondhand (through Bahnsen, or Frame, or whoever), but not very many have read everything Van Til said. If you do, it's pretty evident how militant he is on that point. I can provide dozens and dozens of quotes in context demonstrating precisely what he said. The only time he comes close to qualifying it, as I mentioned somewhere above, is when he allows for traditional arguments that have been Van-Tillianized. In other words,, he says you can use the traditional theistic proofs, for example, but only if you turn them into presuppositional arguments.

Van Til never says, however, that it's fine for Reformed theologians to use the traditional "Thomistic-Butler" method (that's the other term he uses for it), and that those Reformed theologians who have done it and who still do use it are not compromising Reformed theology. He strongly criticizes those like Schaeffer and Carnell who "tweak" his method of presupposition. Those who didn't use it or who don't use it are worse. They are compromisers of the faith whether they intended it or not, and Van Til names names - Warfield, Greene, the Reformed scholastics. Pretty much everybody between Calvin and himself. If they used the "Thomistic-Butler" method (and all the Reformed up to his day were using it according to Van Til), then they were compromising Reformed theology. It's one of the main emphases in his many works because it's the main justification for his lifelong project.

So, I guess we just have to disagree, but I am heartened if in your eyes at least, I'm not a quasi-Romanist compromiser of the Christian faith.

 

[greenbaggins]

Keith, of course I would never accuse you of being a quasi-Romanist compromiser of the Christian faith. I view you as being confessionally Reformed. And I also appreciate your emphasis on this being an in-house debate. It is encouraging to me, at least, since rhetoric (including some of VT's own rhetoric, especially against the so-called "scholastics," a rhetoric influenced by the now-defunct Calvin-versus-the-Calvinists school) has in the past been a distracting element in the discussion, to see a non-Van Tillian using much more restrained language as you have. VT's rhetoric was, in my view, used to try to make space for his view. I do think this led, on occasion, to overstatement about the previous Reformed tradition. The rhetoric of the anti-Van Tillians has been no better. All you have to do is mention the Trinity Foundation, and the slanders that came from there (basically, VT is the source of all the problems in the current Reformed world, including the FV).

 

[Keith Mathison]

Gents,

I need to take a break for a few days. I have classes all this week and final exams all next week. If I can pop in every once in a while, I will. I appreciate all the comments and interaction about the Kevin DeYoung podcast.

Keith

Keith, of course I would never accuse you of being a quasi-Romanist compromiser of the Christian faith. I view you as being confessionally Reformed. And I also appreciate your emphasis on this being an in-house debate. It is encouraging to me, at least, since rhetoric (including some of VT's own rhetoric, especially against the so-called "scholastics," a rhetoric influenced by the now-defunct Calvin-versus-the-Calvinists school) has in the past been a distracting element in the discussion, to see a non-Van Tillian using much more restrained language as you have. VT's rhetoric was, in my view, used to try to make space for his view. I do think this led, on occasion, to overstatement about the previous Reformed tradition. The rhetoric of the anti-Van Tillians has been no better. All you have to do is mention the Trinity Foundation, and the slanders that came from there (basically, VT is the source of all the problems in the current Reformed world, including the FV).

I appreciate that.

I spent years answering emails from John Robbins accusing Sproul and myself of all kinds of stuff. He was against our side as much as he was against the Van Tillian side.

My hope for this book is to move the conversation as much as I personally am able toward the direction of an in-house debate between brothers who treat each other with respect. I think we can have strong disagreements about this issue while also talking about it in a godly manner. You are my brother in Christ. James Anderson is my brother in Christ. Van Til is my brother in Christ.

 

[RamistThomist]

t. James Anderson is my brother in Christ. Van Til is my brother in Christ.

Although I more or less reject all CVT talking points at this stage in my life, Anderson made me realize that presuppositionalism is far more potent than its popularizers make it out to be. I do hope presups in the future take note of analytic guys like Anderson.

 

[ZackF]

Although I more or less reject all CVT talking points at this stage in my life, Anderson made me realize that presuppositionalism is far more potent than its popularizers make it out to be. I do hope presups in the future take note of analytic guys like Anderson.

I remember Steve Hayes writing that James Anderson is the best presuppositionalist of our day.

 

[MW]

I'm not 100% sure I follow what you're asking. If you're saying "If the method of presupposition is part of the system of Reformed theology, we cannot escape its exclusivity," my response would be that I don't believe the method of presupposition is part of the system of Reformed theology. Van Til thinks it is. I don't. If it were, it's difficult to explain the existence of Reformed theology for 400 years before Van Til was even born.

But is that what you're asking?

Yes. Thankyou for making it clearer and for taking time out of your schedule to address the thread.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

I looked at the publisher website, and it doesn't look like they have it in any other format yet. I'll send them a note tomorrow and ask if that is in the works.

Good day Dr. Mathison,

Did the publisher happen to give feedback on an electronic version of the book being made available?

Kind regards,

 

[itsreed]

Dr. Mathison, welcome to the “freshman” class with the rest of us ‘longtime members, infrequent posters.’

 

[Keith Mathison]

Good day Dr. Mathison,

Did the publisher happen to give feedback on an electronic version of the book being made available?

Kind regards,

Yikes. I forgot to send that note. I am so sorry. I'll do that right now.

Dr. Mathison, welcome to the “freshman” class with the rest of us ‘longtime members, infrequent posters.’

Hi Reed. Good to "see" you.

 

[Keith Mathison]

Good day Dr. Mathison,

Did the publisher happen to give feedback on an electronic version of the book being made available?

Kind regards,

I just got word from the publisher that it will be available in an electronic version soon, but they couldn't give me an exact date yet.