LITMIR.BIZ

      Dedicated to my wife, Laura,

      My parents, Charles and Karen Hunt

      In memory of Cornelius Van Til

      (1895–1987)

      “From where, then, does wisdom come? And where is the place of understanding? It is hidden from the eyes of all living and concealed from the birds of the air. Abaddon and Death say, ‘We have heard a rumor of it with our ears.’ “God understands the way to it, and he knows its place. For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. When he gave to the wind its weight and apportioned the waters by measure, when he made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder, then he saw it and declared it; he established it, and searched it out. And he said to man, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding.’”

      —Job 28:20-28

      “Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.”

      —Proverbs 28:26

      Preface: Cornelius Van Til and Hermeneutics

Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987) was a theologian and apologist who served on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary (1928–1972). He was, apart from Calvin, strongly influenced by the Dutch reformed tradition (Kuyper, Bavinck, and Vos). However, he was also controversial in the sense that he wrote polemically, and he creatively summarized reformed doctrines in new ways to meet the challenges of his day. This led to a strong polarization among those who interacted with his work, both positively1 and negatively.2 This was, in part, due to his interaction with philosophy and borrowing philosophical concepts, which he redefined according to the Christian worldview. His ideas have often been misunderstood and even misapplied.3 Yet, he saw his own work as merely presenting and applying “generic Calvinism,” and confronting opposition to Christ and his church.4

      Perhaps his most significant contribution to the field of apologetics was his self-conscious determination to construct a biblical, full-orbed Christian worldview, which did not merely focus on proximate arguments but ultimate commitments. He sought to present a Christian system of truth in terms of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Moreover, he saw a great need to evaluate apologetic methodology in order to discern whether one’s method was consistent with this system of truth. Underlying his apologetic method and worldview was a strong emphasis on the doctrine of God. This emphasis has often been overshadowed by misunderstanding, terminological confusion, and idiosyncrasies in his thought.

      Sharing the same theological heritage with Van Til, expressed primarily in the Westminster Confession of Faith (along with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms), I share the same fundamental theological presuppositions. I see his work largely as a positive and fruitful contribution to articulating a Christian worldview. That said, his work does display some areas of weakness. Two particular areas stand out in this regard and will be touched upon in the pages that follow. First, he is unclear at points and begs further elaboration. Second, he can tend to paint some of his opponents in an unfair light (even if his criticism has some merit), creating a “straw man” of sorts. In the end, however, I find his work to be fertile soil for exploring theological consistency in a number of fields.

      In what follows, we will attempt to apply Van Til’s logic to hermeneutics and investigate potentially fruitful applications. Just as Van Til evaluated apologetic methodology in terms of the doctrine of God, hermeneutical methodology can also be evaluated along the same lines. A distinctly Christian hermeneutic should be consistent with a Christian doctrine of God.

      In part I, we will examine three important foundational matters in order to establish Van Til’s relevance for contemporary hermeneutics. First, we will evaluate how Van Til has been perceived in relation to the hermeneutical discussion (chapter 1). Second, we will examine how “hermeneutics” has come to be defined and understood today (chapter 2). Third, we will look at how the relationship between metaphysics and hermeneutics has been articulated in terms of being compatible with a Christian worldview, especially as it relates to the doctrine of God (chapter 3).

      Part II will introduce Van Til’s doctrine of God as a self-conscious Christian response to the issues raised in part I. His doctrine of God will be discussed along three main contours emphasized by him in his work in apologetics: the Creator-creature distinction (chapter 4); incomprehensibility (chapter 5); and the ontological Trinity (chapter 6). From our discussion of each, we will consider general hermeneutical implications for the contemporary scene.

In part III, we will apply Van Til’s doctrine of God to a particular contemporary issue within evangelical5 hermeneutics: the NT use of the OT (chapter 7). This will provide a brief case study of how Van Til’s theological emphases speak to questions of meaning and method. Our aim will be to assess gaps in the debate related to worldview considerations at the level of presupposition.

      The concern throughout is to probe the level of consistency that exists between theology and method in hermeneutics. The content of Scripture should be used to establish method, if we take that content seriously. It is hoped that this study will stimulate further consideration of Van Til’s thought for hermeneutics.

1. Roberts, “Van Til,” 73; Frame, Van Til, 44; Muether, Cornelius Van Til, 16.

2. Robbins, Cornelius Van Til; Lewis, “Van Til,” 361; Pinnock, “Philosophy,” 422; Clark, Trinity, 88.

3. See White, Van Til, 14.

4. Van Til’s “generic Calvinism” and “reformed tradition” consisted of the summary of doctrine found in the following creeds: Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt, and especially the Westminster Confession of Faith (Van Til, Defense of Faith, 1, 277). References to “Reformed tradition” in this work are consistent with this notion.

5. This term has become increasingly hard to define in terms of consensus. This is due to differing criteria and tools used to measure whether one fits the pre-constructed category of “evangelical.” Perhaps the most helpful definition of “evangelical” involves a biblical-theological approach, which is tied to scriptural emphases related to the gospel (e.g., Christological, biblical, historical, theological, apostolic witness, and personal), going back to the first century (cf. Stott, Evangelical Truth, 13–34).This is opposed to more sociological approaches which tend to see “evangelicalism” as a late development in the history of the church. A biblical-theological approach to defining “evangelical” would distinguish between and affirm the formal principle (authority of Scripture as the “norming norm”) and the material principle (what is considered as the content of the gospel). My references to “evangelical” and “evangelicalism” have this biblical-theological approach in mind, as well as an awareness that some claim to be “evangelical,” though they do not actually fit into this definition. Incidentally, Van Til had a much narrower working definition of “evangelical.” He used this term to refer to non-Calvinistic (sometimes referred to as “inconsistent Calvinism”) protestants, often pairing them together with Romanist apologetics in contrast to Reformed apologetics

Скачать книгу