Dr. Cornelius Van Til is professor of Apologetics at Westminster
Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pa. Prof. Van Til is internationally
recognized as an authority on current theological trends. He has
written The New Modernism, Common Grace, and is co-editor of Philosophia
Reformata. This article is the first of a series on the fundamental
issue of the nature of the Reformed defense of the Faith.
In this series of articles our concern will be to discover some
of the main features of the Reformed approach in Christian Apologetics.
To encourage the reading of this very important series of articles
by all our Reformed people, we are including this list of brief
definitions covering the more difficult words used by the writer.
The words are listed in the order in which they appear in the article
itself Please bear in mind that these definitions are suggestive
rather than exhaustive.
APOLOGETICS. That branch of theology which is concerned with
the defense of Christian-theism against false philosophy.
THEISM. In this article theism is the Christian interpretation
of reality as based upon the revelation of the God of the Bible.
SOTERIOLOGY. That department of biblical doctrine which treats
of the application to us of that which Christ has merited for us.
ROMANISM. The doctrines, customs, and adherents of the Roman
Catholic religion.
PAGANISM. That religion, culture and philosophy which is outside
the Christian, Mohammedan, or Jewish tradition. (Paganism is often
used in the same sense as heathenism.)
EVANGELICALISM. That type of Protestant Christianity which limits
its emphasis to man's need for personal redemption through Jesus
Christ.
SUPERNATURALISM. In this article supernaturalism is the belief
in God as altogether above nature but nevertheless the One in whom
"we live, and move, and have our being." (Act. 17:28).
DEISM. The belief that God created the world as a watchmaker
fashions a watch, and set it in motion, but that it continues to
run by its own natural laws.
REFORMED FAITH. See article, "Calvinism".
ARCHAEOLOGY. The study of past human life and activities as shown
by the relics, monuments, etc., of ancient peoples.
ARMINIANISM. See article, "Arminianism".
While seeking light on this question, let us turn first to the
inaugural address of the late Dr. Valentine Hepp of the Free University
of Amsterdam. The title of this address is Reformed Apologetic.
f1 Hepp says that a Reformed Christian must naturally be Reformed
in his approach to the problem of Apologetics. Men and women do
not walk about first as human beings and afterward as men and women.
No more can a Reformed Christian first appear as a Christian and
later as a Reformed Christian. A Reformed Christian is a Reformed
Christian from the outset. If Hepp is right, then the Reformed Christian
will have a distinctively Reformed approach when he is trying to
win "Mr. Black" to become a Christian. He wants "Mr. Black" to become
at once a Reformed Christian, not first a Christian and then a Reformed
Christian. "Mr. Black" must become a Reformed Christian not in two
but in one transaction.
The late Dr. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield once said that Calvinism
or the Reformed Faith is Christianity come to its own. Warfield
did not like to identify Calvinism with the so-called "five points
of Calvinism": total depravity, unconditional election, limited
atonement, irresistable grace, and perseverance of the saints. Historically
at least, Warfield asserts, these five points were but the "theological
obverse" of the "five points of Arminianism". The "five points of
Calvinism" are but so many branches of the tree of Calvinism.
Looked at as a unit, Calvinism represents the "vision of God
in his majesty." Regarded a little more particularly, Calvinism
implies three things.
"In it, objectively speaking, theism comes to its rights; subjectively
speaking, the religious relation attains to its purity; soteriologically
speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its full expression
and its secure stability" (Calvin as a Theologian and Calvinism
Today, p. 23).
Amplifying this statement Warfield says:
"I think it is important to insist that Calvinism is not a specific
variety of theistic thought, religious experience, evangelical faith,
but just the perfect manifestation of these things.. .There is but
one kind of theism, religion, evangelicalism; and if there are several
constructions laying claim to these names they differ from one another not as correlative
species of a more inclusive genus, but only as more or less good
or bad specimens of the same thing differ from one another" (Idem.
p. 24).
If Warfield is right, then our conclusion must be the same as
that based on Hepp's remarks. The Reformed Faith is theism come
to its own. If there be other theisms they are not true theisms.
How could they be? Are there several true Gods? There is but one
true God; there is therefore but one true theism, namely, Christian
theism, the theism of the Bible. There is but one God, the God triune
of the Scriptures. And it is the vision of this God "in his majesty"
that constitutes the essence of the Reformed Faith. It is to the
recognition of this God as wholly sovereign that the Reformed Christian
would win "Mr. Black".
Two Negative Conclusions
Two general conclusions of a negative nature may now be drawn.
First, the Reformed apologist cannot cooperate with the Romanist
in the establishment of the existence of God. The theism of Roman
Catholic theology is not "theism come to its own"; it is a vague,
general sort of theism. It is a theism in which the God of Christianity
and the god of Greek philosophy, particularly the Unmoved Mover
of Aristotle, are ground together into a common mixture. The theism
of Romanist theology is a theism heavily freighted with pagan elements
of thought If such a theism were proved to be true, then the Christian
theism of the Reformed Christian would be proved to be untrue. If
with the Romanist we "prove" the existence of a god, then we have
disproved the existence of the God of Christianity. It is only a
perverted type of Christianity, such as constitutes Romanism, that
fits onto the perverted type of theism which is "proved" by Romanist
theologians.
The second major negative conclusion to be drawn from the remarks
of Hepp and Warfield is that the Reformed apologist cannot co-operate
with the "evangelical" in providing the truth of evangelicalism.
By evangelicalism we mean what Warfield meant when he spoke of it
as identical with general non-Reformed Protestantism (cf. The Plan
of Salvation).
This second negative conclusion follows directly from the first.
The evangelical does want to co-operate with the Romanist in proving
the truth of theism. He argues that Protestants have many doctrines
in common with Romanists, and that the existence of God is the most
basic of them. Why then he asks in amazement, cannot Protestants co-operate
with Romanists in proving the truth of theism? Why not have the
Romanist help us build the first story of the house of Christian
theism? After they have helped us build the first story of our house
we can dismiss them with thanks for their services and proceed to
build the second story, the story of Protestantism, ourselves.
The answer to this is that if Romanists have helped us in building
the first story of our house, then the whole house will tumble into
ruins. It has already been noted that when they build the first
story of their house the Romanists mix a great deal of the clay
of paganism with the iron of Christianity. The concrete blocks may
be those of Christianity, but the cement is nothing other than the
sand of paganism. Woe to the Protestant who seeks to build his Protestantism
as a second story upon a supposedly theistic foundation, and a first
story built by Romanism or by Protestants in conjunction with Romanists.
Only a defective Protesantism can be built upon the perverted theism
of the Romanist type. For, as Warfield puts it, the precise characterization
of evangelicalism is that which describes it as a defective Protestantism.
Warfield's point is that evangelicalism is inconsistent Protestantism.
It has carried into its system certain foreign elements -- elements
ultimately derived by way of Romanism from paganism.
Are We Extremists?
"But," some one will exclaim. "look where you have brought us!
To what extremes you have gone! Not to speak of Romanists, are we
not even to cooperate with evangelicals? I know many evangelicals
who are much better Christians than are many Calvinists." But this
is not the issue. The question is not as to who are Christians and
who are going to heaven. We are not judging men's hearts. Many evangelicals
are no doubt better Calvinists in practice than other men who are
officially known as Calvinists.
The point is that we are now speaking of theological systems.
When Warfield makes the high claim that Calvinism is "nothing more
or less than the hope of the world,f1 he is speaking of the Reformed
system of theology and of the Reformed point of view in general.
Other types of theology are super-naturalistic in patches. To some
extent they yield to the idea of autosoterism, to the idea that
man to some degree is saved by his own effort. Therefore, argues
Warfield, "Calvinism is just Christianity".f2
But then, by precisely the same reasoning, Reformed apologetics
is the hope of the world.
A further objection may be met here: Have not certain Reformed
theologians been willing in some measure to co-operate with Romanists
in defending theism and with evangelicals in defending evangelicalism,
in order, after that, to defend the specific doctrines of Calvinism?
Are they all wrong and are you alone right?
The answer to this objection is not easy. It would require separate
and extensive discussion to do it justice. There is, no doubt, some
measure of truth in the contention that at least some Reformed theologians
have been willing to follow the method of co-operation first and
distinctiveness afterward. Over against this stands the fact that
other Reformed theologians, seeing, as they thought, the compromising
result of such a method, have argued that the very idea of apologetics
as a positive theological discipline is out of accord with the principles
of the Reformed Faith. Or again, some have argued that apologetics
must at most be given a very small task in the way of warding off
the attacks of the enemy. The difference between Warfield and Kuyper
on the question of apologetics is well known. Are we to be reprimanded
in advance for not agreeing with Kuyper? Or for not agreeing with
Warfield? Let us rather seek to listen to both Warfield and Kuyper
and also to Calvin, and then do the best we can as we ask just what
the genius of the Reformed Faith requires of us. Is there anything
else that any one today can do?
A third party is anxious to ask a question here. Are all the
efforts of evangelical apologists then to no avail? Are we to make
no use whatsoever of the research done by them in such fields as
biblical history and archaeology, to mention nothing more?
Let us reply to these questions with other questions. Reformed
theologians do not co-operate with Arminian theologians in the preaching
of the gospel. Do they therefore conclude that all Arminian preaching
is to no avail? God uses even defective preaching to accomplish
his purposes; so God also uses defective reasoning to bring men
to himself. And as for the results of evangelical scholarship, the
Reformed apologist should gratefully employ all that is true and
good in it. What is true and good in it derives from the measure
of Calvinism any form of Christianity contains. But when it comes
to the master plan of procedure, the Reformed apologist must go
his own way; and it is only of the master plan that we speak when
we deal with the question of apologetics in general. Solomon made use even of the Sidonians when building the temple of the
Lord, but he did not give them membership on his building committee.
The Basic Difference
A fourth party now asks:
"Granting all this for the sake of argument, can you tell us
in a few words wherein you think the main difference consists between
a Reformed and a Romanist or evangelical apologetics?"
Here, indeed, is the heart of the matter. It is not easy to answer
this question. But let us try to deal with it as best we can in
a general way before going on to further specific points.
The basic difference between the two types of apologetics is
to be found, we believe, in the primary assumption that each party
makes. The Romanist-evangelical type of apologetics assumes that
man can first know much about himself and the universe and afterward
ask whether God exists and Christianity is true. The Reformed apologist
assumes that nothing can be known by man about himself or the universe
unless God exists and Christianity is true.
It will be observed that it is this very difference that exists
between the two types of theology, the Romanist-evangelical and
the Reformed. The former type of theology assumes that it first
knows what human freedom is from "experience". It then adjusts the
doctrines of Scripture concerning God and Christianity to its notion
of freedom derived from experience. The Reformed type of theology
begins with Scriptures and defines human freedom in terms of its
principles alone.
It is natural that this difference which is basic in the two
types of theology should also be basic in the two types of apologetics.?
Thomas Aquinas, the Roman Catholic, and Bishop Butler, the Arminian,
both talk a great deal about the nature of man and of reality as
a whole before they approach the question of the existence of God
or of the truth of Christianity. At least, they assume much about
the nature of man and of reality as a whole while they are speaking
about the possibility of the existence of God or of the truth of
Christianity. Over against them stands Calvin. He will not say one
word about man or about the universe except in the light of the
revelation of God as given in Scripture. The very first page of
The Institutes is eloquent testimony to this fact.
Otherwise expressed, it may be said that the Reformed apologist
does while the Romanist-evangelical apologist does not make the
Creator-creature distinction basic in all that he says about anything.
His argument is that unless this distinction is made basic to all
that man says about anything, then whatever man says is fundamentally
untrue. The natural man, who assumes that he himself and the facts
about him are not created, therefore assumes what is basically false.
Everything he says about himself and the universe will be colored
by this assumption. It is therefore impossible to grant that he
is right, basically right, in what he says about any fact. If he
says what is right in detail about any fact, this is in spite of
not because of his basically false assumption.
Since the Romanist-evangelical apologist does not make the Creator-creature
distinction basic to the very first thing that he says about man
or the universe, he is willing to join hands with the natural man,
and together with him "discover" many "truths" about man and the
universe. He will make common ground with the unbeliever as in science
or in philosophy they investigate together the nature of Reality
as a whole. He will agree with the natural man as he speaks about
"being in general", and only afterward argue against the unbeliever
for the necessity of introducing the Creator-creature distinction.
So Butler agrees with the deists on their view of the "course and
constitution" of nature, and afterward tries to persuade them that
they ought also to believe in Christ.
Of course, the reason why the one type of apologetics does and
the other does not wish to make the Creator-creature distinction
basic at the outset of all predication is to be found in the differing
conceptions of sin. The natural man does not want to make the Creator-Creature
distinction basic in his thought. The sinner does not want to recognize
the fact that he is a creature of God, as such responsible to God,
and because of his sin under the judgment of God. This is to be
expected. But why should Christians who have confessed their sins
to God, who have therefore recognized him as Creator and Lord, and
especially why should evangelicals who confess that they hold to
the Bible as their only infallible rule of authority, not wish to
bring their every thought captive to the obedience of Christ? In
other words, how do you account for the fact that evangelicals carry
into their theology and into their apologetics so much foreign material?
It is, of course, because of their defective view of sin. In fact,
their defective view of sin is itself of foreign origin. More must
be said about this subject later.
For the moment: let us be keenly aware of the fact that we who
seek to escape the defective views of sin and of creation involved
in evangelical theology and apologetics are always defective in
practice. Precisely the same tendency toward the acceptance of a
low view of sin and of creation that we deprecate in our brethren
is found in ourselves. We should therefore seek to win ourselves
in practice as well as our brethren in theory to an acceptance of
the implications of a fully biblical view of sin and creation in
the field of apologetics. Of these implications it will be our concern
to speak in what follows.
ft1 Gereformeerde Apologetiek, Kampen, 1922.
ft2 Idem, p. *1
Seeking The Water Brooks
(‘Psalm 42)
Hunted o'er the valley, o'er plain and o'er mountain,
Refuge none finding, relentless his foes,
Panteth the hart for the brook and the fountain,
Panteth and thirsteth, nor seeks for repose.
Hunted, oh hunted this weary world over
Refuge none finding my God, save in Thee,
Thus pants my soul Thine abode to discover,
Thus stretches onward Thy glory to see.
Sorrow, temptation and sin fast pursuing,
Seek for my soul for its ruin and death,
Onward I
fly, my weak forces renewing,
Thirsting and fainting and
panting for breath.
Dry is the land, is my soul's lamentation;
Thirsting and panting, fast onward I
flee.
Fleeing from sorrow and sin and temptation,
Thirsting and panting, Oh God! after Thee!
(Author Unknown)
