Volume 3 Number 2 Article 6

December 1974

Confessional Scholarship?

Nick Van Til Dordt College

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege

Part of the Christianity Commons, Higher Education Commons, and the Philosophy Commons

Recommended Citation Van Til, Nick (1974) "Confessional Scholarship?," Pro Rege: Vol. 3: No. 2, 20 - 27. Available at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege/vol3/iss2/6

This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pro Rege by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact [email protected]. by Nick Van Tit Professor of Philosophy

Mr. van TiL received his A.B. from CaLvin CoLLege. Subsequentto miLi- tary service in WorLdWar II he spent a semester at Westminster TheoLogicaL Seminary in the study of ApoLogetics. Thereafter he received M.A. degrees from the University of Michigan in both history and phiLosophy and foL- Lo~ed further graduate studies in phi'Losophy at Michigan State University.

that nobody spoils your faith through Putting the title of this discussionin intellectualism." question form allows it to reflect rightly I t seems to me, however, that Col- the attitude of many Christian scholars. ossians 2:8 is not a warnina against the Becausethey are doing so many of the same pursuit of scholarship or of theoretic dis- things that the non-Christian scholar is tinctions and explanations. Rather, it doing, they are forced to askwhether their showsthat the antithesis runs through all of scholarshipas Christiansmust begin with a life. The antithesi$ is announced as early as confessionalstance. This questionhas been Genesis 3: 15 and is repeated through all of a problem for Christian scholarsever since the Bible. If we are to pursue our scholar- they came into contac~with Greek pagan ship biblically, we cannot do so by failing thought. It continuesto be a problem for to take account of the distinctions which many evangelicalChristians today, who, the antithesis demands. either as professionalscholars or as laymen, Some Christianshave evaded the ArJ-Q- are trying to attain consistencyand integra- ~ by the use of compartmentalization. tion in their intellectual life. On the one hand, they have the "givens" of Today, as in the past,some try to dis- their faith. Those are not to be questioned pose of the problem by dismissingthose and so are left standing apart from their conclusionsof theoretic thought which do professional pursuits as scholars. Tertullian not directly agree with the Bible as they said he believed becauseit was absurd to do interpret it. To aggravatethe conflict be- so. It defied all logic as well as the demands tween Jerusalemand Athens, one can refer of scientific verification. So Barth also had to such texts from the Bible as Colossians to deny miracle or the possibility of Christ 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you coming into history in a way that is through philosophy and vain deceit, after straightforwardly meaningful in the world the tradition of men,after the rudimentsof of sense experience. Because God, the the world and not after Christ." To make "wholly other," could not come directly sure that you cover all of scholarshipand into time, Barth had to place the Incarna- not just philosophy, you can call in the tion in the non-scientific limbo of Philips translation which reads,"Be careful "Geschichte" in order to avoid the radical

-20- consequencesof the antithesis. construed to mean that I am calling into Some Christians seem to feel that the question his love for our Lord and Savior, problem created by the antithesis can be Jesus Christ, or his dedication to the cause solved by a kind of division of labor in of Christian scholarship. scholarship. Christians in the past have The medieval monk thought he could often busied themselves with theology and cloister himself away from the conflicts "moral science" as having particular religious inherent in the Christian's confrontation significance, while the natural scienceswere with the antithesis. But even then, those relegated to the non-Christian as a kind of who were engaged in scholarship were con- neutral area. In the natural sciences, the fronted with and sometimes tantalized by antithesis had little force. With that the existing pagan \Nritings. One can emphasis in mind, it often happened in the imagine a monk taking in the metaphors of early history of American church-related Virgil with heady delight while the abbot collegesthat the President taught the course was out of sight, somewhat I ike a teenage in "moral philosophy" to make sure that boy inhaling his first cigarette out of sight the job was done right and, I presume, to of his parents. strengthen himself in the assurancethat he Very early someone found a useful was heading a Christian college. figure to justify the appropriation of pagan Though I don't like the single-text ideas, when they were considered usefuI way of getting at the biblical perspective on and did not seem to carry any thought that a subject, I would call attention to the fact stood in diametrical opposition to the plain that it is also in Colossiansthat we are given truth of the Bible as they interpreted it. an impetus towards integrated learning. Th is figure was 'that of the Hebrews rei iev- I n Colossians 1: 17, where the personal ing the Egyptians of their treasure as the pronoun clearly refers to Christ, we read, Hebrews made their Exodus. This analogy "And he is ,before all things, and in him was already in use at the time of Augustine. all things consist." I take it that "all" here Rabanus Maurusof the ninth century court admits of no exceptions. It would follow school of Charlemagnerepeats the idea with that if we are to understand any "thing," the added provision, "The philosophers, that we will have to begin by taking it in its especially the Platonists, if perchance they creational context. Furthermore, "thing" in have spoken the truth, are not to be this context should not be limited to shunned but their truth appropriated as tangible entities such as desk and chairs, but from unjust possessors." Those who em- must be extended in meaning to cover also ployed tllis figure failed to note that much our doing and the very possibility of any of the Egyptian treasure was later used to meaningful saying-or non-meaningful say- form the golden calf that so stirred the ing, for that matter, as the latter can only wrath of Jehovah as f\l1osescam down from be what it is in the context of the former. the mount with the Ten Commandments. I n the history of Christian thought, In the thirteenth century, Thomas those who felt the need for some meaning- Aquinas, the noted Dominican theologian, ful association between their Christian con- formulated an approach to Christian scho- fession and their intellectual pursuits have larship which under the name "Thomism" from time to time approached the solutions hassince that time borne his stamp. Taking in divergent ways. Let me promptly and his general method from Aristotle, Aquinas sincerely say that if it turns out in sequel began with the empirical-rational method, that I differ radically with the position of a which in the modern period has been fellow Christian. it should by no means be identified with scientific method. By the

-21 Thomistic method, all rational human beings was buffeted about by subsequent philoso- can share a common deposit of knowledge, Christian and non-Christian alike, as long as phers with a variety of disproofs. Many it comes by sense perception and is ration- were satisfied that it was permanently laid to rest by Kant when he suggestedthat the ally organized. No distinction need be argument is invalid becauseexistence is not maintained between Christian and non- a predicate. But it would be like saying, Christian thought as it operates with a God. is good; God is powerful; and God is common method and with common ingre- "is." But Kant's argument did 'not termi- dients. What distinguishes the Christian is the fact that through the_Bible he is given nate the discussion. Only a few years ago, Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy at the mysteries of the Christian faith which Calvin College, edited a small-volume treat- are necessary for his salvation. The inter- ment of the subject, thoughf h~ did not try pretation of the Bible, meanwhile, remains to find new validity for Anse'lm's ~pproach.1 the sole prerogative of the Church. The difficulty Wittl the argument of While Thomism had a necessary place the Thomists, both medieval,ari'd modern, for the Bible as to the way of salvation, at and the argument of Anselm should now be the same time it developed a "natural obvious. We cannot move by an unbroken theology" by which it offered proof for the causal series of events in creation to the existence of God on the basis of the induc- Creator as First Cause. ..,lJVecannot move tive procedures which had been developed by an unbroken chain of logical steps from by Aristotle. Thomists argued from the a presumably self-evident assumption in our obvious appearance of motion to the need minds to the Creator of all minds. In each of a Primer Mover. God, the omnipotent, case,we end up with an abstraction, instead' then becomes the best candidate for the of the God of our salvation who has title of Prime Mover. So with a bit of in- revealed Himself in the Bible as a personal, ductive sleight of hand, they moved up triune God and has provided for our re- from the natural to the Creator of the demption in Christ. natural. Not all Roman Catholics were Roman Catholics often point with content to follow the line of argument set pride to the magnificent job that Thomas by Thomas Aquinas, however. In the early Aquinas did when he built a Christian seventeenth century, the French' philoso- superstructure on the foundations provided pher-mathematician Blaise Pascal showed up the inductive gap in the argument of the by Aristotle. They see no need to begin with our Christian confession as the only Thomists. He insisted that by the method of natural the.ology we cannot move to the possible foundation. Some evangelicals 1 would borrow the Thomistic blueprint. God of the Scriptures. The God of They assume that they must present trleil Aristotle is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, casein such a way that it will seem plausible and Jacob. to the non-Christian, using the - non- Even before the time of Thomas Christian's rule of plausibility. Aquinas, St. Anselm of Canterbury had John Warwick Montgomery writes, tried to give the Christian belief in God a "Dogmatics is a field of endeavor directed reasonable proof through his 9 prio[!- argu- to Christian believers and thus properly ment. He argued that the very concept of begins with God's inerrant revelation of God includes the concept of perfection, and himself in Holy Scriptures. But apologetics the concept of perfection includes the con- is directed to ~belie~~-to those who by cept of existence; therefore, God neces- definition do not accpet God's Word as sarilyexists. Anslem's Qntological argum!!!2!: divine utterance. Here the focus must be

-77- on their needs, and the starting point has the Reformed community, Abraham Kuy- to be the common rationality (the induc- per was one who felt that confessional tive and deductive procedures) which all demandswere of the essenceof scholarship. men share.,,2 In his little book, Christianity He felt this so strongly that with his and Philosophy, Artheur F. Holmes of positions of influence he was able to gain Wheaton College gives the same idea rather support for the establishment of the Free explicit expression. Holmes writes concern- University of Amsterdam. Yet, as a man of ing the Christian philosopher asan apologist, his time along with Princeton theologians of "He will seek to show that Christianity is the same day, Kuyper did not work out his intellectually respectable, that it is relevant, confession with the kind of thoroughness in that it is defensible, that it is the most his theory of knowledge that one might appealing of all the voices that clamor for have expected on the basis of his arguments the ears of contemporary man.,,3 for the need of a confession,ally based From the quotations just cited, one university. I n his own writings, remnants would have to assume that there is a of Platonism and Scholasticism remained widespread agreement as to what consti- here and there to haunt the halls of his new tutes "common rationality," aswell as what educational establishment.4 is "respectable" and "defensible" in the Herman Dooyeweerd, for almost forty world of non-Christian thought and among years a professor at the Free University and "Scholarsgenerally. That may have been the now emeritated, spent a lifetime working case when scholars were rather uniformly out a systematic philosophy along the line under the spell of eighteenth-century ra- of Kuyper's beginnings. Dooyeweerd iden- tionalism. Today, however, that is by no tified three Qroundmotives whiGh have con- means the case. There is a great deal of trolled the thinking of Western man disagreement as to what logic ought to throughout the centuries ever since the control one's thinking. beginning of scholarship with the ancient There seemsto be a considerable body Greeks. Dooyeweerd would not have us of opinion among evangelical scholars that think of these Qroundmotives as directional the "law of non-contradiction" is the para- motifs with limited results. They deter- digm for plausibility. For Montgomery, it mined the entire pattern of cultural deve- would seemthat asking the non-Christian to lopment and the spirit of Western thought.5 set aside his dogmas for yours would be like Taking as his Qroundmotive the scriptural asking the Las Vegas gambler to throw theme of creation, fall, and redemption, down his money at the gaming table, all the Dooyeweerd engaged in a penetrating and while knowing that the croupier has the relentless critique of all thought that did stakes contrived against him. The non- not begin with that scripturally-based motif Christian ought to be given a sporting as its starting point. chance. He should not be asked to knuckle Dooyeweerd's criticisms were hailed under to the "foolishness of preaching" at by many as the catharsis which would purge the outset, and to take the beliefs acquired Reformed philosophizing of the last rem- in that way as the controls for his philoso- nants of Platonism and Scholasticism, that phy or whatever other kind of theorizing is, philosophizing which began with some might be his scholarly pursuit. immanent principle, inst~ad of using the In the past one hundred years within Creator as the transcendent source of all

23. meaning. However, when Dooyeweerd "The natural man uses his logical powers began the constructive part of his philoso- to describe the facts of creation as though phizing, disappointment was expressed by these facts existed apart from God. He has some of his early admirers. Cornelius Van rejected the common mandate. (Cf. Gen. Til, whose tenure as Professor of Ethics and 1: 28) It is therefore in conjunction with Apologetics at Westminster Thelogical Sem- the sinner's subjective alienation from God, inary was concurrent with that of Dooye- as a limiting concept merely, that we can weerd at the Free University, expressed speak of anything as not having been de- disagreement with Dooyeweerd's transce!J- stroyed by sin. In the interpretive endeavor dental critiQue. Van Til pointed out that in the 'objective situation' can never be ab- his immanent critique of philosophic stracted from the 'subjective situation'."] thought Dooyeweerd begins immanentistic- Van Til's position has not been widely ac- ally ~ithout the assumption that no mean- cepted among Evangelicalsgenerally. Scho- ingful prediction can take place outside of lars in the Reformed community have also the parameters of the Scriptural q[Qundmo- shown reluctance becausethe preconditions tives which Dooyeweerd himself had ac- seem too stringent by way of an appraoch ~d on the basisof his Christian faith.6 to the presumption that there is commonly Through all the years that he occupied sharable body of knowledge available alike the chair of Apologetics at VVestminster, to Christian and non-Christian scholars. Cornelius Van Til has insisted that there As he is a leader in the Christian Re-' areno ~ facts. Every possiblestatement formed community of scholars, we can also stands in the context of pre:.interpretation. profitably follow the work of Dr. Nicholas I n a 1937 add ressbefore the convention of Wolterstorff of Calvin College as it relates the National Union of Christian Schools, to confessional scholarship. In 1955 as a Cornelius Van Til challenged the teachers college student, Wolterstorff asserted that to take that view of "fact" into their class- in order to be Christian, a philosophy would room. This view immediately created prob- have to be directly deducible from state- lems for Christian scholars. How do you ments found in the Bible. As this is account for the situation that non-Chris- obviously impossible, Christian philosophy tians can count, write, and contribute many is an impossibility.8 Presumably, this can wonderful discoveries in the field of sci- be applied to the other sciencesas well. ence? And if all facts are contextual, how Some years later as Associate Professor do you set them into the context of your of Philosophy at Calvin College,Wolterstortf biblically grounded faith? It soon became contributed an article for a "Festschrift" apparent that the exposition of "Common wh ich acknowledged the emeritation of W. Grace" which came out of the 1924 Synod Harry Jellema, as the nestor of the philoso- of the Christian Reformed Church was of phy department at Calvin College. In the little help to the Christian scholar in taking lead article of that volume of essays,Wol- account of the problem of communicating terstorff treated the subject "F.aith and !9- and working ~ the non-Christian Philosophy." He wrote, "In principle, at scholar. least, it seems possible for a man's philoso- Cornelius Van Til continued to main- phical perspectivesand his way of life to be tain, however, that the non-Christian uses independent-for his philosophical appeal his gifts of scholarship in an apostate way. to be independent of his ultimate trust."9

-24- Aside from the fact that the designation of a newly formed consortium of Reformed "ultimate trust" comes across as a kind of and Presbyterian colleges. I n his lectures, Tillichian substitute for Jehovah, I would Wolterstorff was concerned with the deve- have to argue that Wolterstorff, in this lopment of a Christian "theory of theories." instance~ has his order exactly reversed. This bears directly on the subject of For while in practice we often do keep our Christian scholarship, so we had the oppor- philosophizing or our scholarship and our tunity to bring ourselves up to date on confession separate, in principle they never Wolterstorffs thinking. Before proceeding can or should be separated. to an examination of his thought, it is I n his most recent book, On Universals, necessaryto issuetwo cautions. Fir~t, while with analytic and linguistic finesse,Wolter- the ~ discussion was written "before storff treats the history and tile implications Wolterstorff arrived at Dordt and has biblio- of the concept of Universals as it has graphical references, the subsequent dis- affected various theories of knowledge cussion is based on an introductory un- throughout the development of philosophy scripted lecture and on further lectures ever since ancient times. Wolterstorff con- which as yet are available only in mimeo- cludes that one can posit tliree kinGs of graph copy with a very limited distribution entities: Creator, creatures, and predicables. up to this time. Second, though I am sure This may come as somewhat of as a surprise that Wolterstorff spoke from a basic posi- to those who have been accustomed to a tion that is part of his mature thought, the dual distinction, namely, Creator and crea- purpose of the lectures was to be somewhat ture. of a catylist to get the above-mentioned How does Wolterstorff argue his case? consortium moving in the direction of some After some discussion concerning God's new endeavors on the subject of Christian properties and whether or not He is a scholarship. necessary being, Wolterstorff concludes as I n his first lecture, Wolterstorff as- follows: "Further, if God did not exist, serted that he wanted to be a Kuyperian then the proposition 'God exists' would be "transformationalist." He would avoid the false. And then the proper.ty of being twin hazards of pietism and dogmatism in either true or false would still be exempli- in favor of relevant change in the world. fied. It would still exist. This existence of This is not to conclude that there is no this property seems not to depend on God place for dogma or that one must eschew even in the sense that if God did not exist piety. it would still exist.10 Once more I must Getting into the material of his mimeo- demur. I would have to say that as a pre- graphed copy in the second lecture, Wolter- condition, pne's confession would rule out storff concentrated on past attempts to the possibility that any entity can exist on develop a theory of theories, in particular, the basis of syntactical or semantic neces- the past attempts at tying theory to the sity. No predicable can stand outside of the demands of one's Christian confession. All creating Word of God, as God is the basis previous attempts were set aside as coming for g!l meaning. under the indefensible rubric of "Founda- This past September we welcomed tionalism." In reporting the~lectures, tile Professor Wolterstorff to the Dordt campus Dordt Diamond ran the heading "Founda- as the first lecturer under the sponsorship tionalism Blasted." Perhaps one should

.25- pass that off as a bit of student hyperbole strates itself in his uneasinesswith the idea or student eagernessto see certain "sacred that in the Reformed tradition God has cows" led off to the abattoir. been deemed an atemporal being. The In any case, in his captivating way, question then arises, How can an atemporal Wolterstorff disqualified Thomism for its being be busy in the time-reckoned events empirical-rational attempt to tie theory to of man in history? The neo-orthodox its foundations. Some evangelicals came thinker cannot allow God as the "Wholly under criticism for trying to use their Other" to break into the history of revela- "control beliefs"-beliefs which are part of tion without using a virtually non-historical their foundation-as data for their theories. category, that of Geschichte. Basically, the For example, a dispensationalist might use problem as to how one communicates his control beliefs as data for a theory of meaningfully concerning the revelation of history. Wolterstorffalso rejected Cornelius God in history is of a piece with the prob- Van Til's insistence that one's confessional lem of how one ties his scholarship to his base precedes an theorizing and unifies it confession. I s it not a fact that the B iule while at the same time tying the subjective places God outside of our time reckoning, firmly to the objective. For Wolterstorff, though it speaks anthropomorphically con- the monistic direction of Van Til's ap- cerning God's participation in history? It proach too closely parallels Idealism. would seem, then, that the solution does Though for the most part, we ap- not lie in the direction of placing the God plauded Wolterstorff's declared intention of history ~ history as a way of allow- once more to move Christian scholarship ing Him to reveal himself progressively along the lines of Kuyperian transforma- tilrou~h history. If I have misconstrued tile tionalism, I think his theology reflects the basis for Wolterstorff's difficulty at this interim influence of tile historical-critical point, I assume that he will elucidate his met:'od and that of Neo.-orthodoxy. The views on this subject in the future. historical-critical approach is apparent in The exploratory character of Wolter- Wolterstorff's reflection on the Scriptures; storff's lectures gave them a kind of for he says, in reference to the Old and New "nothing ventured, nothing gained" atmos- Testament, "These are, on the one hand, phere. So I venture some critique of his expressions of tile religion of ancient per- ideas on "a theory of theories." There is sons and peoples. But they have always some unresolved inconsistency in Wolter- been judged, by the community of Christ- storff's solution at this time. For example, followers at large, as proper guides for our he says, "It is important to see that a thoughts and our lives,"1"! The first sentence person's control beliefs determine his theo- would be entirely unacceptable to Abraham retical activity from the inside. They are Kuyper, as well as to such later theologians not simply added on.,,12 Consistent pursuit in the Reformed tradition as the Kuipers, of that idea, it seems to me, should lead R. B., H.J., and Herman, as well as to Louis Wolterstorff in the direction of recon- Berkhof and John Murray. They would all structing Abraham Kuyper along the lines begin with the self-authenticating character of Cornelius Van Til and the early Herman of the B iiJle. Dooyeweerd. The Neo-orthodox aspect of Wolter- Wolterstorff reassertshis belief in the storff's thought, it seems to me, demon- integral nature of control beliefs when he

-26- states, "The scholar who is serious about tionism of Herman Dooyeweerd and the his Christian assent will be one whose' presellt position of Cornelius Van Til too a~sent works within his theorizing." 13 limiting, there is the choice of going back Having said that, Wolterstorff goes on to to Abraham Kuyper. By this time, I think say, "I wish to insist on the fact that it should be obvious that our work towards theories acceptable to Christians are accept- a Christian Theory of Theories will stand in able to others as well. If someone's theory the setting of our unfinished business with of theories affirms or entails the opposite, I respect to common grace. take that to be a decisive mark against it." '14 By way of further fostering the idea of FOOTNOTES common knowledge between the Christian and the non-Christian, Wolterstorff insisted 1. The Ontological Argument, Garden that both have a common expereince and City, N. Y., Anchor Books, 1965. knowledge of color, as, for example, the 2. "Once Upon an A Priori." Jerusa- blueness of the upholstery on Dordt's lem ~nd Athens. E. R. Geehan, ed. Nutley, lecture-room chairs. I n contrast, I would N. J. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing respond that though the Christian and the Co. 1971, p. 391. non-Christian share God's creation as. a 3. Chicago, Inter-Varsity Press,1960, common source of knowledge, the non- p.35. Christian has no basis for knowing that he 4. Cf. Herman Dooyeweerd, "Kuyper's can know and therefore never does ~ Wetenschapsleer." Philosophia Reformata. ficantl~ know. He is at best hemmed in by Vol. IV,p. 193. probability. 5. Herman Dooyeweerd. "De Cristischp I n his "blasting" of "Foundation- Onderzoeks-methods," Reformatie en alism," Wolterstorff suggestedthat we can- Scholastiek in de Wijsbegeerte. Franeker, not tie our confession to bur theorizing 1944, p. 41. analytically, empirically, or by the use of 6. For the details of this discussion see the a priori of Cornelius Van Til. At the Jerusalem and Atheos. pp. 74-127. sametime, under the influence of positivism 7. Common Grace and the Gosoel, and the language analysis schools of philos- t-Jutley, N. J. Presbyterian and Reformed ophy, Wolterstorff wou Id put us in fear of Publishing Co. 1973, p. 43. resorting to the use of rhetoric or metaphor 8. "The Christian and Philosophy." as we refer to the foundations of our the- The Caivio Forum, May, 1955, p. 195. orizing. At this point, at least, I don't 9. Faith and Philosophy. i;I\!in think that we have been furnished with a Plantinga, ed. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, creditable substitute for that which we 1966, p. 32. have been encouraged to abandon. 10. On Universals. Chicago,University After we had terminated our discus- .. of Chicago Press,1972, p. 292. sions and Wolterstorff was winging his way 11. For those on severalcampuses who back home, it occurred to me that we had have Wolterstorff's mimeographed copy, done a lot of talking about a subject which this is found on page II, I, of Lecture II. has at its base the problem of ~ommon 12. Lecture II, I, 3. ~ though the term was never men- 13. Lecture II, 111,4. tioned. If we find the early Reconstruc- 14. Lecture II, 111,5.

-27