What do you think?
Rate this book
Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God
Van Til explores the implications of Christian theology, particularly for philosophy, as he discusses epistemology, general and special revelation, and the knowledge and attributes of God. Cornelius Van Til taught apologetics for more than forty-five years at Westminster Theological Seminary. This newly edited and typeset edition features an introduction and explanatory notes by William Edgar.
416 pages, Paperback
First published December 12, 1961
22 people are currently reading
478 people want to read
About the author
Cornelius Van Til
139Ìýbooks117ÌýfollowersCornelius Van Til, was a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist.
Biographical sketch
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 States when "Kees," as he was known to friends, was 10. He grew up helping on the family farm in Highland, Indiana.
Van Til graduated from Calvin College in 1922, receiving a ThM from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1925 and his PhD from Princeton University in 1927. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics.
He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in which, according to John Frame, neither man was at his best and neither quite understood the other's position.
Van Til's thought
Van Til is perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more consistently Christian methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Source:
Biographical sketch
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 States when "Kees," as he was known to friends, was 10. He grew up helping on the family farm in Highland, Indiana.
Van Til graduated from Calvin College in 1922, receiving a ThM from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1925 and his PhD from Princeton University in 1927. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics.
He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in which, according to John Frame, neither man was at his best and neither quite understood the other's position.
Van Til's thought
Van Til is perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more consistently Christian methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Source:
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
January 13, 2022
To be quite honest, I feel like I only truly understood about 50% of this book. But even getting that much from it has shed so much light on the implications for certain areas of belief and which ones simply do not align with the Word of God (the scriptures.) Although I was at times frustrated at his writing style (and my own lack of knowledge and understanding) I came away with a massive respect for Van Til as a philosopher and theologian. This guy can think man.
June 29, 2011
This is not a systematic theology, it is a primer on the right attitude for engaging in systematic theology, it lays out an epistemelogical approach to systematic theology. Namely, you cannot really know a thing unless you understand it in relation to God. Trying to think about God autonomously from God is what got us into trouble in the first place, so theology has to be done from the paradigm of faith in the Triune God. Van Til compares Christian thinking with modern thinking in that modern thinking sees man as his own reference point and considers a thing as knowable only when it can be exhaustively understood; modern thinking is univocal, while Christian thinking views God as its reference point and thinks God's thoughts after him, that is, analogical.
In the words of G.K. Chesterton the Christian can only hope to get his head into the heavens, instead of the heavens into his head. Modern thought is a closed system which can never reason its way to God because by its own paradigm God must be contained within the universe as equally ultimate with it so that meaning supposedly may exist apart from him, whereas in a Christian worldview God transcends the universe and gives meaning to all things so that there can be no meaning apart from the God who defines all things. There is an antithesis between these worldviews that must be confronted, Christians who want to faithfully defend the faith must not just deal with facts but also must address the philosophy of facts which would rule out the possibility of the transcendent altogether and show that such a philosophy cannot account for facts and cannot properly interpret facts.
This is heavy reading and I feel like this will require a lot more reflection to really get what is being said here, I also feel that it is very important that I do get it because I believe Van Til presents a consistent and faithful apologetic for the Christian faith and his approach is right on. Van Til is arduous reading for most anyone, but if you are willing to sit under his tutelage and really labor over it I can promise your time will be well spent. As a follow up to this, and in order to develop a more thorough knowledge of Van Til's thought I plan to read Greg Bahnsen's analysis of Van Til's work and maybe John Frame's after that.
In the words of G.K. Chesterton the Christian can only hope to get his head into the heavens, instead of the heavens into his head. Modern thought is a closed system which can never reason its way to God because by its own paradigm God must be contained within the universe as equally ultimate with it so that meaning supposedly may exist apart from him, whereas in a Christian worldview God transcends the universe and gives meaning to all things so that there can be no meaning apart from the God who defines all things. There is an antithesis between these worldviews that must be confronted, Christians who want to faithfully defend the faith must not just deal with facts but also must address the philosophy of facts which would rule out the possibility of the transcendent altogether and show that such a philosophy cannot account for facts and cannot properly interpret facts.
This is heavy reading and I feel like this will require a lot more reflection to really get what is being said here, I also feel that it is very important that I do get it because I believe Van Til presents a consistent and faithful apologetic for the Christian faith and his approach is right on. Van Til is arduous reading for most anyone, but if you are willing to sit under his tutelage and really labor over it I can promise your time will be well spent. As a follow up to this, and in order to develop a more thorough knowledge of Van Til's thought I plan to read Greg Bahnsen's analysis of Van Til's work and maybe John Frame's after that.
May 4, 2024
thoroughly unsystematic
April 16, 2024
As noted in William Edgar's intro, this is largely a prolegomena that also delves into Theology. Though he does establish some principles that are helpful in understanding his apologetics, many of the nuggets from his Intro to ST are also found in his apologetic works. Much of this work establishing the basis for epistemology, examining and critiquing other reformed epistemologies, and opposing baseless modernistic epistemology.
This work would be most useful to someone in a deep philosophical apologetic context and may not be particularly useful to laymen or ministers in other contexts.
This work would be most useful to someone in a deep philosophical apologetic context and may not be particularly useful to laymen or ministers in other contexts.
June 21, 2013
I keep trying to get away from Van Til, but I keep getting brought back in. I don't know exactly what it is about his work, but I always find myself saying, "Yes and Amen" on nearly every page.
July 15, 2014
This book is the same sentence, "I hate Karl Barth." repeated for 250pgs.
March 7, 2020
At times dense, occasionally pedantic, and often brilliant. All told, a very valuable book on theological prolegomena.
November 19, 2012
I had originally read the six volumes in this series in another format... most of which I believe that you can still (at least at the time of my writing this review) can get through the Westminster Discount Book Service.
I was somewhat cynical of P&Rs revised editions of these works... or perhaps I should say that I was somewhat cynical of what Oliphint and Edgar might do with said texts... but in the end, I have been pleasantly surprised at how helpful their efforts have been and now Van Til is truly accessible to the masses (or at least as accessible as he will ever be save perhaps in the writings of Bahnsen and Frame about him).
This particular work is more of a prolegomena than anything else... but does deserve to placed in the systematics and dogmatics categories because it firmly lays the philosophical foundation (preconditions) for any and all theological endeavors.
Good stuff - highly recommended!!! If you enjoy this version though, I would encourage that you try to get your hands on the original as well. Too, I would encourage you to read Bahnsen's work(s) in Van Til and his apologetic methodology.
I was somewhat cynical of P&Rs revised editions of these works... or perhaps I should say that I was somewhat cynical of what Oliphint and Edgar might do with said texts... but in the end, I have been pleasantly surprised at how helpful their efforts have been and now Van Til is truly accessible to the masses (or at least as accessible as he will ever be save perhaps in the writings of Bahnsen and Frame about him).
This particular work is more of a prolegomena than anything else... but does deserve to placed in the systematics and dogmatics categories because it firmly lays the philosophical foundation (preconditions) for any and all theological endeavors.
Good stuff - highly recommended!!! If you enjoy this version though, I would encourage that you try to get your hands on the original as well. Too, I would encourage you to read Bahnsen's work(s) in Van Til and his apologetic methodology.
September 5, 2019
One of the reformed classics, Van Til is critical and sharp as always. However (not his fault), the work lacks order since it's meant to be a collection of his lecture notes anyway. Some chapters are worth reading (such as the one on special revelation) but lots of details repeat. Furthermore, he's prone to caricaturing other theologians and philosophers' views, a defect that is too present among reformed thinkers. Perhaps 2 stars is too harsh, since there's lots of good content, but it's a reflection of how tedious my experience of reading this book feels. It feels like the entire book could be summarized into a few maxims and that way the content will be totally predictable. If you want to get into systematic theology, I recommend reading a quick summary of Van Til's thinking off some webpage, and dive straight into Berkhof or what have you, not this.
November 1, 2021
C. Van Til is perhaps arguably one of the most famous and infamous theologians in the broader Reformer community. He is infamous for those Reformed who are more inclined toward Barth and he is famous for those who believe that his presuppositional approach to apologetics is superior to its competitors (e.g., Thomas's 5 proofs, evidentialism). In this theological primer of sorts, Van Til provides a summary of the theological loci suggested by the subtitle, yet with his own apologetic twist informed by two main principles (as summarized by, e.g., J. N. Anderson): (1) no neutrality and (2) no autonomy. Regardless of what one thinks of Van Til, it is clear that he was a serious theologian who had profound reasons for criticizing the likes of Barth, Buswell and even Bavinck. Moreover, his notion of God as both one person and three persons deserved further analysis. It is for these reasons that I have given this book 5 stars.
November 10, 2023
This was a great organization of Van Til's thought, and I think that this along with his Defense of the Faith would be the perfect set for anyone who wanted to understand Van Til's main arguments and thoughts. His other books I've found to be quite repetitive of the themes found in these works. Overall, this was a very insightful and useful book that will make a great reference work in my library as well.
July 3, 2024
Van Til starts with the doctrine of the self-contained ontological Trinity, and works out a Christian worldview for beïng and knowledge. Van Til represents the most recent orthodox development in theology proper and epistemology.
Highly recommended for every Christian with one caveat. He supposed the reader possesses a basic background in philosophy and theology. This is a difficult work, but the payout is 100% worth it. I will likely read this work again and again.
Highly recommended for every Christian with one caveat. He supposed the reader possesses a basic background in philosophy and theology. This is a difficult work, but the payout is 100% worth it. I will likely read this work again and again.
August 26, 2017
The chapters before God's incommunicable attributes are the best. Nothing that new in the next part.
(Van Til is largely following Warfield and Bavinck). Basically, it's an extract systematic theology dealing with the prolegomena and the theology proper parts, including philosophical and apologetics insights on each doctrine.
(Van Til is largely following Warfield and Bavinck). Basically, it's an extract systematic theology dealing with the prolegomena and the theology proper parts, including philosophical and apologetics insights on each doctrine.
February 4, 2023
In my opinion, this is the best introduction to Van Til's thinking. I've read a few of his other books (e.g., Christian Theory of Knowledge, Defense of the Faith, Christian Apologetics) and I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in beginning a survey of Van Til's thought.
July 7, 2023
Van Til is brilliant, but he doesn't distill that brilliance in a very accessible way. I found much of his arguments difficult to follow. I had to read, and re-read, many sections very slowly in order to benefit from this important work.
June 23, 2017
Wonderfully insightful, highly instructive. Hard work. Very hard work.
December 1, 2017
Sturdy stuff.
August 8, 2019
Van Til desperately needs a copy editor
Addendum: I’m no means a fan of Barth or Aquinas, but this belief that we need to trace all doctrinal woes back to them really gets old after 30 pages.
Addendum: I’m no means a fan of Barth or Aquinas, but this belief that we need to trace all doctrinal woes back to them really gets old after 30 pages.
February 13, 2020
Very insightful
February 13, 2023
Hard read
March 21, 2023
Why does he make it so difficult for the reader to like what he is saying?
August 10, 2024
Defintiely requires more than one read and probably an immersion in the thought of Van Til.
April 22, 2024
A useful book outlining Van Til's Apologetic methodology showing how it flows from his Theology. This isn't a comprehensive Systematic Theology, it was a publication from a class syllabus on systematic theology, so it was meant to be an overview. It primarily focuses on the Doctrine of God, Man, and Revelation with Apologetic implications drawn out and responses to different views. Van Til does place a large emphasis on the importance of Apologetics in the local church unlike many who only view it as the objective of the individual. Proponents of Van Til's apologetics and those who differ should both read this book to understand from the primary sources Van Til's methodology. The additional explanatory footnotes by William Edgar help to clarify some of the more technical details and provide cross-references to other books by Van Til on key topics making this new edition a valuable reference.
Van Til argues that a skilled apologist is a skilled Theologian first and foremost, and he exhorts pastors to take this role seriously by preaching sound doctrine. Van Til refuses to isolate Apologetics from the context of the local church, which is unfortunately a popular modern trend; nor does he separate evangelism from Apologetics.
"It should not be forgotten in this connection that the minister's duty is increasingly that of an apologist for Christianity. The general level of education is much higher than it has ever been. Many young people hear of evolution in the high schools and in the college where their fathers never heard of it except as far as a distant something. If the minister would be able to help his young people, he must be a good apologete, and he cannot be a good apologete unless he is a good systematic theologian" (pg. 24).
Many of the key elements of Van Til's apologetic methodology presented such as the Creator-creature distinction and God's Immutability have been denied by those who claim to be his successors in presupposition Apologetics (e.g. John Frame & K. Scott Oliphint), however Van Til did not tinker with the classical doctrine of God as they did, so they actually undermine Van Til's methodology rather than preserve it. Van Til presents a robust defense of the classical doctrine of God, closely following Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics (he cites Bavinck repeatedly throughout this book along with John Calvin) and nowhere argued for "covenantal attributes". Van Til clearly affirmed that God did not change in any way when He created the universe. Van Til does emphasize the importance of covenant theology and federal headship in Adam vs. federal headship in Christ, but not in the sense that K. Scott Oliphint advances in his position of Covenantal Apologetics which assumes a modified doctrine of God.
I disagree with Van Til's statement of God being 1 person, in the context he was affirming the doctrine of Divine Simplicity and he had responded to Sabellianism a few pages prior to the statement, so he wasn't trying to deny that there are three subsistances. I don't think his statement gave any more clarity and it would have been better if he hadn't made that statement which has caused confusion. You can read his chapter on the Trinity (chapter 17) for more details where he discusses the statement in the context of his overview of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Van Til argues that a skilled apologist is a skilled Theologian first and foremost, and he exhorts pastors to take this role seriously by preaching sound doctrine. Van Til refuses to isolate Apologetics from the context of the local church, which is unfortunately a popular modern trend; nor does he separate evangelism from Apologetics.
"It should not be forgotten in this connection that the minister's duty is increasingly that of an apologist for Christianity. The general level of education is much higher than it has ever been. Many young people hear of evolution in the high schools and in the college where their fathers never heard of it except as far as a distant something. If the minister would be able to help his young people, he must be a good apologete, and he cannot be a good apologete unless he is a good systematic theologian" (pg. 24).
Many of the key elements of Van Til's apologetic methodology presented such as the Creator-creature distinction and God's Immutability have been denied by those who claim to be his successors in presupposition Apologetics (e.g. John Frame & K. Scott Oliphint), however Van Til did not tinker with the classical doctrine of God as they did, so they actually undermine Van Til's methodology rather than preserve it. Van Til presents a robust defense of the classical doctrine of God, closely following Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics (he cites Bavinck repeatedly throughout this book along with John Calvin) and nowhere argued for "covenantal attributes". Van Til clearly affirmed that God did not change in any way when He created the universe. Van Til does emphasize the importance of covenant theology and federal headship in Adam vs. federal headship in Christ, but not in the sense that K. Scott Oliphint advances in his position of Covenantal Apologetics which assumes a modified doctrine of God.
I disagree with Van Til's statement of God being 1 person, in the context he was affirming the doctrine of Divine Simplicity and he had responded to Sabellianism a few pages prior to the statement, so he wasn't trying to deny that there are three subsistances. I don't think his statement gave any more clarity and it would have been better if he hadn't made that statement which has caused confusion. You can read his chapter on the Trinity (chapter 17) for more details where he discusses the statement in the context of his overview of the doctrine of the Trinity.
June 18, 2017
Worth reading but not as a beginning (Or intermediate) text. I'll highllight some of his key points, note some problems, and then give my own thoughts.
Van Til's method can be summarized as thinking God's thoughts after him in an analogical way (we receptively reconstruct God's own preinterpreted facts). He also builds his system around the following:
1) God's being and knowledge are coterminous. If God’s knowledge is not coterminous with his being, then it is a correlative of his being. This being is then given a potentiality of its own. No more internally complete knowledge. Hence the open and finite god of non-Reformed systems.
2) The principle of individuation lie withing the Godhead. Only there are facts correlative and brute factuality ruled out.
3) Van Til struggles with the 1 and 3 of the Godhead, particularly in terminology, but I think he is making steps forward and his difficulty is no different from Augustine’s.
Persons are mutually exhaustive of each other, but what does that mean?
he says we “speak of God as a person� (220). Is this necessarily modalism? Maybe not. Whenever God confronts us in Scripture, he speaks as one person. That could be what Van Til means.
Before we attack Van Til, we must acknowledge that there really isn’t a good definition of person. Indeed, for Eastern Patristic thought there cannot be a definition of person, because a person is what is uniquely particular about an individual and resists a universal definition.
Even more, Patristic definitions of person, such as they were, did not include self-consciousness and mind. Modern definitions of persons do. This isn’t to say the latter is correct, but it does highlight our problem today of speaking about persons.
4) Beware of Beginning with Bad Abstractions. We should not think of “Being� in an abstract, empty way.
An abstract “way of negation� is a convenient tool for the sinner to remove the positive demands God makes on him. If one uses the way of negation before the way of eminence (ala Rome), then one ends up with a finite god.
We lose the aseity of God when we begin with abstract concepts of being. Such abstractness makes God/being a correlative with other being(s).
If we “negate� simply by removing the creatureliness of a property--time and space-- and then applying that to God, we do not get the infinity of god. We get emptiness (211)
Conclusion
This book suffers from the usual defects, if such they are. He moves too quickly and key points aren't always elucidated. Still, if you work through what he is saying and continually reference Greek thought and Bavinck, many gems are within.
Van Til's method can be summarized as thinking God's thoughts after him in an analogical way (we receptively reconstruct God's own preinterpreted facts). He also builds his system around the following:
1) God's being and knowledge are coterminous. If God’s knowledge is not coterminous with his being, then it is a correlative of his being. This being is then given a potentiality of its own. No more internally complete knowledge. Hence the open and finite god of non-Reformed systems.
2) The principle of individuation lie withing the Godhead. Only there are facts correlative and brute factuality ruled out.
3) Van Til struggles with the 1 and 3 of the Godhead, particularly in terminology, but I think he is making steps forward and his difficulty is no different from Augustine’s.
Persons are mutually exhaustive of each other, but what does that mean?
he says we “speak of God as a person� (220). Is this necessarily modalism? Maybe not. Whenever God confronts us in Scripture, he speaks as one person. That could be what Van Til means.
Before we attack Van Til, we must acknowledge that there really isn’t a good definition of person. Indeed, for Eastern Patristic thought there cannot be a definition of person, because a person is what is uniquely particular about an individual and resists a universal definition.
Even more, Patristic definitions of person, such as they were, did not include self-consciousness and mind. Modern definitions of persons do. This isn’t to say the latter is correct, but it does highlight our problem today of speaking about persons.
4) Beware of Beginning with Bad Abstractions. We should not think of “Being� in an abstract, empty way.
An abstract “way of negation� is a convenient tool for the sinner to remove the positive demands God makes on him. If one uses the way of negation before the way of eminence (ala Rome), then one ends up with a finite god.
We lose the aseity of God when we begin with abstract concepts of being. Such abstractness makes God/being a correlative with other being(s).
If we “negate� simply by removing the creatureliness of a property--time and space-- and then applying that to God, we do not get the infinity of god. We get emptiness (211)
Conclusion
This book suffers from the usual defects, if such they are. He moves too quickly and key points aren't always elucidated. Still, if you work through what he is saying and continually reference Greek thought and Bavinck, many gems are within.
January 8, 2013
Not a systematic Theology, and he states this at the beginning, but still very valuable, He lays out a very reformed epistemology that once you get his style of writing will be very enjoyable and rewarding. It is a tad repetitive, but I see this as a plus, as he takes on things from several angles, challenging you to be consistent with your epistemological foundations.
It takes a dozen pages or so to get the cobwebs out, but is very rewarding, and enjoyable, the editors have made this work very accessible. If your understanding of epistemology is shaky, this is a great book to read, and if you don't know what that word means, seriously start reading this book.
Its a good jumping in point for reading what Van Til has to offer.
It takes a dozen pages or so to get the cobwebs out, but is very rewarding, and enjoyable, the editors have made this work very accessible. If your understanding of epistemology is shaky, this is a great book to read, and if you don't know what that word means, seriously start reading this book.
Its a good jumping in point for reading what Van Til has to offer.
March 2, 2012
Since Van Til closely follows Bavinck at many places, so you will find more detail if you just read Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics vols. 1-2. However, Van Til has his own unique insights to offer, especially his triad of general revelation: God-man-nature and how each of those form another triad with itself and the two others. He also brings out the rational-irrational dialectic of non-Reformed thought. And of course, the whole book is from the apologetic angle. A very enjoyable read.
May 28, 2012
Van Til's treatment of differentiation and correlation between the general and special revelation is very profound and excellent. A Reformed epistemology per Van Til's framework is all-pervasive for human knowledge without in anyway compromising the authority of Scripture. William Edgard's introduction is a must-read.
May 12, 2009
If you can read Van Til, not everyone has the necessary background in theology and philosophy for it, this is another must read. It is not that it has revolutionized Christianity, but that Van Til has a way of clearing the clutter so that the foundation can be more clearly seen.
Want to read
July 19, 2008I have read this in its original format. It will be interesting to see how Bill Edgar's intro and notes help the reader to understand and appreciate VT.
January 2, 2016
This book was the most influential book for me in the study of theology in my teenage years. Amazingly comprehensive view of reality and thought.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.