Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Cornelius Van Til

Cornelius Van Til (May 3, 1895 – April 17, 1987) was a Dutch-American Reformed theologian and philosopher renowned for originating modern , a that defends by arguing from the necessity of the triune as the precondition for all rational thought and knowledge. Born in Grootegast, , to a dairy farming family as the sixth son, Van Til immigrated to the with his family during childhood and grew up in the Christian Reformed Church tradition. He pursued at Calvin College and , earning a Ph.D. from , where he briefly taught before joining in founding in 1929. There, he served as Professor of for over four decades until his retirement in 1975, mentoring generations of students in a distinctly Reformed approach to defending the faith against secular philosophies. Van Til's seminal works, such as The Defense of the Faith and , critiqued evidential and classical apologetic methods for conceding neutral ground to unbelief, instead positing an between the rooted in divine and all non-Christian systems, which he contended inevitably collapse into without borrowing from biblical presuppositions. His transcendental for God's —that the coherence of , , and requires the Christian God—remains a cornerstone of his legacy, profoundly influencing Reformed thinkers like and John Frame, though it has elicited ongoing debates within broader evangelical circles over its emphasis on epistemological priority of Scripture.

Early Life and Education

Childhood and Family Background

Cornelius Van Til was born Kornelis van Til on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, a village in the province of , . He was the sixth son of Ite van Til, a dairy farmer, and Klazina van der Veen, in a family of eight sons. The Van Til family belonged to the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, a secessionist Reformed denomination formed in in opposition to the liberalizing state church, emphasizing strict adherence to Calvinist doctrines of and scriptural authority. This affiliation placed the household within a tradition of doctrinal purity and separation from secular or compromising influences, fostering an environment of "lovingly strict" Calvinistic piety. Van Til's early years on the family farm involved immersion in a Bible-centered routine, where parental modeled an antithetical that viewed unbelief as fundamentally opposed to Christian truth, instilling in him from childhood convictions about the absolute authority of Scripture and God's comprehensive lordship over all life. Such dynamics, rooted in the parents' devout commitment, prioritized amid agrarian labors, shielding the children from modernist encroachments prevalent in broader society.

Immigration and Formative Influences

Cornelius Van Til immigrated to the United States with his family in the spring of 1905 at the age of ten, departing from the Netherlands amid a wave of Dutch migration to the American Midwest. Arriving in New York on May 19, the family traveled by train to Highland, Indiana, where they settled on farmland in a burgeoning Dutch immigrant enclave. Born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, Groningen Province, as the sixth son of dairy farmer Ite Van Til and his wife Klazina, young Cornelius—known as "Kees"—entered a new environment that tested familial resilience while demanding rapid adaptation, including his quick acquisition of English with minimal accent thereafter. In , the Van Tils integrated into the local Christian Reformed Church community, contributing to its establishment and making it the hub of their social and spiritual life. Van Til's father shifted to , and assisted by selling produce door-to-door, embedding him in the practical labors of rural immigrant existence that contrasted with the secularizing trends of broader American society. This farm-based routine, coupled with daily family worship—featuring readings at meals, prayer, and instruction—fortified the household's Reformed piety against the diluting effects of . The family's prioritization of a two-mile daily walk to a , even forgoing meat at times to afford tuition, highlighted their deliberate insulation from public education's neutralist pressures and the of the . These pre-college years in thus cultivated a grounded , where involvement and parental devotion empirically shielded core convictions amid encounters with diverse American influences, laying experiential foundations for Van Til's enduring suspicion of autonomous reason.

Academic Preparation and Degrees

Van Til pursued his undergraduate education at Calvin College in , enrolling around 1918 and graduating with an A.B. degree in 1922. At this institution, rooted in Dutch Reformed traditions, he encountered the thought of and , which emphasized the sovereignty of God over all spheres of life and laid foundational elements for his later theological framework. Following Calvin, Van Til enrolled at , where he earned a Th.M. degree in 1925. Concurrently, he undertook graduate studies in at , completing a Ph.D. in 1927 with a dissertation titled "God and the Absolute." This work critiqued , particularly the systems of and Bernard Bosanquet, by arguing from a Reformed perspective that only the Christian provides a coherent basis for reality, foreshadowing his rejection of autonomous philosophical foundations. His time at Princeton exposed him to the Old Princeton tradition, including the legacy of B.B. Warfield's defense of amid modernist challenges, though Van Til would later identify limitations in its evidentialist approach to defending the faith. These degrees from Calvin and Princeton equipped Van Til with a of Kuyperian thinking and the rigorous exegetical and doctrinal emphases of Old Princeton, positioning him to engage critically with secular philosophies while upholding Reformed orthodoxy against emerging liberal theologies.

Professional Career

Pastoral Ministry

Van Til was ordained to the ministry of Word and sacrament on September 25, 1927, by Classis Muskegon of the Christian Reformed Church. Having completed his Ph.D. at Princeton earlier that year, he accepted a call to his sole pastorate at the Spring Lake Christian Reformed Church, a small congregation in western , beginning in the fall of 1927. This role lasted approximately one year, until his transition to academic service in 1928. In this rural setting, Van Til's duties centered on preaching the Reformed faith, catechizing youth, conducting visitation, and addressing congregational needs amid the era's broader ecclesiastical tensions, including the encroaching influences of in American Protestantism. His approach emphasized orthodox confessional standards, reflecting the Christian Reformed Church's commitment to the , and involved direct engagement with parishioners' doubts and daily struggles. Though brief, the experience underscored the concrete demands of shepherding a flock, where abstract met the realities of human sinfulness and resistance to biblical truth. This stint reinforced Van Til's ecclesial priorities, fostering a churchman’s perspective that prioritized the application of in local ministry over isolated intellectual pursuits. Biographers note his evident joy in the work, including returning to it after a short interval, which highlighted his pastoral heart amid emerging opportunities in theological education. It also exposed him empirically to the noetic distortions wrought by sin in ordinary believers, prefiguring his insistence on presupposing divine revelation to counter autonomous reasoning—observations drawn from counseling and sermon preparation rather than theoretical abstraction alone.

Professorship at Westminster Theological Seminary

Cornelius Van Til joined as professor of upon its founding in September , at the insistence of , who had departed Princeton Seminary amid the fundamentalist-modernist controversy to preserve the institution's historic Reformed commitments. Machen, along with faculty including Van Til, Oswald T. Allis, and Robert Dick Wilson, established the seminary in , as a bulwark against theological liberalism infiltrating Presbyterian institutions, attracting students committed to . This move addressed the reorganization of Princeton's board in , which conservatives viewed as capitulating to modernist influences, thereby enabling Westminster to maintain rigorous training in Reformed theology free from such compromises. Van Til's tenure spanned over four decades, during which he taught and , shaping the seminary's curriculum to emphasize epistemological foundations aligned with Reformed principles. His classes, held consistently until his formal retirement on May 31, 1972, drew students from diverse backgrounds, fostering a faculty-student dynamic that reinforced Westminster's role as a center for orthodox ministerial preparation. Post-retirement, Van Til continued occasional lecturing until around 1979, extending his influence on institutional direction and sustaining enrollment stability amid broader ecclesiastical challenges. Through his long service, Van Til contributed causally to Westminster's endurance as a key institution for Reformed education, training hundreds of ministers who carried forward the seminary's commitment to and confessional standards in the face of ongoing modernist pressures. The seminary's growth under such leadership—enrolling interdenominational students while upholding Presbyterian distinctives—demonstrated the efficacy of separating from compromised establishments to prioritize doctrinal fidelity.

Core Doctrinal Commitments

Reformed Epistemology and the Creator-Creature Distinction

Cornelius Van Til's Reformed epistemology posits that human knowledge of God and the world is inherently analogical, arising from the ontological divide between the Creator and the creature. This distinction maintains that God's knowledge is archetypal—original, comprehensive, and self-contained—while human knowledge is ectypal, derivative, and finite, structured by divine accommodation through revelation. Van Til argued that any claim to univocity, wherein divine and human knowledge share identical content or structure, effectively collapses the qualitative difference, rendering God knowable on creaturely terms and compromising divine transcendence. Central to this framework is the rejection of autonomous human reason as self-sufficient, insisting instead that presupposes the Creator-creature relation for coherence. Van Til contended that without acknowledging this divide, epistemological enterprises founder, as creaturely thought cannot predicate truth independently of God's self-disclosure in Scripture. This aligns with Reformed confessional standards, such as the (1646), which affirms God's incomprehensibility to finite minds, permitting only that knowledge He reveals. Van Til developed these ideas in works like his 1927 Th.M. thesis "," emphasizing that human understanding mirrors divine truth without exhausting it, thus debunking pretensions to neutral or innate rationality divorced from . He viewed the Creator-creature distinction as the foundational undergirding all claims, where suppressing it leads to epistemological by elevating creaturely perspectives to divine parity.

Synthesis of Abraham Kuyper and B.B. Warfield

Cornelius Van Til drew upon 's doctrine of the radical antithesis, emphasizing the profound noetic effects of sin that render unregenerate minds ethically committed to suppressing , resulting in incompatible epistemologies between believers and unbelievers. This Kuyperian insight underscored Van Til's view that neutral reasoning is impossible, as fallen humanity operates from autonomy rather than submission to God's revelation, extending Kuyper's cultural worldview to epistemological domains without fully adopting his political as a direct framework. Van Til maintained that while enables surface-level agreements in factual observation, ultimate interpretive principles remain antithetical, preserving the Creator-creature distinction as the precondition for coherent thought. From , Van Til retained a robust commitment to and the evidential value of historical data, affirming Christianity's rational coherence and the reliability of Scripture's testimony against modernist skepticism. Yet, he critiqued Warfield's evidentialist for implicitly conceding neutral ground to autonomous reason, instead subordinating empirical proofs to presuppositional wherein facts gain intelligibility only under the triune God's self-attesting authority. This preserved Warfield's insistence on Scripture's factual verifiability—such as the resurrection's historical attestation—while insisting that such evidence presupposes the to avoid circularity in non-Christian systems. Van Til's synthesis forged a unified that countered modernism's causal and erosion of absolute truth by grounding all knowledge in divine preconditions, rejecting eclectic concessions to evidential or fideistic isolation. In The Defense of the Faith (1955), he explicitly articulated this integration, arguing that Kuyper's exposes unbelief's internal inconsistency, while Warfield's rigor supplies the factual content interpreted through regenerate presuppositions, ensuring serves doctrinal fidelity without compromise. This approach upheld causal , wherein God's sovereign alone accounts for the uniformity of nature and human rationality against reductionist alternatives.

Apologetic Methodology

Development of Presuppositional Apologetics

Cornelius Van Til developed primarily during his early years at , where he began teaching in 1929 following the departure of to found the institution. His method emerged through classroom syllabi, such as the 1930s outline for "Christian Theistic Evidences," and articles in periodicals like The Bible Today, culminating in more systematic expositions by the . Grounded in Reformed , particularly the doctrines of and the noetic effects of sin—which render unbelieving reason incapable of neutrality—Van Til rejected evidential approaches that assume a shared epistemic foundation with non-Christians. Instead, he insisted that Scripture provides the indispensable precondition for coherent thought, predication, and moral judgment, without which human reasoning collapses into absurdity. Central to this approach is the rejection of any "common ground" beyond the Creator-creature distinction, as sin corrupts the unbeliever's interpretive faculties, leading to systematic suppression of as described in Romans 1:18–21. Van Til argued that classical and err by conceding to human reason, treating facts and logic as brute givens accessible independently of commitments, which empirically proves futile since non-Christian systems cannot account for the uniformity of or inductive reliability without borrowing from the Christian of a . This results in a method of confrontation, where the apologist challenges the internal incoherence of opposing views while demonstrating Christianity's for all . Van Til's innovation lay in synthesizing Reformed orthodoxy with a transcendental emphasis, asserting that the truth of the must be presupposed to make sense of any neutral dialogue, which he deemed illusory due to the between regenerate and unregenerate minds. Efforts at empirical neutrality, he contended, invariably favor the unbeliever's , undermining the gospel's demand for from idolatrous epistemologies. This development marked a departure from earlier Reformed apologetes like , prioritizing foundational preconditions over accumulated evidences, and was refined in works like his 1946 critique The New Modernism, where he applied these principles to contemporary philosophical challenges.

The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence

Van Til formulated the transcendental argument for God's existence () as a demonstration that the Triune of Christian Scripture is the indispensable precondition for the intelligibility of human experience, including , morality, and knowledge itself. This approach contends that rational argumentation, ethical , and empirical observation presuppose invariant structures—such as the laws of and the uniformity of nature—that cannot coherently arise in a godless universe, where chance or impersonal forces would yield ultimate incoherence. The argument's structure operates transcendentally by querying the necessary conditions for predication and proof: knowledge assumes preconditions like universality and invariance; these are supplied solely by the self-consistent, personal, and triune nature of God, who upholds all things by His word (Colossians 1:17); thus, denial of this God renders knowledge impossible, as the skeptic borrows from the Christian worldview to formulate objections. Van Til emphasized that "Christian theism is the presupposition of all meaning, all rational significance, all intelligible discourse," rejecting neutral ground for evaluation. In this vein, the Triune God's internal unity-in-diversity resolves the philosophical "one and many" problem, enabling categories like identity and difference that underpin logical inference and predication. Distinguishing from Kantian variants, Van Til rejected autonomous categories imposed by the human mind, insisting instead that preconditions derive from revealed being rather than abstract reason or empirical abstraction. For Van Til, Kant's framework devolves into , severing intelligibility from divine ; by contrast, biblical grounds in the Creator-creature relation, where human reason analogically reflects God's archetypal mind without comprehending it exhaustively. A application appears in the precondition for natural uniformity: scientific relies on 's consistent behavior across time and , which Van Til argued requires the immutability and covenantal faithfulness of the Christian , as " is required for the uniformity of and for the of all things in general." Without this, probabilistic assumptions collapse into brute contingency, undermining empirical reliability. Moral intelligibility similarly demands God's transcendent standard: values and duties presuppose His holy, personal nature as the for ethical norms, absent which erodes accountability and coherence. Van Til's thus advances not as probabilistic evidence but as a necessary condition, where the impossibility of the contrary—non-theistic worldviews—affirms the Triune God's existence as the foundation for all predication.

Critique of Autonomous Human Reason

Van Til argued that human reason cannot function autonomously, independent of divine , because it is inherently creaturely and subject to the noetic effects of , which distort and foster rebellion against . Drawing from Romans 1:18–21, he maintained that all people possess innate of through and , yet unbelievers actively suppress this truth in unrighteousness, rendering their reasoning futile and self-contradictory. This suppression manifests as an between regenerate and unregenerate thought, where non-Christian presuppositions inevitably collapse into or without acknowledging the Creator-creature distinction. The noetic effects of , in Van Til's view, extend beyond moral failure to epistemic corruption, impairing the unbeliever's ability to interpret facts coherently without borrowing from the they deny. Unbelievers, for instance, rely on principles such as the uniformity of for scientific or the laws of logic for argumentation—presuppositions that presuppose a rational —yet deny the foundational theistic reality that alone justifies them, operating on what Van Til termed "borrowed capital." This inconsistency exposes unbelief as self-defeating: attempts to erect autonomous systems of thought, devoid of God's self-attesting revelation, result in epistemic incoherence, as evidenced by the historical failure of secular ideologies to sustain meaningful knowledge without implicit Christian assumptions. Van Til contrasted this with , which elevated human as the ultimate arbiter of truth, leading to empirical absurdities such as persistent conflict and tyranny despite professed ideals of inherent human goodness and reason's supremacy. Without as the necessary precondition for intelligibility, causal chains in dissolve into brute , undermining any stable basis for , , or logic. Similarly, he critiqued Arminian for presuming a neutral in the natural person, allowing autonomous evaluation of apart from regeneration, which he saw as conceding ground to unbelief and dishonoring by implying humans can direct themselves toward truth independently. In both cases, such approaches ignore sin's total impact, fostering an illusory common ground that dilutes the necessity of presupposing Scripture's authority.

Engagements with Opposing Views

Critique of Karl Barth's Dialectical Theology

Cornelius Van Til critiqued Karl Barth's dialectical theology as a veiled form of that compromised Reformed commitments to the clarity and propositional nature of divine , despite Barth's ostensible rejection of liberal subjectivism. In works such as The New Modernism (1946) and Christianity and Barthianism (1964), Van Til argued that Barth's method, characterized by and , reduced Christian truth to an irrational tension between divine "Yes" and "No," thereby undermining the analogical knowledge of God accessible through Scripture and . He contended that this approach, while reacting against 19th-century liberalism's immanentism, ultimately accommodated Kantian by privileging human experience over God's self-disclosure, leading to an inconsistent where becomes an opaque event rather than intelligible propositions. A central element of Van Til's analysis was Barth's vehement rejection of , exemplified in his 1934 exchange with , where Barth issued a resounding "Nein!" to any analogia entis or knowledge of God apart from Christ. Van Til viewed this not as faithful Reformed theology—which affirms in creation (:20)—but as a strategic denial that masked deeper concessions to autonomous reason and . He maintained that Barth's dialectical framework dissolved the Creator-creature distinction into , rendering God's unknowable in concrete terms and effectively equating unbelief with faith in a hidden "" that evades rational defense. This, Van Til argued, fostered an activistic positivism where theology becomes mere assertion without evidential grounding, betraying orthodoxy's emphasis on Scripture's perspicuity. Barth's defenders, often drawing from his Church Dogmatics (1932–1968), portray the dialectical method as a profound safeguard against , preserving divine otherness through Christocentric that transcends human categories. Van Til countered these claims by highlighting empirical inconsistencies in Barth's system, such as the implicit reliance on non-Christian philosophical assumptions (e.g., Hegelian dialectics) and the failure to provide a coherent basis for or , which he saw as reducing to an "absolute paradox" incompatible with Reformed soteriology's demand for repentant submission to revealed truth. Critics of Van Til, including some contemporary Reformed scholars like , have argued that his reading misinterprets Barth's intent to affirm 's gratuity without denying its knowability, though Van Til insisted such interpretations overlook Barth's systematic erosion of propositional clarity.

Rejections of Modernism, Liberalism, and Arminian Compromises

Van Til rejected theological modernism and liberalism as extensions of autonomous human reason that subordinate divine revelation to human criteria, thereby eroding the supernatural character of Christianity. In The New Modernism (1946), he portrayed these ideologies as perpetuating liberal Protestant tendencies by elevating empirical experience and rational autonomy above scriptural authority, resulting in an epistemology where truth becomes relative to human constructs rather than grounded in God's self-attesting Word. This critique emphasized modernism's denial of the Creator-creature distinction, which Van Til held essential for any coherent account of knowledge, as it collapses into subjectivism without acknowledging God's lordship over all facts. Van Til extended similar concerns to Arminianism, viewing it as a soteriological and epistemological that grants ground to unbelievers, thereby diluting the Reformed emphasis on and the noetic effects of sin. He argued that Arminian , by appealing to shared human rationality or evidential neutrality, implicitly concedes the validity of autonomous reason, which dishonors God's sovereignty and fails to challenge the unbeliever's foundational rebellion. In The Defense of the Faith (), Van Til wrote that Arminian methods "admit that the signs that point in the wrong direction are right" in pursuit of persuasion, thus compromising the between belief and unbelief. This stance reflected Arminianism's broader allowance for human autonomy in salvation, where free will elevates creaturely decision-making over divine monergism, weakening the necessity of presupposing Scripture's authority in all reasoning. Van Til contended in A Survey of Christian Epistemology (1969) that permitting any fact to be known independently of implies all facts can be so known, paving the way for naturalistic and undermining sovereign grace: "Christ saved his sheep; he did not just make their salvation 'possible.'" Through these rejections, Van Til exposed the internal inconsistencies of non-Reformed systems, arguing via transcendental critique that they cannot account for , , or without borrowing from Christian presuppositions, thus revealing their relativistic underpinnings. Yet, some Reformed proponents of irenic engagement, such as those favoring classical , have criticized Van Til's approach for positing an excessively stark , potentially limiting interactions and evangelistic dialogue.

Major Controversies

The Clark-Van Til Debate on Divine Incomprehensibility

The Clark-Van Til controversy erupted in 1944 within the (OPC) during Gordon H. Clark's examination for ordination by the Presbytery of on July 7, 1944. Objections were raised primarily by Cornelius Van Til and other faculty, centering on Clark's articulated views of divine incomprehensibility and the relationship between divine and human knowledge. Van Til argued that Clark's positions undermined God's by implying an overly direct between God's mind and human cognition, potentially reducing divine to rational comprehension. Van Til maintained that God's knowledge is archetypal—original, infinite, and comprehensive—while human knowledge is ectypal—derivative, finite, and analogical, reflecting God's truth but never coinciding with it in essence. This qualitative distinction, drawn from Reformed scholastic traditions, ensures that humans know God truly yet partially through creaturely limits, preserving incomprehensibility as the inability to exhaustively grasp God's essence. Van Til contended that any denial of this risks , where human logic becomes the measure of divine reality, or , by severing from verifiable truth. In response, affirmed 's incomprehensibility but rejected a purely analogical model, advocating instead for univocity in the propositional content of : and humans share identical truths, differing only quantitatively in scope—God knows all propositions exhaustively, while humans know a . , emphasizing a rationalist approach rooted in Scripture's logical , argued that Van Til's introduced uncertainty, as non-identical might render human beliefs unreliable approximations rather than certain echoes of . He viewed Van Til's framework as bordering on , potentially aligning with neo-orthodox paradoxes that obscure doctrinal clarity. The debate highlighted tensions between Clark's propositional , which prioritized logical identity to safeguard and , and Van Til's analogical realism, which stressed creaturely dependence to uphold Reformed Creator-creature distinctions. Van Til rebutted Clark by insisting that univocity collapses the infinite qualitative gap, allowing humans to claim partial comprehension of the , thus eroding ; he drew on figures like and to support analogy as essential for true yet limited noetic participation in God's revelation. Clark countered that Van Til's view implied no real intersection of knowledge contents, fostering about scriptural propositions. The OPC responded by appointing a committee including John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse, which issued a report deeming Clark's views on incomprehensibility erroneous and insufficiently safeguarding divine , leading to the presbytery's initial decision being overturned. Despite this, Clark appealed, and the controversy ultimately did not prevent his in the OPC, though it exposed fault lines in that persisted. The report aligned more closely with Van Til's emphasis on qualitative otherness, critiquing Clark for quantitative that risked rationalistic overreach.

Broader Disputes in Reformed Circles

Van Til's insistence on placed him at odds with evidentialist approaches persisting among Reformed theologians, particularly those inheriting the Old Princeton tradition exemplified by . He contended that evidential methods, by appealing to shared neutral facts and human reason to establish the probability of Christian claims, effectively granted to unbelieving thought, thereby weakening the Reformed of God's comprehensive lordship over all . This methodological divide manifested in intra-Reformed critiques where Van Til argued that Old Princeton's , while theologically sound in affirming inerrancy, faltered apologetically by treating Scripture's as defeasible rather than axiomatic, allowing to infiltrate through appeals to inductive . In ecumenical and confessional Reformed settings, Van Til disputed the acceptance of Karl Barth's theology as compatible with orthodoxy, warning that its dialectical emphasis on God's "wholly otherness" paradoxically accommodated and immanentist paradoxes, diluting scriptural clarity. Beginning with articles in the Presbyterian Guardian in 1931 and culminating in works like Christianity and Barthianism (1964), he maintained that Barth's rejection of masked a continued reliance on autonomous reason, posing risks to Reformed precision in bodies like the . Van Til's position underscored a causal connection: concessions to Barthian eroded fundamentalist bulwarks by blurring lines between revelation and speculation, as seen in broader Reformed hesitancy to fully repudiate such views during mid-20th-century dialogues. The 1930s fundamentalist-modernist schisms, including Princeton Theological Seminary's reorganization on June 27, 1929, which integrated modernist influences and prompted J. Gresham Machen's founding of on September 25, 1929, highlighted Van Til's consistent advocacy for uncompromising presuppositionalism. Joining Westminster's faculty that year as professor of , Van Til viewed these splits as symptomatic of evidentialism's inadequacy in stemming doctrinal erosion, where appeals to historical evidences failed to counter liberalism's causal advance, leading to fundamentalist withdrawals from mainline institutions like the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. by 1936. He argued that only by presupposing the triune God's self-sufficiency could Reformed circles avoid further fragmentation, a stance that reinforced his broader critiques amid the era's institutional upheavals.

Legacy and Reception

Influence on Successors and Reformed Thought

Greg L. Bahnsen (1948–1995), a prominent of Van Til, systematized and popularized the () as a direct extension of Van Til's presuppositional framework, emphasizing that neutral reasoning is impossible and that Christian theism provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. Bahnsen's 1998 posthumous work Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis compiles and elucidates Van Til's writings, applying them to debates with atheists like Gordon Stein in 1985, thereby disseminating Van Til's method to wider audiences in Reformed and evidentialist circles. John M. Frame further developed Van Til's analogical view of knowledge into his multiperspectival approach to theology and , integrating normative, situational, and existential perspectives while critiquing evidentialist compromises; Frame's 1995 book Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought attributes his epistemological innovations to Van Til's rejection of autonomous reason. Rousas John Rushdoony (1916–2001) adapted Van Til's presuppositionalism to and , arguing in his 1958 analysis By What Standard? that all standards of judgment must derive from , crediting Van Til's philosophy for grounding ethics in divine revelation over humanistic autonomy. Van Til's influence permeated Reformed institutions, particularly the (OPC), where his tenure at from 1929 onward entrenched as a bulwark against liberal theology and secular rationalism, shaping OPC defenses of through the mid-20th century and beyond. This legacy extended to the (CREC), influencing postmillennial and cultural engagement strategies via reconstructionist thinkers indebted to Van Til, such as those advancing the application of to societal spheres. Post-1987 publications, including over a dozen major Reformed works analyzing his —such as Frame's expansions and Bahnsen's applications—demonstrate sustained citation and adaptation, countering the dominance of evidentialist and secular academic paradigms in broader theological discourse. In the 2020s, scholarship has increasingly unpacked Van Til's trinitarian implications for knowledge and , with Lane G. Tipton's 2021 monograph The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til arguing that Van Til's representational principle deepens confessional Reformed by rooting human to God in intra-Trinitarian relations, thereby resolving antinomies between and persons. This retrieval highlights Van Til's role in revitalizing Trinitarian thought against , fostering ongoing Reformed efforts to integrate with in seminaries and publications.

Achievements in Defending Orthodoxy

Van Til's tenure at , spanning from 1929 until his retirement in 1972, played a pivotal role in sustaining the institution's commitment to Reformed following J. Gresham Machen's death in 1937. Machen had founded in 1929 to counter liberal theological shifts at Princeton Seminary, and Van Til's presuppositional framework provided the epistemological groundwork to resist similar erosions, ensuring the seminary's alignment with confessional standards like the . Under his influence, avoided the doctrinal dilutions seen in other institutions, empirically contributing to the longevity of orthodox Presbyterian training amid broader modernist pressures in American seminaries during the mid-20th century. His critiques effectively challenged neo-orthodoxy, particularly Karl Barth's dialectical theology, which Van Til argued undermined objective biblical by prioritizing paradoxical encounter over systematic knowledge of derivable from Scripture. In works such as The New Modernism (1946), Van Til exposed neo-orthodoxy's concessions to and , insisting instead on a realist where Scripture provides univocal knowledge of analogous to human understanding, thereby preserving the Reformed doctrine of Scripture's perspicuity and authority. This rebuttal helped fortify confessional circles against what he termed compromises that normalized ambiguity in favor of empirical biblical propositionalism. Central to these defenses was Van Til's transcendental for 's , which posits that the triune of Scripture is the necessary precondition for intelligibility, , and human knowledge, rendering autonomous reason self-defeating. By arguing that all facts presuppose the for coherence—rather than evidencing it piecemeal—this method offered a comprehensive bulwark against secular epistemologies, refuting charges of through the necessity of divine preconditions for any rational discourse. Its application in syllabi and publications bolstered orthodoxy's intellectual resilience, enabling Reformed thinkers to engage cultural shifts without conceding neutral ground.

Criticisms and Ongoing Debates

Critics from evidentialist traditions, such as those aligned with classical , contend that Van Til's presuppositional method bypasses direct engagement with historical and empirical evidences, such as accounts or archaeological data, in favor of assuming the truth of Scripture from the outset, thereby rendering fideistic rather than probative. Proponents counter that evidences presuppose a framework for interpretation, and Van Til's approach identifies the Christian as the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of such data, avoiding neutrality that evidentialists erroneously assume exists. A recurrent objection from analytic philosophers targets the Transcendental for the Existence of God (), accusing it of by embedding the conclusion—that the triune God is required for , , and —within its , thus failing to compel non-theists. Van Til's defenders respond that TAG operates at a transcendental level, not empirical or deductive, by demonstrating that denial of the Christian preconditions leads to epistemic absurdity, distinguishing it from vicious circularity inherent in any ultimate authority claim. Van Til's emphasis on the —an irreconcilable divide between regenerate and unregenerate noetic effects of —has drawn for portraying non-Christian thought as wholly unreliable, which some view as fostering intellectual intolerance by preemptively dismissing opposing viewpoints without charitable engagement. In reply, adherents maintain that the reflects biblical realism about total depravity's impact on cognition, as per :18–21, enabling rather than hindering dialogue by exposing unbelief's internal contradictions. John Frame, in his analysis of Van Til's thought, refined the approach through multiperspectivalism, integrating normative, situational, and existential perspectives to address criticisms of rigidity, arguing that Van Til's insights on preconditions can coexist with evidential appeals when viewed triadically for fuller balance. Ongoing debates in 2020s analytic theology have revisited Van Til's framework, with some affirming its focus on epistemic preconditions amid discussions of and proper basicality, though tensions remain over whether TAG's transcendental claims align with Reformed evidential traditions or necessitate further clarification against charges of . Recent critiques, such as Mathison's 2024 assessment, highlight persistent concerns with Van Til's epistemological assertions, including potential overstatements of the antithesis's scope, prompting reevaluations within Reformed circles.

References

  1. [1]
    “Cornelius Van Til” - Frame-Poythress.org
    May 16, 2012 · Cornelius Van Til was born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, the Netherlands, the sixth son of Ite Van Til, a dairy farmer, and his wife Klazina.
  2. [2]
    Cornelius Van Til | Reformed Theological Seminary
    Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), who taught apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary for more than forty years, has—through his teaching and writings— ...
  3. [3]
    https://www.wtsbooks.com/collections/van-til-cornelius
  4. [4]
    What Is the Presuppositional Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til ...
    Jun 6, 2022 · Presuppositional apologetics is not a game of argument or logic. Rather, it is an approach that helps inform someone who is already a follower ...
  5. [5]
    The Development of Presuppositional Apologetics in Cornelius Van Til
    Mar 4, 2025 · Cornelius Van Til developed the system of apologetics known as presuppositionalism in conscious interaction with Warfield and Kuyper.
  6. [6]
    Obituary: Dr. Cornelius Van Til | CorneliusVanTil.com
    Apr 18, 1987 · Van Til was born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, The Netherlands. He was the sixth son of Ite and Klazina Van Til, who emigrated to the United ...
  7. [7]
    Kornelis Ites van Til (1895-1987) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree
    Biography. Cornelius van Til is Notable. Kornelis Ites van Til was born on May 3, 1895 in Grootegast, the son of Ite van Til and Klasina van der Veen.
  8. [8]
    Dr. Cornelius “Kees” Van Til (1895-1987) - Memorials - Find a Grave
    The Van Til family were members of what we know as the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland. These people had separated from the state church in 1834 under severe ...
  9. [9]
    Van Til and Apologetics - Christian Study Library
    Cornelius Van Til was born on May 3, 1895, in the Netherlands, as the sixth son of godly parents. He was raised in a “lovingly strict” Calvinistic home. In 1905 ...
  10. [10]
    Cornelius Van Til: his life and impact | Reformed Perspective
    Oct 7, 2025 · Van Til was born May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, Holland, as the sixth of eight children to a devout dairyman-farmer. At the age of ten his ...Missing: dairy | Show results with:dairy
  11. [11]
    Cornelius Van Til
    ### Summary of Cornelius Van Til's Early Life and Related Details
  12. [12]
    Dr. Van Til at Ninety Old Guardian of a New Apologetics
    Cornelius Van Til was born on May 3, 1895, at Grootegast in the Province of Groningen, The Netherlands. In 1905 his family migrated to the Highland-Munster ...
  13. [13]
    Van Til, Cornelius (1895-1987)
    Cornelius Van Til was born on May 3, 1895 in the village of Grootegast located in the province of Groningen, Netherlands. In 1905 the Van Til family ...Missing: Ite Klazina<|separator|>
  14. [14]
    Cornelius van Til [1895-1987] - New Netherland Institute
    Van Til was born in Grootegast, the Netherlands on May 4, 1895. The Netherlands was in a deep economic depression at that time, and economic depressions lead to ...
  15. [15]
    Cornelius Van Til - Evangelical Times
    May 1, 1995 · One hundred years ago on Friday 3 May 1895, to Ite and Klazina Van Til a sixth child, Cornelis (sic), was born. The birth took place on a forty ...Missing: parents | Show results with:parents
  16. [16]
    [PDF] The Influence of Idealism on the Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til
    Cornelius Van Til completed his doctoral work at Princeton University in. 1927 with a dissertation entitled "God and the Absolute," in which he argued that ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Van Til and Analytic Philosophy - Analogical Thoughts
    Jun 5, 2023 · Van Til's dissertation, “God and the Absolute,” amounted to a direct and forceful critique of the idealist philosophy of Bradley, Bosanquet, and ...
  18. [18]
    A Theological Life | Modern Reformation
    As a loyal member of the Christian Reformed Church, Van Til enrolled at Calvin College in 1920. It was at Calvin that "Van Til's greatest collegiate ...Missing: education | Show results with:education<|separator|>
  19. [19]
    Cornelius Van Til and Classic Reformed Theism - reformation21
    Apr 26, 2018 · ... Van Til's critical appropriation of Kuyper and Warfield. For further elaboration of this topic, see my “On the Shoulders of Giants: Van Til's ...
  20. [20]
    Muether on Van Til: A Review - The Heidelblog
    Apr 18, 2023 · It is hard to overstate the influence of Cornelius Van Til on confessional and conservative Reformed theology since the early twentieth ...Missing: devout upbringing
  21. [21]
    September 25 Today in OPC History: Cornelius Van Til
    On September 25, 1927, Classis Muskegon of the Christian Reformed Church ordained Cornelius Van Til to the ministry of Word and sacrament.Missing: background | Show results with:background
  22. [22]
    Dr. Cornelius Van Til: The Centennial of His Birth | Christian Library
    This article provides a biography of Cornelius Van Til, well known for his efforts to develop a consistently Reformed apologetics.Missing: upbringing | Show results with:upbringing
  23. [23]
    https://joshuadholler.com/articles/cornelius-van-tils-defense-of-the-faith-a-historical-and-theological-analysis
  24. [24]
    Why Machen Hired Van Til - The Orthodox Presbyterian Church
    When J. Gresham Machen left Princeton in 1929 to start Westminster he insisted that Cornelius Van Til be the professor of apologetics at the new seminary.Missing: appointment | Show results with:appointment
  25. [25]
    SEMINARY LOSES FOURTH TEACHER; Dr. Van Til Quits Princeton ...
    Dr. J. Gresham Machen, leader of the group of extreme conservatives who have seceded from the seminary and announced their intention of organizing a new ...
  26. [26]
    Westminster Theological Seminary - American Presbyterian Church
    Gresham Machen, Oswald T. Allis, and Cornelius Van Til; the Rev. R. B. Kuiper, who had been a graduate student at Princeton under B. B. Warfield, and a pastor ...<|separator|>
  27. [27]
    [PDF] J. Gresham Machen: - Christianity and Liberalism
    Founder of Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929 to carry on the “old Princeton tradition.” His public prominence began with his 1923 book, Christianity & ...
  28. [28]
    “Van Til, Cornelius” - Frame-Poythress.org
    May 16, 2012 · He taught apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster until his retirement in 1972, and continued to teach occasionally until 1979.
  29. [29]
    Apologetics and Cornelius Van Til - Christian Study Library
    Van Til taught at Westminster Seminary, influencing scores of students in the realm of Reformed theology, philosophy, and particularly, apologetics.
  30. [30]
    The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy - Oxford Academic
    Machen became a magnet for like-minded conservatives, and Westminster Seminary began attracting an international and interdenominational clientele.
  31. [31]
    Van Til: The Theologian - Frame-Poythress.org
    Jun 7, 2012 · To deny “identity of content” between God's thought and man's is, for Van Til, simply to assert the Creator-creature distinction in the area of ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] ANALOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: - Mid-America Reformed Seminary
    a distinction in type between the knowledge of creatures and the knowledge ... ”92 Hence, to protect the Creator/creature distinction, Van Til asserted ...
  33. [33]
    Van Til and the Creator-Creature Relation - Reformed Forum
    Feb 17, 2020 · We should argue that intelligent predication is impossible except one make the Creator-creature distinction basic to one's thought. The fact ...
  34. [34]
    20 Quotes from Van Til's CTK - Westminster Media
    Dec 13, 2024 · Van Til fronts the Creator-creature distinction constantly. And he does that so we're forced to relate anything we claim to know to God himself.
  35. [35]
    Exploring Cornelius Van Til's Concept of Analogical Knowledge
    Feb 22, 2025 · Cornelius Van Til's analogical knowledge encapsulates his vision of epistemology as a God-centered enterprise. By affirming the Creator-creature ...<|separator|>
  36. [36]
    Van Til on Antithesis - Frame-Poythress.org
    Jun 7, 2012 · The concept of antithesis is one of Van Til's own major concerns, and it is that element in his thought which has brought him the most severe criticism.Missing: sovereignty | Show results with:sovereignty
  37. [37]
    Kuyper & the Reformed Apologetics of Amsterdam | Sam Waldron
    Feb 25, 2025 · The low view results from his deduction from the radical antithesis between the regenerate and the unregenerate. ... Cornelius Van Til, The ...
  38. [38]
    The Essential Van Til – The Antithesis Between Believer and ...
    May 29, 2017 · Van Til so emphasized the antithesis between believer and unbeliever that many have concluded that Van Til cuts the unbeliever off from any point of contact ...Missing: integration sphere sovereignty
  39. [39]
    Warfield vs. Presuppositionalism - The Continuing Story
    Jul 7, 2011 · Those who are weak in the faith are frequently heard to say that they accept the Bible as a spiritual guide but that they reject its inerrancy.
  40. [40]
    Presuppositionalism vs the Classical Approach - WordMp3.com
    It is even true that Van Til himself saw his apologetic task as a synthesis of what is most prominent in Warfield (that Christian alone is rational) and ...
  41. [41]
    Van Til's Apologetic by Greg L. Bahnsen | Presuppositionalism 101
    Feb 5, 2012 · It is an encyclopedic synthesis of the thought of Cornelius Van Til, who was arguably the most original apologist of the twentieth century.<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    Christianity and Van Tillianism - Tabletalk Magazine
    Aug 21, 2019 · Van Til contrasts his presuppositional method of apologetics with “the traditional method.” He says, “The traditional method offered first in ...
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Bibliography of the Writings of Cornelius Van Til
    G “Our Attitude Toward Evolution.” This article clearly demonstrates Van Til's strong opposition to the evolutionary worldview in his apologetic, not merely ...
  44. [44]
    Cornelius Van Til's Defense of the Faith - Joshua D. Holler
    Van Til's apologetic methodology bears the following characteristics: (1) it argues for a specific Christian-theism; (2) it is grounded directly in scripture ...
  45. [45]
    Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic - Frame-Poythress.org
    Jun 7, 2012 · Van Til's apologetics is essentially simple, however complicated its elaborations. It makes two basic assertions: (1) that human beings are ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] The Epistemological Problem of Common Ground between Believer ...
    William Dennison has observed that some of Van Til's critics have accused him of rejecting a distinction between the scientific description of phenomena and ...
  47. [47]
    “Transcendental Arguments” - Frame-Poythress.org
    May 30, 2012 · In defense of (2), Van Til developed his own transcendental argument. He maintained that Christian theism is the presupposition of all meaning, ...Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
  48. [48]
    How Can Presuppositional Apologists Use Classical and Evidential ...
    Dec 29, 2020 · The existence of the Triune God of Scripture is—Van Til contends in The Defense of the Faith—“required for the uniformity of nature and for the ...<|separator|>
  49. [49]
    Who is God? | Apologetics Central
    Dec 12, 2021 · ... Cornelius Van Til. For Van Til, the Trinity is not some concept ... For Van Til, the Trinitarian God is the precondition for intelligible ...
  50. [50]
    [PDF] Clarification on the Nature of Van Til's Transcendental Argument ...
    Cornelius Van Til (The Presbyterian and Reformed ... Christian theism is the necessary precondition of intelligibility is not, in itself, a blockhouse ... triune ...
  51. [51]
    Cornelius Van Til, The Apologist - Frame-Poythress.org
    May 16, 2012 · ... noetic effects of sin. The unbeliever knows God (Rom. 1:18-21) ... For Van Til, that duality, common to all non-Christians, explains ...
  52. [52]
    Van Til's Critique of Human Thought
    The transcendental critique reveals the deep roots of sin in the heart of man, and it demands the purity of biblical truth in the church as well as in the ...
  53. [53]
    A Van Til Glossary - Frame-Poythress.org
    May 30, 2012 · Borrowed capital: The truth known and acknowledged by the unbeliever. He has no right to believe or assert truth in terms of his own ...
  54. [54]
    Borrowed Capital and the Making of the Western Ethic
    Oct 16, 2025 · In his 1962 short treatise, "The Case for Calvinism," Cornelius Van Til introduced in embryonic form his theory of "borrowed capital."
  55. [55]
    Van Til and Barth - Reformed Forum
    Mar 28, 2008 · The group continues their discussion of Cornelius Van Til by examining Van Til's critique of the theology of Karl Barth. Van Til's two books ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Christianity and Barthianism.
    Some years ago the prediction was made that Karl Barth's theol ogy would soon disappear from the scene. It was said to be nothing.
  57. [57]
    Christianity and Barthianism | Logos Bible Software
    Rating 3.3 (7) Christianity and Barthianism is among the most noted writings by Van Til. This first edition work documents his allegation that Barth had clearly departed from ...
  58. [58]
    The Essential Van Til – What is Dialectical Theology?
    Jan 15, 2018 · Van Til explains that dialectical theology is “at bottom activistic and positivistic.” But what in the world does that mean?
  59. [59]
    The Essential Van Til — Karl Barth: A Consistent Scholastic?
    Jul 17, 2017 · First, Van Til notes Barth's rejection of Calvin's view of God's ... natural theology, even while it is at the same time gracious theology.
  60. [60]
    Cornelius Van Til on Karl Barth: Grace and Nature, Worship ...
    Mar 11, 2012 · I think Cornelius Van Til offers a good sketch of Barth's understanding of grace as personified personally in Jesus Christ (instead of grace ...<|separator|>
  61. [61]
    Revelation and History: Cornelius Van Til's Critique of Karl Barth
    Jan 25, 2012 · A pair of podcasts to discussing Karl Barth's theology, its critique by Cornelius Van Til, and the new book that has emerged from the 2007 Barth Conference.Missing: preaching | Show results with:preaching
  62. [62]
    Barthian Theology - The Gospel Coalition
    Though he was trained by liberals of this sort, Barth eventually criticized liberal theology for dragging God down from heaven and imprisoning him within a ...
  63. [63]
    Theology in Conflict: Remembering Barth and Van Til
    Van Til's foremost critique of Barth was that Barth's theology was anti-theistic. Barth's theology was an overreaction against the radical immanence of God ...
  64. [64]
    Van Til's Critique of Barth's Christology (Part 1) - The Aquila Report
    Sep 16, 2016 · First, according to Van Til, Barth's Christology results in a functional Eutychianism. In the one act of God in Christ the creature is ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] WHOLLY OTHER OR WHOLLY GIVEN OVER? WHAT VAN TIL ...
    My argument will be that Van Til's critique rests upon a serious misinterpretation of Barth's theology. Thirdly, I will attempt to explain Van Til's criticism ...
  66. [66]
    The Barthian Revolt or the New Modernism: Karl Barth and ... - MDPI
    In 1946, Van Til published The New Modernism, a full-scale, “frankly polemical”, book-length takedown of Barth's work that made an extensive case for the ...
  67. [67]
    The Essential Van Til – The Beati Possidentes - Reformed Forum
    Jan 9, 2018 · Also it is worth our noting how The New Modernism differs from his second monograph on Barth in 1962, Christianity and Barthianism. There, ...
  68. [68]
    Arminianism - Cornelius Van Til
    Sep 8, 2016 · Then as far as his “neutral” apologetic method is concerned, the Arminian, in the interest of getting his friend to go in the right ...
  69. [69]
    https://corneliusvantil.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/confrontation-at-the-service-station/
  70. [70]
    https://corneliusvantil.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/the-inadequacy-of-arminianism/
  71. [71]
    https://corneliusvantil.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/the-elephant-of-naturalism/
  72. [72]
    Ordained Servant: “Now Then …” A Review Article
    On July 7, 1944, the Presbytery of Philadelphia met to consider Clark's ordination. ... Remarkably, in 1983 Van Til asked Clark to speak at a dinner in Van Til's ...
  73. [73]
    The Clark-Van Til Controversy - The Trinity Foundation
    Clark's alleged erroneous views concerning the incomprehensibility and knowability of God (2-6). The second part concerns Dr. Clark's ìview of the relation ...
  74. [74]
    A Van Til-Clark Discussion on Archetypal-Ectypal Knowledge
    Feb 16, 2017 · Archetypal knowledge is the knowledge that God has. Ectypal knowledge is the knowledge that creatures have. The scholastics usually divided ...
  75. [75]
    Analogical knowledge of God, and the Clark-Van Til controversy
    Jun 14, 2022 · Van Til's theory of knowledge accords remarkably well with the idea of redemptive-historical development. As each successive covenant furnishes ...
  76. [76]
    Clark and Van Til...Basic Differences? | The Puritan Board
    Dec 7, 2008 · Van Til believed that our knowledge is qualitatively different from God. Clark believed that our knowledge is quantitatively different from God.Difference between Van Till and Clark - The Puritan BoardWhy did Gordon Clark refuse to join the PCA? - The Puritan BoardMore results from puritanboard.comMissing: 1944 | Show results with:1944
  77. [77]
    Reflections on the Christian Apologetics of Gordon H. Clark
    We do not possess archetypal knowledge but rather ectypal knowledge.” As an implication or corollary of this, Van Til held that God's knowledge and man's ...
  78. [78]
    A List of Differences Between the Thought of Gordon H. Clark and ...
    Oct 13, 2016 · “This sort of thing occurs in the controversy which Van Til and I engaged in for some years. He would say that I make logic superior to God.
  79. [79]
    Possible Resolution of Van Til and Clark | Green Baggins
    Apr 10, 2008 · The so-called Clark/Van Til debate over the incomprehensibility of God is often cited as evidence for the incomprehensibility of Van Til, so ...
  80. [80]
    Van Til the Controversialist - The Orthodox Presbyterian Church
    A general appeal to the reasonableness of the Christian faith was doomed to fail, Van Til decided, because it was being made to someone in rebellion against God ...Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
  81. [81]
    The Complaint | The Gordon H. Clark Foundation
    Jan 10, 2015 · Clark affirms the incomprehensibility of God, he does not do so in a manner that provides solid assurance that it is a stable element in his ...Missing: debate OPC
  82. [82]
    Fighting the Good Fight - The Orthodox Presbyterian Church
    Murray viewed statements in Clark's answers about the incomprehensibility of God as insufficient, not erroneous. ... This explains why Murray, not Van Til, ...
  83. [83]
    The Essential Van Til — No Critic of Old Princeton Epistemology?
    Jul 10, 2017 · And here Van Til retorts that while he does disagree with Old Princeton on apologetics, he does not disagree “with its theology or its basic ...
  84. [84]
    The Essential Van Til — More on Old Princeton – Reformed Forum
    In this chapter Van Til offers an acute criticism of Old Princeton on this issue. He likens the Old Princeton understanding of reason, and the mode of ...
  85. [85]
    Van Til the Controversialist - The Orthodox Presbyterian Church
    It was futile, he argued, to defend the Reformed faith by non-Reformed means. Reformed theology required Reformed apologetics, a consistency that was ...
  86. [86]
    Van Tillian Presuppositionalism: The Consistent Application of ...
    Feb 14, 2023 · [17] For Van Til, the goal of apologetics was not to first persuade the unbeliever that God had revealed Himself to man in Scripture and only ...
  87. [87]
    Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis - The Trinity Foundation
    Bahnsen (1948-1995) completed a major work, one in which he attempted to promote an understanding of the apologetic of his mentor, Cornelius Van Til: Van Tilís ...
  88. [88]
    VAN TIL'S APOLOGETIC: READING AND ANALYSIS, by Greg L ...
    Oct 15, 2020 · Greg Bahnsen has brought together relevant excerpts from Van Til's writings in a systematic way. He introduces the central ideas of ...
  89. [89]
    Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of his Thought - The Trinity Foundation
    In fact, says Frame, even though Van Til is not the most comprehensive, clearest, or influential thinker of our time, he is “perhaps the most important ...
  90. [90]
    R. J. Rushdoony: A Patriarch for Modern Theonomy
    Feb 17, 2022 · [1] Rushdoony would largely adopt Van Til's reformed apologetics, even publishing a book dedicated to his thought in 1959 called By What ...
  91. [91]
    The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til – Reformed Forum
    Tipton argues that Van Til's Trinitarian theology deepens confessionally Reformed Trinitarianism and federalism in contrast to medieval Thomistic and modern ...Missing: implications 2020s
  92. [92]
    Review: <i>The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til</i>
    Lane Tipton has produced a work on Van Til's Trinitarian theology that is unsurpassed in penetrating Van Til's foundational premises and their implications.Missing: scholarship 2020s
  93. [93]
    Westminster Seminary History | Rich Legacy of Faithfulness
    Gresham Machen—who had spent 23 years as an esteemed scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary—resigned from his Princeton post. ... Van Til brought covenantal ...
  94. [94]
    The Essential Van Til — The Neo-Orthodox View of the Knowledge ...
    Jun 26, 2017 · The neo-orthodox view of the relation of God to man is based on the idea that since man cannot have a “systematic,” ie, purely rationalist knowledge of God.
  95. [95]
    The Essential Van Til — His Relation to Scholasticism
    Aug 14, 2017 · ... Til uses the expression “Reformed orthodoxy” in his criticisms of Karl Barth. Where he quotes Barth and polemicizes against him (see for ...
  96. [96]
    Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism – A case study on apologetic ...
    Jan 21, 2019 · Van Til defends presuppositionalism, an apologetic method that is founded on the notion that God's existence must be presupposed–it is the ...
  97. [97]
    Bahnsen on Circular Reasoning | Biblical Science Institute
    Nov 16, 2018 · Bahnsen affirms that Van Til's apologetic is circular. He denies that Van Til commits the fallacy of circular reasoning, i.e. vicious ...
  98. [98]
    The problem with TAG - UseOfReason - WordPress.com
    Nov 7, 2015 · This forms the backbone of the 'presuppositional' approach to Christian apologetics, first formulated by Cornelius Van Til (1895 – 1987). At its ...Missing: analytic | Show results with:analytic
  99. [99]
    There is nothing wrong(or obviously wrong) with TAG ... - Reddit
    Mar 26, 2025 · ... question begging. Their arguments are based on Bahnsen and Van Til, who very clearly just “presuppose” the existence of god, and use their ...Transcendental argument for God. : r/theology - RedditWhat is your precise rejection of TAG/presuppositionalism? - RedditMore results from www.reddit.comMissing: analytic | Show results with:analytic
  100. [100]
    Van Til on the Charge of Circular Reasoning - Defense of Faith
    Oct 29, 2015 · Will the Sun Rise Tomorrow? C.S Lewis on the Uniformity of Nature ... The Transcendental Argument (2) · Authority and Reason: Non-Christian ...
  101. [101]
    Van Til: A Reassessment - Frame-Poythress.org
    May 30, 2012 · The book is a sympathetic, critical analysis of Van Til's thought; it tries to determine what in Van Til is of value for apologists today.
  102. [102]
    Review: Cornelius Van Til, An Analysis of his Thought by John Frame
    Dec 12, 2021 · Frame believes Van Til has most elements right and others have some elements right. Poythress believes everyone's right from a certain ...Missing: refinements | Show results with:refinements
  103. [103]
    A Critique Of The Thought Of Cornelius Van Til By Keith A. Mathison
    Dec 5, 2024 · In all, this book is recommended for all those interested in apologetics in the Reformed world. Though at times it verges on technical and ...