Agreeing and Disagreeing with Benjamin Warfield and Abraham Kuyper (Van Til's Apologetic)

In Van Til’s judgment, the ineffectiveness and flaws of the traditional method of defending the faith are tied to an underlying theological outlook that is biblically deficient, such as Roman Catholicism or Arminianism. Reformed theology, which is more scripturally sound, would lead if one were faithful to its tenets, to a presuppositional conception and practice of apologetics. Now, in the early decades of the twentieth century, the Reformed world had two exceptional elder statesmen.

Both Kuyper and Warfield exercised a formative influence on the thinking of Van Til as he sought a rigorously consistent, Reformed understanding of apologetics. But they did not see eye to eye on every point, and on the subject of apologetics their disagreement was readily apparent. Warfield gave expression to this disagreement particularly in the introduction that he penned for Francis R. Beattie’s Apologetics.

There are two good reasons for examining Van Til’s own analysis of, and response to, the conflict between Warfield and Kuyper regarding apologetics. The first reason is that it is so widely misunderstood and mistakenly portrayed. This is surprising, since Van Til wrote specifically and substantially on the subject, addressing “Warfield and Kuyper” in The Defense of the Faith (pp. 358-64) and “Kuyper and Warfield on Apologetics” in A Christian Theory of Knowledge (pp. 229—54).

He compared his view of apologetical methodology with theirs in this way: "To the extent that these [Reformed theologians] differ among one another I have been compelled to choose between them. Even so these differences have not been of such a basic nature that I could not appeal to a common view held by both parties.

The second reason for examining Van Til’s evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses in both Kuyper’s viewpoint and Warfield’s viewpoint is that we thereby gain a beneficial insight into the unique character and genius of Van Til’s own conception of apologetics.

He combined the strongest features of both the Amsterdam and the Princeton schools of thought and left aside features of both systems that did not comport with the best Reformed principles. A person who can explain the ways in which Van Til agreed and disagreed with both Warfield and Kuyper, is a person who understands presuppositional apologetics.

 

KUYPER’S STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS

When Kuyper gave this unequivocal negative answer, however, he did not thereby intend to deny that the unbeliever has any true knowledge in any sense of the term. Disclaiming originality Kuyper closely follows Calvin in insisting that every man knows God.

The difference between Warfield and Kuyper appears sharply in their different evaluation of natural theology.

What evaluation is to be placed upon the interpretation of natural revelation, internal and external, that the natural man, who operates with the principle of autonomy, has given? Can the difference between the principle of autonomy and that of Christian theism be ignored so that men can together seek to interpret natural revelation in terms of one procedure? (110)

Kuyper answers in the negative. The idea of two ultimate principles is, he insists, a contradiction in terms. Either allow that the natural principle has within itself the legitimate powers of self-interpretation and then expect the special principle to be destroyed by it, or else maintain that the natural principle is in any case finite and more particularly sinful and then present the special principle to it with the demand of submission.

 

WARFIELD’S STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS

Apologetics comes for Kuyper at the end of the process whereby Christianity has been set forth thetically. [Warfield replies:] "Meanwhile, as for Christianity itself, it has remained up to this point—let us say frankly—the great Assumption.

Has not Kuyper himself engaged in apologetics of a much more basic sort than he speaks of when he calls it a defense against false philosophy? Has he not defended the idea of the sense of deity independently of Scripture?

It is easy, of course, to say that a Christian man must take his standpoint not above the Scriptures, but in the Scriptures. He very certainly must. But surely he must first have Scriptures, authenticated to him as such, before he can take his standpoint in them. It is equally easy to say that

Christianity is attained, not by demonstrations, but by a new birth. Nothing could be more true. But neither could anything be more unjustified than the inferences that are drawn from this truth for the discrediting of apologetics.

The science of sinful man is thus a substantive part of the abstract science produced by the ideal subject, the general human consciousness, though a less valuable part than it would be without sin.

In this passage Warfield rejects the idea of a twofold science so fully developed in Kuyper's work. Warfield argues that the difference between the scientific effort of the regenerated and the non-regenerated consciousness is, though a great difference, yet after all no more than a gradational difference. Otherwise "there would be no 'science' attainable at all."

Apologetics therefore has great value [for Warfield], "Though faith is the gift of God, it does not in the least follow that the faith which God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without cognizable ground in right reason. We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in him. (124)

 

                                                        PERSONAL RESPONSE

 

According to Van Til the ineffectiveness of Traditional Method of apologetics is that there philosophical view that is Biblically deficient. During the time of Van Til’s education, there were two people who had a great impact on him and his views: Abraham Kuyper and Benjamin Warfield.Instead of focusing on one side of the two apologists, Van Til combined the two ideas from Kuyper and Warfield. This paved a way for Van Til’s writings to be worth reading and studying. Van Til looked for both strengths and weaknesses of the two apologists. He uses and combined both strength. 

It is said that the person who can best explain the ways of Van Til’s agreement to the point of view of Kuyper and Warfield is a person who really understand apologetics. According to Warfield the person has the ability to interpret the natural revelation of God. However, his point has error at this part for it is impossible to a man to have a right reason due to total depravity of his nature that’s why there is a need for Scriptures to be revealed to a person. Only through the Scripture the distorted mind can be changed that’s why knowing God and His Words must come first. Kuyper’s distinctive and masterful insight into apologetics was that the two conflicting principles that are at work in the believer and the unbeliever – submission to God versus freedom. 

He recognized the significance of the alienation of the natural man from God, in contrast to the regenerating and enlightening work of the Holy Spirit in the believer. Here’s Kuyper’s viewpoint, First, he believed that some of man’s abilities to deal with external matters (e.g., weighing, measuring, and using logic) are not affected by his depravity. Second, he interpreted common grace in such a way that there is a limited area of neutral common ground where the regenerate and the unregenerate meet on equal terms and arrive at common interpretations of the facts. But there is an error with his perspective. Because once a man’s whole being was depraved his way of thinking was also affected.

 I would not agree on Kuyper’s view because it is very clear that because of our sinful nature the body, mind and soul was corrupted. However when we accept Jesus as Lord, our spirit is perfected. It is the Spirit that will work in us while our mind and body were still in the fallen state, through time it is being sanctified that’s why we are in a process while our body is not yet glorified.Van Til engineered a system of apologetics that has tremendous intellectual strength and is free from the inconsistencies of Warfield and Kuyper. According to Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic, there are indeed two conflicting worldviews and conceptions of science, but the objective rationality of the Christian worldview is provable by the transcendental argument that non-Christian presupposition render reasoning unintelligible. That is, apologetics is indeed powerful and useful because it can demonstrate that the unbeliever cannot exercise “right reason”. 

Through the above points, we can see the importance that biblical wisdom should not be used for debating. Instead, the presentation of the truth must be conveyed in a way that is understood by all and disputes are avoided. The purpose of apologetics should be clear to every Christian that it is not used to show you are good at the Bible or that you are the only one who is right. Instead, it must be used first and foremost for the truth, to spread the Good News and to bring man closer to God. What is needed is a solution and not division. Today, Van Til’s evaluation could be our guide as we learn more about apologetics. It could have a great impact to us. It is important because we can have two perspective as one and we will understand Warfield and Kuyper more. 

Having the strengths of both views, we will see things wider and we will be able to provide a better application as we combine both ideas. Understanding the two points is now easier because of Van Til’s modification where he simplified and specified the subject. I could see Van Til as a wise person and salute him for not having biases. I have learned that his character must also be our character to not only be one sided but to have a keen eye that always see the different angle to clearly see the whole picture in order to provide a solution and not division, consensus instead of disagreement