Are All Van Tillians Equal?

Before anyone blows a gasket about the title of this blog post, I didn’t come up with it. It’s the title of the February 22, 2011 episode of the Reformed Forum podcast. In other words, the title was created by a Van Tillian.

Before getting into this brief podcast, let me provide some context that will explain why I am discussing it at all. In two consecutive Reformed Forum podcasts, I’ve been strongly criticized for allegedly relying too much on Scott Oliphint’s interpretation of Van Til in my evaluation of Van Til’s thought. The Reformed Forum says that I got the idea of a “propositional influence” of idealism on Van Til from Oliphint. As I wrote in my second response to the Reformed Forum:

“. . . one of the members of the Reformed Forum panel goes on to say, “The second problem is, Dr. Mathison’s interacting with an article by Scott Oliphant. And he’s known as a Van Tillian interpreter, but that’s not a good interpretation of Van Til’s own view.” He continues, “I think sometimes when people are interacting with Van Tillians, they assume that people who are self-professed Van Tillians all agree. We don’t think that’s a good article, or that’s a good presentation or an understanding of this particular issue.” He concludes: “We don’t need to get into the details of that, but I just want people to recognize that there isn’t uniformity among people who call themselves sympathizers or interpreters of Van Til, Frame included. There are many others. That there are differences of opinion, differences of thought, differences of interpretation.”

Anyone listening to the Reformed Forum’s criticism of my book in these two podcasts would get the impression that the Reformed Forum thinks Oliphint’s interpretation of Van Til and their interpretation of Van Til should not be considered the same and that Oliphint is not a very faithful interpreter of Van Til. Because I, in their estimation, followed Oliphint’s interpretation, my criticisms of Van Til can be treated as absurd and summarily dismissed.

That brings us to the “Are All Van Tillians Equal?” episode of the Reformed Forum.

In this very brief video (just shy of 7 minutes), Camden Bucey asks the question, Are all Van Tillians the same? Are they all equal? His answer is no. He argues that there are certain significant distinctives in Van Til’s system and that not all schools of Van Tillianism draw them out as well as they should. He then states that the purpose of this episode is to shed some light on several schools of Van Tillianism.

He begins (at the 1:11 mark) with the Greg Bahnsen camp of Van Tillianism. Bahnsen, according to Bucey, heavily emphasizes the idea of worldview. Bahnsen’s second major emphasis is epistemology. Bucey suggests that Bahnsen actually emphasizes epistemology too much. That said, the area where Bahnsen is weak, according to Bucey, is on Van Til’s trinitarian theology. In Bahnsen’s work, this element is largely absent. So, according to Bucey, Bahnsen is strong on worldview and epistemology but weak on the doctrine of the Trinity and Van Til’s specific use of it. For what it's worth, Bahnsen is absolutely correct in emphasizing epistemology because that is what Van Til emphasizes far more than any other topic in his collected writings. Trinitarian theology isn't even a close second in Van Til's writings in terms of emphasis and frequency of discussion (but that's a subject for another time).

Bucey moves next to the John Frame camp of Van Tillianism (beginning at the 3:27 mark). Frame is said to be strong on Van Til’s trinitarian theology. Frame is said to draw out “the uniqueness of Van Til’s trinitarian distinctives” and Frame demonstrates their importance for his method of apologetics. On the other hand, Frame is weak on the transcendental argumentation (precisely the point at which Bahnsen is strong).

Finally, the third camp of Van Tillianism is addressed (beginning at the 5:08 mark). It takes the best of both Bahnsen and Frame according to Bucey. This camp is centered on the writings and teachings of Bucey’s professors – namely Scott Oliphint and Lane Tipton. Those two men, according to Bucey, have taken the insights of both Bahnsen and Frame and developed them in a way that is truer to Van Til’s own distinctives. So, we have the Bahnsen camp, the Frame camp, and the Oliphint-Tipton camp of Van Tillian interpretation, and the Oliphint-Tipton camp is the best because it takes the strengths of Bahnsen and Frame and sets aside their weaknesses.

Now, it is important to note that Tipton and Bucey both strongly disagree with Oliphint’s doctrine of the covenantal attributes of God (as do I), but regarding this issue of apologetics, Bucey treats these two men as the co-leaders of a distinguishable school of Van Tillianism – the correct school in fact. These two men were his apologetics teachers together at Westminster Seminary for years. They co-edited a book on Van Tillian apologetics in 2007 titled Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics. According to Bucey, theirs is the unique school of Van Tillianism that emphasizes Van Til’s trinitarian theology, and that makes the Oliphint-Tipton school of Van Tillianism the best school of Van Tillianism.

However, when I cite an article published by Oliphint back in 1990, I am repeatedly criticized for it by the Reformed Forum panel (which includes Bucey and Tipton) because, according to them, Oliphint is not a good interpreter of Van Til.

Really? I thought he was one of the founders of the best school of interpretation of Van Til.

If he's not a good interpreter of Van Til, I think it’s only fair for me to ask whether Bucey, Tipton or anyone else shared this assessment of Oliphint’s thought on Van Til with Oliphint himself at any point between 1990 and 2024 when my book was published. Was it shared with him during the editing of the book co-edited by Oliphint and Tipton? I think it’s also fair of me to ask why Bucey did not criticize Oliphint for it in 2011 in this episode of the Reformed Forum when talking about the superiority of the Oliphint-Tipton school of Van Tillianism? If it is that egregious of a misinterpretation of Van Til, why is it only now when I bring it up in my 2024 book that it’s suddenly a hugely important issue?

If Oliphint is such an awful interpreter of Van Til, as the Reformed Forum now alleges, then the whole Oliphint-Tipton school of Van Tillianism should be tossed. I suspect that will be difficult to do, however, since not all Van Tillians are equal and since the Reformed Forum has also asserted that the Oliphint-Tipton school is the only one of the three schools that gets Van Til’s distinctives right.

I contend that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that Oliphint's interpretation of Van Til is completely off the wall bad when I mention it when you have also silently ignored it for decades of co-laboring. If it's that bad now, it was that bad then. And if no one said anything for 30+ years, it's suspicious when it's made the point of repeated criticism when I bring it up in 2024. Were Van Tillians ignorant of what Oliphint said for 30+ years? Doubtful. Then why was it ignored if it is such a bad mistake? Could it be that defenders of Van Til found the ambiguity and vagueness inherent in discussions of idealism's influence on Van Til a helpful tool in defending him because then it could always remain a moving target? Is keeping Van Til vague and incomprehensible a tool for defending him?

In either case, after listening to this Reformed Forum podcast, we are left wondering whether the Oliphint-Tipton school of Van Tillianism is the best or the worst. This 2011 episode would lead one to believe it's the best. The podcats devoted to criticizing my book would lead one to believe the opposite. Maybe it's both the best and the worst. Van Til loved paradoxes.