From Van Til:
It is but natural to expect that, if the church is strong because its ministry understands and preaches the whole counsel of God, then the church will be able to protect itself best against false teaching o every sort. Non-indoctrinated Christians will easily fall prey to the peddlers of Russellism, spiritualism, and all of the other fifty-seven varieties of heresies with which our country abounds. One-text Christians simply have no weapons of defense against these people. They may be able to quote many Scripture texts which speak, for instance, of eternal punishment, but the Russellite will be able to quote texts which, by the sound of them and taken individually, seem to teach annihilation. The net result is, at best a loss of spiritual power because of loss of conviction. Many times, such one-text Christians themselves fall prey to the seducer’s voice.
We have already indicated that the best apologetic defense will invariably be made by him who knows the system of truth of Scripture best. The fight between Christianity and non-Christianity is, in modern times, no piece-meal affair. It is the life-and-death struggle between two mutually opposed life-and-world views. The non-Christian attack often comes to us on matters of historical, or other, detail. It comes to us in the form of objections to certain teachings of Scripture, say, with respect to creation, etc. It may seem to be simply a matter of asking what the facts have been. Back of this detailed attack, however, is the constant assumption of the non-Christian metaphysics of the correlativity of God and man. He who has not been trained in systematic theology will often be at a loss as to how to meet these attacks. He may be quite proficient in warding off the attack as far as details are concerned, but he will forever have to be afraid of new attacks as long as he has never removed the foundation from the enemy’s position.
Van Til, Cornelius, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, Second Edition, 1974, R&R Publishing.
This is the foundation. The basis for an authoritative Christian practice is found in its foundation. Likewise the attacks we face today, especially in the fields of ethics and science, are challenges to the foundation of this world view. The first challenge is whether God even exists. After that is whether there is any evidence of having been created. Finally we are faced with a challenge to any sense of morality and ethics that might be brought to the public square.
But once we establish the legitimacy of the Christian framework we then gain the foundation for reaching into the fields of ethics, morality, and to be heard. If our faith is legitimate then it will stand up to criticism. But it must face those challenges head-on, else it might justifiably be dismissed as irrelevant.
January 7th, 2010 | 9:13 pm | #1
Thanks for posting this! Van Til’s always refreshing (his ideas, anyway, not his writing style :)
I think it is always useful for Christians -particularly Evangelicals- to be reminded that Biblical theology needs to come before systematic…
January 7th, 2010 | 10:20 pm | #2
There are so many Van Tillian ideas in such a brief statement:
1. If Christianity is true, then all else (regardless) is heresy. Thus, Islam is not a different belief system as much as it is a heresy of the Christian faith that must be critiqued both internally and against the Christian faith.
2. Van Til wholeheartedly believed and taught that no information is neutral. As he says about attacks from opposing views, “It may seem to be simply a matter of asking what the facts have been,” but of course to the Van Tillian this is impossible. Facts are interpreted at their deepest level; their foundation.
3. Van Til cared deeply about removing the foundation from opposing views. For instance, Van Til would see atheism not simply as wrong, but as metaphysically impossible since it is lacking any ultimate foundation apart from reason itself (which needs a foundation to amount to anything meaningful).
Thus, I would say that your quote that science is an attack against our foundation only tells half the story, because the attack isn’t about science and ethics in and of themselves, but interpreted claims and facts that are representative of a worldview that has a foundation directly opposed to the Christian foundation, who is the Triune God.
January 8th, 2010 | 9:30 am | #3
Ranger,
Be careful on how you use science. It is not science (as a methodology) that has been attacking Christianity (as a belief system). It is naturalism that initially attacked Christianity (first as an authority). For the conflict was not about the Bible but about the church’s dependence upon Aristotelean cosmology. That is not an incorrigible condition.
The legitimacy of Christianity feeds directly into its exclusivity. If it is correct, it is exclusively correct.
January 8th, 2010 | 10:10 am | #4
That’s a great distinction, Collin.
January 8th, 2010 | 12:10 pm | #5
The problem with Van Til is his Calvinist framework. Epistemologically, Calvinism fares no better than atheism because it undercuts man’s ability to reason, arguing that man’s reason is in a fallen state, thus disabling man from knowing what is true and moral. As Lewis argues in the Problem of Pain, if total depravity is true, and if said depravity means man cannot know and understand God, then statements about morality are not only meaningless, it could be the case that God is a devil.
January 8th, 2010 | 1:00 pm | #6
There is no conflict between this reason and faith, since faith is the impelling power which urges reason to interpret aright. ~ Cornelius Van Til
January 8th, 2010 | 1:06 pm | #7
“But once we establish the legitimacy of the Christian framework…” Van Til would say the Christian worldview has been legitimized by its self-authenticating nature. “We” are establishing its legitimacy? Or we are proclaiming its legitimacy? and that term “legitimacy” always begs the comparative question in my mind.
January 8th, 2010 | 1:09 pm | #8
Othodoxdj,
But VanTil’s Calvinism clarifies the noetic effects of the fall, thus avoiding the dualism of some, e.g. Lewis. One should not confuse not knowing God fully with not knowing God at all.
Sarah,
Even more powerful, Van Til avoids the dualism of particularism by maintaining that all information (reason as well as data) is part and parcel of Christian thought, and is not separately accountable as proof of it.
January 8th, 2010 | 1:38 pm | #9
Sarah,
To clarify my terminology: We are establishing legitimacy to the hearer in the argument, not creating legitimacy by the argument.
January 8th, 2010 | 2:10 pm | #10
The problem is that according to Calvinism it doesn’t matter how compelling an argument is. If one is not elect, the veracity of a claim will have no effect on one who is non-elect. Thus, apologetics have only one effect: to lead some of the elect to faith. Thus, if no one ever advanced any arguments in favor Christianity, the elect would still be elect. Thus, apologetics changes nothing.
January 8th, 2010 | 3:31 pm | #11
orthodoxdj,
This is just a bit of a red herring.
Not all Calvinists apply this sense of determinism to the human fallen condition. Calvin himself allowed for a limited free will. Because we do not know is who the elect are, we must behave as though there is universal atonement and engage in persuasion at some level. The act and content of election are up to God.
And, like Van Til, I come with the assumption of the truth of Christianity and so persuade others to the faith. This persuasion is not via reason apart from Christianity, but from the truth of and within Christianity.
January 8th, 2010 | 3:34 pm | #12
Or…better still…realize that the Bible is actually true when it says “Christ died for all.”
: )
January 8th, 2010 | 7:45 pm | #13
Paul,
It may surprise you, but many Calvinists agree.
The sad part is that some prefer to insert their systematic into the Word, and those people stand in error.
January 9th, 2010 | 8:21 am | #14
Collin,
You said, “Be careful on how you use science. It is not science (as a methodology) that has been attacking Christianity (as a belief system). It is naturalism that initially attacked Christianity (first as an authority).”
That’s actually the point I was attempting to make. That’s why I said, “the attack isn’t about science and ethics in and of themselves, but interpreted claims and facts that are representative of a worldview that has a foundation directly opposed to the Christian foundation, who is the Triune God.”
Thus, I’m in complete agreement that “The legitimacy of Christianity feeds directly into its exclusivity. If it is correct, it is exclusively correct.”
Sorry for being unclear.
January 9th, 2010 | 12:29 pm | #15
Roger,
Thanks. I’m only wanting the readers to understand that there is no ontological science v faith issue.
January 9th, 2010 | 8:30 pm | #16
Even though my own beliefs would be best described as presuppositional, I’m not a big fan of Van Til, because he comes too close to fideism. His attacks on “evidentialists” are for the most part an unfair caricature that creates a divide among Christian apologists where there really doesn’t need to be one.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact