Years ago (where has time gone?) I wrote a review of the book Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman by John R. Meuther (P&R, 2008). Here is the review. I was surfing some of my old contributions and came across a little interaction with a reviewer of my review – a fan of Karl Barth. I thought the interaction was quite helpful, and so, as I have not published much on apologetics for a while, I thought I’d give it an airing. I hope you find my defense of some help.
“Dear ——, thanks for your opinions.
As I offer some observations on your review of my review I should begin with the obvious statement that I was not writing an article on Van Til. It was a book review of “Cornelius Van Til: Reformed ,Apologist and Churchman.” I stress the word “Apologist” because it has everything to do with my criticisms of Muether’s helpful work.
You take exception to these words:
“These traits, coupled with his unflinching orthodoxy and presuppositional approach to knowledge, guarantee that a continuous line of left-leaning evangelicals, evidentialists and fence-sitting philosophers will take pot shots at his work.”
“Fourth, these characterizations help serve the agendas of conservative Christians who like to flirt with wayward evangelicals who, in turn, enjoy rubbing shoulders with non-evangelical intellectuals like Barth, Balthasar or Ricoeur.”
You say I am guilty of “poisoning the well.” You think that I am saying that anyone who reads these men must be “left-leaning” or “wayward.” Well, I read them myself, so I don’t think I could mean that. I had in mind such evangelicals as McGrath (whose “Intellectuals Don’t Need God” includes a misinformed characterization of CVT), or Ramm or Bloesch or Richardson. The comments on CVT by these men of the Evangelical Left, as Erickson calls it, can be read in their works and judged accordingly by anyone familiar with Van Til’s thought. Anyone who knows Van Til well is all too familiar with the “long line of left-leaning evangelicals, evidentialists and fence-sitting philosophers” who do not apprise themselves of Van Til’s oeuvre but are free in their declamations notwithstanding. Are all critics of CVT to be included within this group? I did not say so. John Frame, for instance, takes issue with him and his observations are sometimes telling. Sean Choi argues against his transcendental argumentation, and although I am not convinced he has understood the theistic formulation of Van Til’s transcendentalisim his critique issues a warning to sloppy presuppositionalists, if I may call them that. But it remains true that most critics of CVT need to read him more closely. Some of them actually need to read him! And it remains true that such an ardent biblicist as Van Til is going to fall foul of “wayward evangelicals who…enjoy rubbing shoulders with…Barth, Balthasar and Ricoeur” (the first two were examined by Van Til. I picked Ricoeur because of his present-day influence on evangelicalism). Muether documents some of this friction is his Bio. I was generalizing and as a general statement what I said is true. I am not implying that all critics of Van Til fall into my three categories – but most of them do, and that is regrettable.
You say “some of the most careful Barth scholars alive” disagree with Van Til. True enough! But the majority of these scholars are unsaved and are alienated in their minds to God and His revelation. It is not surprising therefore, that Van Til, who is asking whether Barth is orthodox, comes to different conclusions than they do. Many Barth scholars (e.g. Hunsinger, Balthasar, Webster, McCormack) are not too interested in Barth’s evangelical orthodoxy. Many conservative evangelicals who appraise Barth are either not nearly as well acquainted with his Dogmatics as was Van Til, or they have been adversely effected by Barth and have moved away from their former conservative positions (e.g. Ramm, Berkouwer). You say the review contains “no substantive response” to these Barth scholars. Why would anyone expect me to provide it in a biography review? Muether (134) himself includes an account of how Geoffrey Bromiley ignorantly dismissed Van Til’s attack on Barth; remarks which reflect more upon Bromiley’s ignorance of Van Til than the latter’s acquaintance with the Basel theologian.
All that can be said here is that Barth was not orthodox in any essential doctrine except on a very superficial level (he often sounds orthodox). He could not have signed [the website’s] statement of faith for example. Regeneration and consecration affect the way one evaluates say, evolution, scientific method, history, art, philosophy, and theology. I try to “bring every thought captive to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). I do not always do so. I would include myself among those who, as I said, “have difficulty” doing this. Van Til helps me focus on what God says I ought to be focusing on. Barth and his evangelical allies do just the reverse. Does this mean we ignore Barth? No indeed. We just don’t treat him as one of the sheep!
Why did I mention CVT’s scrutiny of Barth’s Dogmatics in German? Because regardless of whether “that’s what every scholar is supposed to do” they often don’t (e.g. K. A. Richardson’s “Reading Karl Barth”). But my point was more serious. Van Til is often criticized for not taking the later Barth into account in his criticisms. But if Van Til was not waiting around for the KD to be translated into English and his German edition was, as Roger Nicole said, very carefully scrutinized, then that particular old cherry is a fabrication is it not?
You imply I am guilty of hagiography. But the review does not indulge in it and neither does Muether’s book. I have to wonder what has provoked such a reaction. Pardon me, but you get a little emotional in your fifth paragraph. Why go after Greg Bahnsen? And which “harsh criticisms” of his are you referring to? I know plenty of harsh criticisms of Van Til!
Next you state you suspect that Muether is not qualified, because he is a historian, to handle the theological and philosophical thought of his subject. I do not agree. In fact, Muether occasionally demonstrates that he is able to do justice to these matters. My criticism of him was that he needed to do this more, not that he couldn’t do it at all. But then one thinks of Marsden on Edwards, Hoffecker and Calhoun on the Princetonians, Tyerman on Wesley, Selderhuis on Calvin… With respect, your expectation of historians seems a little awry in this regard. And if memory serves me right did you not once recommend and link to church historian Sean Michael Lucas’s criticism of Van Til (even though Lucas is neither a Barth or Van Til scholar)? Why would Muether be less qualified to evaluate Van Til’s thought than Lucas? Are you not being a bit pejorative and uncharitable – something you accused me of being – toward Muether? And what is “a transcendental deduction”? Transcendental arguments are not deductive arguments (contra Choi).
You think my review will put off non-Van Tillians. I think not, but you are welcome to your opinion. I rather hope it will cause many who criticize Van Til in ignorance to read him first. He is not above criticism. I myself find that I sometimes disagree. But he deserves informed criticism, and there is too little of that. I am sorry if my review offended you or anyone else. That was not my intention.”
AFTER HE RESPONDED TO ME I GAVE THIS REPLY, WHICH ENDED THE CONVERSATION:
“Thank you for your responses. I wish I could be detained by this thread because it deserves more attention than I can afford to give it right now.
I only wish to say that our discussion highlights the two approaches to Barth within evangelical/fundamental circles (whether one is Van Tillian or no).
You believe Barth is basically orthodox. I believe he sounds orthodox but in reality isn’t. What is to be done?
Well, all I can do now is to ask anyone who is interested to read David Gibson & Daniel Strange (eds.) “Engaging with Barth,” or at least Greg Beale’s recent “The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism,” esp. Appendix 3 on his view of the Bible. From the non-fundamentalist side perhaps Trevor Hart’s “Regarding Karl Barth” would do the trick. In each case one will come away with a bitter taste in ones mouth.
Alternatively, I would call attention to the theologies of Erickson or Reymond or Lewis & Demarest; or Carl Henry’s frequent interaction with Barth in the 6 volumes of “God, Revelation & Authority.” Their responses to Barth’s theology are nearly always negative! If one wishes to survey Barth on soteriology (he believed all humanity is elected and will be saved in the Elect Man – Jesus Christ, which denies the Gospel of justification by faith) perhaps Demarest’s “The Cross and Salvation” would supply the help. Volume 4 of John Murray’s Works should also be studied in this regard.
Brilliant as Barth was his thought cannot be cut up piecemeal as if his rejection of inerrancy and propositional revelation did not emerge from his view of the hiddenness and freedom of God and his consequent rejection, not only of Natural Theology (which I also reject), but his virtual rejection of General Revelation too.
You say Hunsinger and McCormack are evangelical. Hunsinger is better described as “Neo-Liberal” being a chief architect of the 1998 Catechism for the PC(USA). McCormack definitely belongs to the left of evangelicalism, where perch the likes of Grenz and Ramm and the later Berkouwer and Franke and Bloesch. Why is it that when a scholar becomes infatuated with Barth his conservativism suffers correspondingly? “By their fruits you will know them” should be ringing in our ears! This is why Van Til plunged himself into the study of Karl Barth. He knew this drift would be a consequence of making friends with Barth. I myself have had to show students how Barth’s influence effects (e.g., A. T. B. McGowan’s The Divine Authenticity of Scripture, here, here, and here). Barth’s threefold doctrine of revelation lies behind the latest assaults on biblical inerrancy.
I must go, and am sorry to do so, but maybe these words will help some readers to be very careful when around evangelicals who treat Barth as a fellow traveler. He is not. The degree to which one follows him will be the degree that one departs from “the faith delivered to the saints.”
I might respond to more of your post, some of which I agree with, but I must leave things there. Thank you again for your input.”
