Make your own free website on Tripod.com
[ INDEX ]  [ NEXT SECTION ]  [ PREVIOUS SECTION ]  [ HOME PAGE ]


HIS POSITION


He is undoubtedly a Kuyperian. "In this country (the USA), the central figure in this (Kuyperian) school of thought has been Cornelius Van Til..........Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd are the two central figures in Europe. Van Til in America." Van Til, by R. J. Rushdoony, page 14, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1960.

In Van Til's own words, "So far as a choice had to be made between the two positions, I took my position with Kuyper rather than with Hodge and Warfield..........Negatively Kuyper was surely right in stressing that the natural man does not, on his principles, have any knowledge of the truth." Common Grace and the Gospel, page 184, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972. Again, "But the reason of sinful men will invariably act wrongly." Apologetics, page 49. "The argument in favour of Christian theism must therefore seek to prove if one is not a Christian-theist (he means regenerate believer) he knows nothing whatsoever as he ought to know about anything..........On the contrary the Christian-theist must claim that he alone has true knowledge about cows and chickens as well as about God." Metaphysics of Apologetics, page 194, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1931. This arrogant claim can be refuted from scripture immediately. Paul says of an unregenerate dignitary: "I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all things whereof I am accused of the Jews: especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently." Acts 26:2-3.

Clearly Van Til, with Kuyper, in Warfield's words, "makes too absolute the contrast between the two forms of science (ie. non-Christian and believing Christian)." Selected Shorter Writings of Warfield - II, page 100. Thus the criticisms applied by me in general to Kuyperianism in my two previous papers on the subject, 'A Critique of Kuyperianism' and 'A Critique of Francis Schaeffer', apply also to Van Til. It is therefore not surprising to find Van Til, 1. Invalidating the theistic proofs in their traditional form. 2. Rejecting natural theology. 3. Rejecting common ground between believers and unbelievers. And, 4. Pressing the necessity for Kuyperian educational institutions.



[ INDEX ]  [ NEXT SECTION ]  [ PREVIOUS SECTION ]  [ HOME PAGE ]