In my previous blog post, I mentioned that on the November 27, 2024 episode of Kevin DeYoung’s podcast “Life, Books, and Everything,” Dr. DeYoung invited me and Dr. James Anderson to discuss my book about Cornelius Van Til. I then mentioned the two podcasts aired by the Reformed Forum on February 7 and 8 which were devoted to a criticism of my book. As I mentioned in the previous post, the DeYoung podcast was not presented as a criticism of my book or a debate about it. It was simply an enjoyable discussion among the three of us about several points in the book. Both Dr. DeYoung and Dr. Anderson were gracious conversation partners. Since the DeYoung podcast was a discussion, my previous blog post was devoted not to it, but instead to a lengthy response to the criticisms made on the Reformed Forum podcasts.
However, although the DeYoung podcast was not a debate, Dr. Anderson did raise an important question about chapter six of my book that deserves an answer. Therefore, in this blog post, I will attempt to respond to Anderson’s question. Mercifully, for both the author and the reader of this blog post, this response will not require anywhere near the amount of space the previous response required.
So, what question did Dr. Anderson raise?
At the 49:10 point, Dr. Anderson says that in the first part of my book I lay out Van Til’s views, and for the most part I do “a very fine job.” At 49:50, then, Dr. Anderson says, “And then when it comes to this chapter on biblical concerns, Keith looks at Scripture and he says look the Bible says that unbelievers know lots of things . . . and says and this contradicts Van Til because Van Til holds to this absolute antithesis. But of course, all of the qualifications were set out in the first part of the book. Van Til’s qualifications can account for all of this biblical material about the unbeliever knowing many things again by common grace. It was surprising to me to find Keith acknowledging these qualifications that Van Til makes and then, as it were, setting aside these qualifications in order to make this case that Van Til’s view is unbiblical.”
In other words, Dr. Anderson says that in the first five chapters of my book, where I provide an exposition of Van Til’s system of thought, I observe that Van Til nuances his claims about the absolute antithesis. However, when I begin my critique of Van Til in chapter six, I do not take into account the nuances that I observed in the first five chapters, and this makes it easy to criticize Van Til for being unbiblical. If I have done this, I have effectively criticized a straw man version of Van Til. It is, therefore, important that I clarify for the reader what I am doing in chapter six because I am not trying to “set aside” Van Til’s qualifications.
In the first five chapters, I note that Van Til observes an absolute antithesis between the believer and unbeliever in principle. They have two completely antithetical principles of interpreting reality. As a result, the believer and the unbeliever, in principle, have nothing in common epistemologically. Van Til also observes that this absolute antithesis in principle is qualified in actual practice in the present age. Among other things, God’s common grace prevents the unbeliever from taking his autonomous interpretive principle to its logically consistent conclusion. As a result, the unbeliever does have knowledge of many things in practice. Similarly, because of the remnants of sin in the believer, he does not use his Christian interpretive principle consistently. As a result, the believer misinterprets facts. Only after the final judgment does the absolute antithesis exist in practice as well as in principle. Only then are the believer and unbeliever completely consistent with their antithetical interpretive principles.
This is a very abbreviated summary of the qualifications to the absolute antithesis that Dr. Anderson acknowledges that I make in the first half of the book. So why, then, in chapter six am I taking the time to prove that the absolute antithesis is contrary to the teaching of Scripture as it pertains to the knowledge of unbelievers in this present age? Why do I spend time showing that Scripture teaches that unbelievers know many things when Van Til also acknowledges that at those points when he qualifies the antithesis?
The reason I am addressing this point in this way at this point in the book has to do with the content of chapter five. It is in the first four chapters that I explain Van Til’s system of thought, including his understanding of the antithesis. Chapter five explains the apologetic implications of the antithesis. When Van Til talks about the antithesis abstractly, he will sometimes make a point to discuss the qualifications. However, when Van Til turns to the task of making his case for the presuppositional method, the main premise for his argument is the absolute antithesis. It is precisely because of the absolute antithesis, he argues, that the presuppositional method is the only possible apologetic method and the only proper method for a Reformed Christian to use. It is because the unbeliever knows no facts and no laws that we must use the presuppositional method.
It is with this idea in mind that I begin my discussion in chapter six. I point out on page 122 at the beginning of the discussion, “It is the absolute antithesis between the worldview of the unbeliever and the worldview of the believer that then necessitates the presuppositional method of apologetics.” I make the same basic point on page 124, saying, “The problem we find is that the communication we see in Scripture rules out the absolute epistemological antithesis that is itself the foundation of Van Til’s method of presuppositional apologetics.”
On page 127, I begin to wrap up this part of the discussion, saying, “The biblical assumption rules out the absolute epistemological antithesis that grows out of Van Til’s theory of knowledge.” I then note that some Van Tillians will respond by reminding us that Van Til qualifies the antithesis (I have not forgotten or set aside this part of Van Til’s teaching). I respond, “Perhaps so, but according to Van Til, it is the absolute epistemological antithesis that necessitates the method of presupposition.” I conclude this subsection, saying, “If he is to maintain the absolute antithesis that necessitates the presuppositional method, he will be forced to maintain an idea that is completely inconsistent with what the Scriptures say about communication.”
The whole point of this part of chapter six is to respond to an argument for the exclusive nature of the method of presupposition that is based on an absolute antithesis. I am taking the time to show the unbiblical nature of the absolute antithesis because when Van Til argues for the method of presupposition as the only Reformed method, he doesn’t appeal to a qualified antithesis. He rests his case on the absolute antithesis.
In short, I am not “setting aside” Van Til’s qualifications. I am arguing that when Van Til gets to the point of making his case for the exclusivity of the method of presuppositionalism, it is he who is quietly setting them aside. In other words, the meaning of a major term in his argument has been subtly changed. What I am trying to do in chapter six is to say, “Wait a minute, you just said (ch. 5) that your main argument for the exclusivity of the presuppositional method is the absolute antithesis. Here is a reminder of why the absolute antithesis is unbiblical - as you yourself acknowledged before you began making the case for the exclusivity of this method.” If he sticks to his qualified antithesis, he will have to change a major premise in his argument for the exclusivity of the presuppositional method.
I take the time I do in chapter six to show what the Bible says about the knowledge of unbelievers because what the Bible teaches is consistent only with a qualified antithesis in this present age. It does not support an absolute antithesis in a way that provides a basis for saying that only the method of presupposition is possible and that anyone who uses any other method is compromising with unbelief. A biblically qualified antithesis does not have the same apologetic implications as does an absolute antithesis – a kind of antithesis that will not exist in practice until after the final judgment when apologetic methodology will no longer be relevant.
Dr. Anderson and I disagree about whether this creates a tension in Van Til’s system. That’s a discussion for another day. Here I simply wanted to explain what I am attempting to do in chapter six. He and I did not have time to go into this on the podcast. We briefly discussed it afterward in private. I am providing this brief blog post explanation for those who may have the same question Dr. Anderson had.