JETS 48/3 (September 2005) 557-88 THE INFLUENCE OF IDEALISM ON THE APOLOGETICS OF CORNELIUS VAN TIL TIMOTHY I. MCCONNEL* Cornelius Van Til completed his doctoral work at Princeton University in 1927 with a dissertation entitled "God and the Absolute," in which he argued that the God of Christian theism could not be identified with the Absolute of philosophical idealism.1 A couple of years earlier he had completed his Th.M. at Princeton Theological Seminary, with a thesis entitled "Reformed Episte- mologa"2 In spite of the close proximity and historical relationship of these two institutions, they were clearly distinct, with the seminary then being a much more conservative institution. The philosophy department of Princeton University at that time was under the direction of the British idealist Archi- bald Allen Bowman. Van Til's own interest in philosophy, and in particular idealism, had begun during his undergraduate days at Calvin College. There the philosophy department had consisted of only one instructor, W. Harry Jellema, who was himself only a couple of years older than Van Til, and was at the very beginning of his teaching career.3 Jellema began teaching at Calvin in 1920, while working on his dissertation on Josiah Royce at the University of Michigan, which he completed in 1922. One of the textbooks which he used for the undergraduate courses in philosophy at Calvin was F. H. Bradley's Appearance and Reality, to which Van Til would continue to refer in his later writings on idealist philosophy. With this background and interest it would be expected that philosophy would play a major role for Van Til in the development of his apologetics. That it does, but in this case it was not an uncritical appropriation. Rather, it will be shown that a major part of his apologetica! endeavor can be seen * Timothy McConnel resides at 338 4th Avenue NE, Sioux Center, IA 51250. 1 The dissertation is discussed below. 2 This thesis was later revised and expanded into the student syllabus called "The Metaphys- ics of Apologetics," eventually published in 1969 by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing as The Survey of Christian Epistemology. 3 Biographical information on Jellema is taken from the foreword to Faith and Philosophy: Philo- sophical Studies in Religion and Ethics (ed. Alvin Plantinga; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), which is a collection of essays in honor of Jellema's retirement at the age of seventy. He spent most of his career at Calvin, with the exception of twelve years at Indiana University (1935-1947; he chaired the department for the last seven years). Among the contributors to the collection of essays were Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, and Jesse DeBoer (elsewhere a severe critic of Van Til, as seen below). Henry Stob noted in the foreword that Jellema was not a prolific writer and had published little, but that he was an excellent teacher and an emphatically Christian philosopher. 558 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY as directed against philosophical idealism. On the other hand, his interest in philosophy and background in idealism helped him frame some of the basic questions his apologetical approach attempted to answer. The thesis of this article is that idealism provided Van Til a framework for problems to be dealt with, and thus provides a reference for understand- ing his apologetical approach. However, this usage of idealism also provides a potential limitation on the continuing applicability of certain aspects of Van Til's apologetics. I. IDEALISM AS A SOURCE OF CORRUPTION? The major criticism raised against Van Til during the 1940s and 1950s was that he was corrupting the Christian message with idealist philosophy. J. Oliver Buswell gave the earliest extended critique of this concern in his article "The Fountainhead of Presuppositionalism." In this lengthy review of Van Til's book Common Grace, Buswell went so far as to charge Van Til with being "deeply mired in Hegelian idealistic pantheism,"4 and even stated, "Van Til's doctrine of creation is a mere non-temporal mental act of God which does not give substantive ontological status to the thing created, other than the thought of God."5 He seemed to have based his objections on such specifics as Van Til's analysis of the One and Many problem of philosophy in relation to Christian faith,6 the use of various idealist philosophical terms such as "concrete universal," "limiting concept," "brute fact," and "apparent 4 J. Oliver Buswell, "The Fountainhead of Presuppositionalism." TBT 42/2 (1948) 48. Backing up Buswell's analysis of Van Til was a letter he received and published from Dr. G. Douglas Young, a former student of Van Til, who concluded, "I feel that it would help the readers of The Bible Today very materially in their attempt to understand the importance of this controversy if you would present to them the story of how subtly the false teachings of Borden P. Bowne (Personalist Idealist) worked their way into Christian circles through the teaching of evangelical men. That is what is happening while this controversy is going on. I am very sure that many of your readers are totally unaware of this aspect of the whole matter." Douglas Young, "Professor Young's Letter," TBT 42/2 (November 1948) 65. Young was the chairman of the Department of OT at the National Bible Institute in New York, which also published The Bible Today, of which Buswell was the editor. Buswell and Van Til had had their disagreements over a period of time. When the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was started in 1936 following the discipline of J. Gresham Machen over the issue of missions support in the PCUSA, both men were among the founding members, but were on opposite sides when a split occurred the following year. The second General Assembly made an attempt to reconcile the two factions, as evidenced by the fact that Buswell was elected moderator following his nomination by Van Til. Unfortunately, the attempt failed, and the "New School fun- damentalists," including Buswell, withdrew under the leadership of Carl Mclntire, while the "Old School" remained, under the leadership of the professors at Westminster Theological Seminary. The stress from this further division may have contributed to Machen's untimely death from pneumonia in 1937. See George M. Marsden, "Perspective on the Division of 1937," in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (ed. Charles G. Dennison and Richard C. Gamble; Philadelphia: The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986) 169-82. The immediate issues were disagreements over premillennialism and prohibition, which were strongly supported by the fundamentalist faction as essential, but seen as issues of Christian liberty by the "Old School" confessionalists. 5 Buswell, "Fountainhead" 56. 6 This is a problem only for a "monistic non-Christian philosophy" according to Buswell (ibid. 43). THE APOLOGETICS OF CORNELIUS VAN TIL 559 contradiction," and the suggestion of a Christian use of an "as if" concept. Buswell insisted on reading all of these terms and concepts in the context of their non!Christian origin and meaning, regardless of Van Til's usage or con- text. He concluded that Van Til's presuppositional philosophy was "strongly characterized by anti!Biblical Hegelian dialectic terminology and concepts."7 He consequently charged Van Til with a major problem of compromise with, and corruption by, idealist philosophy. A series of articles in the Calvin Forum during the mid!1950s continued a similar critique of Van Til's apologetics. This campaign was started with a lead editorial by Cecil DeBoer in the August!September 1953 issue. His complaints against Van Til's apologetics revolved around two basic issues: he accused Van Til of poor scholarship both in his summary of other's posi- tions and in his use of philosophical terms, and also accused him of adopting anti!Christian idealist concepts. For example, he wrote, "In asserting that the givens with which we must begin are not facts but 'God!interpreted facts,' the new apologetic seems to have taken over uncritically the idealist theory of knowledge and truth, a theory leading logically to a kind of pan- theism."8 The charge of idealism seemed to be the more troubling of the two errors, inasmuch as some of the disagreement over terminology and inter- pretation could be seen as due to an underlying philosophical disagreement. The most extensive treatment of Van Til's use of philosophy was provided by Jesse DeBoer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Kentucky. His article, "Professor Van Til's Apologetics," was divided into three parts.9 His repeated emphasis was on Van Til's use of idealist terminology and logic. He made such statements as "I mean only to say that his language is ideal- istic, and that by choosing to use such language he chooses to make idealistic, non!Christian statements."10 He further charged, "Van Til is more certain of idealist logic than he is of Christian theism."11 His final conclusion was that "Van Til's apologetic is twisted and victimized by the categories and tech- niques of the idealists whose works he read in his student days."12 These 7 Ibid. 64. 8 Cecil DeBoer, "The New Apologetic," The Calvin Forum 19 (August!September 1953) 3. This series of negative articles represented a departure within the pages of The Calvin Forum, inasmuch as the only extended treatment of Van Til prior to this time had been an article by John Vriend, "How Do We Know?" The Calvin Forum 18 (October 1952) 34!37, which had summarized and rec- ommended Van Til's epistemology. In addition to reflecting a split of opinion within the Christian Reformed Church, this particular controversy may have been triggered by the fact that Van Til taught at Calvin Theological Seminary for a term in 1952, and thus had thrust himself into the spotlight within his former denomination. 9 Jesse DeBoer, "Professor Van Til's Apologetics, Part I: A Linguistic Bramble Patch," The Calvin Forum 19 (August!September 1953) 7!12; "Professor Van Til's Apologetics, Part II: God and Human Knowledge," The Calvin Forum 19 (October 1955) 27!34; and "Professor Van Til's Apologetics, Part III: God and Human Knowledge," The Calvin Forum 19 (November 1953) 51!57. Jesse DeBoer, like Van Til, had studied at Calvin College, but had done his graduate work in philosophy at the University of Illinois (A.M.) and Harvard (Ph.D.) 10 J. DeBoer, "Part Γ 11. 11 Ibid. 12. 12 J. DeBoer, "Part III" 57. 560 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY were strong statements coming from a professional philosopher and Chris- tian academician. However, it also becomes clear in reading DeBoer's articles that he was writing from the philosophical perspective of the analytical move- ment in philosophy, which had reacted strongly against the earlier British idealism which Van Til had studied. Thus, he was initially unsympathetic to the philosophical issues with which Van Til was grappling, and found it easy to dismiss them as "non-Christian." As a result, what could have been an insightful analysis reads more like an intramural philosophical polemic. DeBoer showed no evidence of having read any of Van Til's analyses of the idealist philosophers who were said to have corrupted his apologetics. A further critique of Van Til's apologetics by a "professional philosopher" was offered by Clifton Orlebeke, then an instructor in philosophy at the Uni- versity of Rhode Island. His article, "On Brute Facts," is a less polemical, though still highly critical, analysis of Van Til's epistemologa13 He called attention to a couple of important points in the debate. First, Van Til had criticized some of the authorities of the Christian Reformed Church, notably Kuyper, Bavinck, and Hepp, especially in their understanding of the abso- lute ethical antithesis and the related issue of common ground. Second, he noted ambiguity in Van Til's language about the relationship of the knowl- edge which God has and the beingness of created facts. Without making the actual charge as Buswell and DeBoer had done, Orlebeke implied that some of Van Til's statements would lead in the direction of pantheistic idealism. The charges of idealist corruption were continued by Franklin Van Hal- sema a few months later.14 He stated that Van Til failed to achieve a Cal- vinistic or Christian apologetic due to his idealistic penchant. In particular, he pointed to Van Til's use of the "limiting concept," a Berkeleian God in his theology, his use of a coherence theory, and his holding to a phenomenalistic epistemologa Van Halsema admitted that his analysis involved a one-sided reading of Van Til, and that opposite positions could be supported, but con- cluded that, at best, this indicated an unfortunate contradiction within Van Til's writings. Further disagreements with Van Til's apologetics were expressed in ar- ticles by William Masselink and William Paul the following year (1954), but these dealt with non-philosophical issues.15 At the end of the year an article 13 Clifton J. Orlebeke, "On Brute Facts," The Calvin Forum 19 (August-September 1953) 13-17. Note that there were three articles in one issue which were highly critical of Van Til's apologetics. 14 Franklin Van Halsema, "Van Til in Review," The Calvin Forum 19 (December 1953) 82-85. 15 William Masselink, "New Views Regarding Common Grace," The Calvin Forum 19 (April 1954) 172-77; "New Views of Common Grace in the Light of Historic Reformed Theology," The Calvin Forum 19 (May 1954) 194-204; William Paul, "The Methodology of Christian Evidences," The Calvin Forum 19 (May 1954) 204-8; "The Methodology of Christian Evidences II," The Calvin Forum 19 (June-July 1954) 222-26; "The Methodology of Christian Evidences III," The Calvin Forum 20 (August-September 1954) 9-12. Masselink's articles dealt directly with Van Til's views on Common Grace and were consistent with Masselink's own earlier works, Common Grace and Christian Education, or A Calvinistic Philosophy of Science (mimeographed, 1952) and General Revelation and Common Grace: A Defense of the Historic Reformed Faith over against the Theology and Philosophy of the So-called Reconstructionist Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953). These works established him as an opponent of Van Til in defending both the "Old Princeton" THE APOLOGETICS OF CORNELIUS VAN TIL 561 by Edwin H. Palmer appeared defending Van Til against Masselink, entitled "Caricature."16 A defense of Van Til's philosophical views finally appeared in 1955, with a two-part article "On Brute Facts" by Harold J. Franz.17 This article responded directly to Orlebeke's criticisms and concluded that "Mr. Orlebeke is really in agreement with Dr. Van Til even though philo- sophically less mature." Franz also defended Kuyper against Van Til's criti- cisms by a similar method, noting that Kuyper's "formal agreement" between the believer and unbeliever paralleled Van Til's epistemological-metaphysical distinction regarding common ground.18 In 1954 James Daane, a minister in the Christian Reformed Church, pub- lished A Theology of Grace: An Inquiry Into and Evaluation of Dr. C. Van Til's Doctrine of Common Grace.19 The editors of The Calvin Forum invited a number of theologians to respond to this work, and the results were pub- lished in the April 1955 issue. Although the author under discussion was Daane, the real issue at hand was Van Til. Of those who responded, two sup- ported Daane and two supported Van Til.20 Cecil DeBoer again wrote the lead editorial, stating that the earlier articles of 1953 had not attempted to "call in question the soundness of Van Til's personal theological beliefs, but only to point out that his philosophical justification of those beliefs left much to be desired."21 Raymond Opperwall wrote in his contribution, and "Amsterdam" theologians against Van Til's criticisms. Only the second article of Paul dealt directly with Van Til, but his entire evidentialist approach contrasted with Van Til's presupposi- tional views. 16 Edwin H. Palmer, "Caricature," The Calvin Forum 20 (November 1954) 62-65. His position, which seems accurate to me, is that Masselink had misread Van Til and had as a result constructed a straw man to attack; but in reality, his position was "much closer to Van Til than he realizes." 17 Harold J. Franz, "On Brute Facts," The Calvin Forum 20 (March 1955) 150-53; "On Brute Facts (continued)," The Calvin Forum 20 (April 1955) 182-86. 18 Van Til argued that "epistemologically," i.e. on the level of interpretation, believers and un- believers, in principle, have nothing in common (an application of Kuyper's notion of antithesis), but that "metaphysically," i.e. on the level of the reality of existence, they share everything in common. The antithesis in interpretation was limited by the important phrase, "in principle." His point was also that in practice, the unbeliever is unable to be consistent in his own interpretation. See Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Re- formed, 1972) 5. 19 See James Daane, A Theology of Grace: An Inquiry Into and Evaluation of Dr. C. Van Til's Doctrine of Common Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954). 20 "Daane's A Theology of Grace: A Symposium," The Calvin Forum 20 (April 1955) 172-81. Raymond Opperwall and Leonard Verduin both supported Daane's critique of Van Til, while Ed- ward Heerema and William Young dismissed it. Heerema made use of the same defense Van Til would shortly use, namely defending the doctrine of the eternal decree of God against Daane's apparent disagreement with it. Young, without defending Van Til's apologetics, stated, "Daane pursues a line of argument which appears to embody a sustained misunderstanding of Van Til's views" (p. 179). 21 Cecil DeBoer, "The Daane Reviews: I," The Calvin Forum 20 (April 1955) 171. DeBoer gave Van Til an apparent out when he wrote, "Van Til's personal beliefs may be quite in order, but he evidently has great difficulty making this clear in the language of philosophy. And that, inciden- tally, may account for the fact that his critics so frequently 'misunderstand' him. In other words, by reason of his inaccurate use of the language of philosophy and his failure to express himself in unambiguous English, he may virtually have caricatured his own position which—let us assume for argument's sake—may be wholly Reformed" (p. 171). 562 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY The fundamental thesis of the book may be rather simply summarized. As Daane tells us in the preface he is concerned that we see two things: (1) That while Van Til has attempted to deliver the common-grace views of others from non-Christian philosophical remnants, he has himself enmeshed the doctrine of common grace in a compound of Hegelian rationalism and modern existen- tialism. (2) That as a result of this philosophical structure Van Til's alleged re- finement of the Three Points of 1924 is in fact a repudiation of the Three Points.22 Opperwall went on to summarize and defend Daane's analysis of Van Til, but did not evidence any familiarity with Van Til beyond the work being re- viewed by Daane. Amazingly enough, Daane himself had an article published in that same April 1955 issue of The Calvin Forum which included the symposium on his book. The article was entitled "An Inherited Epistemology: I."23 This was a review article of Alexander De Jong's book, The Well-Meant Offer. DeJong had been a student of Van Til, and Daane used this review to once again attack Van Til's position (DeJong's epistemology was "inherited" from Van Til). Daane's basic analysis was that whatever was of value in DeJong was due to his independence of Van Til, but that whatever was in error, which was the bulk, was due to his adoption of a Van Tillian framework for his theol- ogy. The opening line of the article read, "There is a strange reluctance to face the issues of Professor C. Van Til's theology."24 This is a curious line for a publication which had published numerous articles critical of Van Til over a three-year period!25 By now it should be clear that much of the controversy regarding Van Til's apologetics revolved around the question of his use of idealist philosophy. Obviously, he had studied idealism and had made use of a number of idealist terms and concepts in his writings. One basic question at issue seemed to be whether or not he meant the same thing in his usage as the idealists had in their context. In order to get a better perspective on this issue it will be nec- essary to summarize briefly some of the idealist teachings and then to turn to Van Til's own interaction with idealist philosophy, beginning with his doc- toral dissertation, "God and the Absolute," and then looking at the collec- tion of essays he published in 1955 to answer his critics, Christianity and Idealism. 22 "Symposium" 172. 23 James Daane, "An Inherited Epistemology: I," The Calvin Forum 20 (April 1955) 186-92; "An Inherited Theology: 11," The Calvin Forum 20 (May 1955) 204-8. The second article continues the review of DeJong's hook. It should be noted that the entire April 1955 issue of The Calvin Forum was devoted to articles that dealt with Van Til. 24 Ibid. 186. 25 There were numerous letters to the editor during this time, some of which defended Van Til, others supporting his critics, but some which simply expressed the opinion that there were other issues to deal with besides one man's approach to apologetics. For example, one wrote, "I trust too, that poor Dr. Van Til at Westminster has been dragged across the Forum pages for the last time and will be permitted to rest awhile." C. S. Hoveland, "From Our Correspondents," The Calvin Forum 20 (March 1955) 162—this was published the month before the Daane symposium! However, the controversy ceased for a time, as Cecil DeBoer, the editor-in-chief, passed away in 1956. When no replacement could be found, The Calvin Forum itself ceased publication. THE APOLOGETICS OF CORNELIUS VAN TIL 563 II. THE BRITISH IDEALISTS The idealists with whom Van Til interacted the most in his writings were the British philosophers Francis Herbert Bradley, Bernard Bosanquet, and Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison, although he also dealt with quite a number of other figures to a lesser degree. Bradley (1846-1924) had been a fellow of Merton College, Oxford, and had devoted his career to philosophical writing. His most important writing was Appearance and Reality, which originally appeared in 1893 and was revised in 1897.26 The second edition added sev- eral appendices to answer critics of the first edition. The argument of the book fell into two unequal sections. The first section, about one-fourth of the whole, examined various aspects of appearance and concluded that they were all self-contradictory, and hence could not be ultimate Reality. The second section then developed what Reality must be, including his discussion of the degrees of truth and reality, and culminated in his doctrine that all contra- dictions must be subsumed within the Absolute. While Bradley was clearly working within the idealist tradition in philosophy, he constantly made an appeal to experience and claimed to be developing a philosophy that would be consistent with our experience. Bosanquet (1848-1923) had taught for a decade at Oxford, but later moved to London and had been involved in teaching in adult education there. He also taught at St. Andrews for a time. He wrote in numerous areas of phi- losophy, including logic, metaphysics, and social and political philosophy. While his name was frequently linked with Bradley, and their careers coin- cided so that they interacted a great deal with each other, their views were somewhat different.27 Bosanquet was generally considered to be more He- gelian than Bradley. Van Til reacted particularly to his major work on logic, Logic, or the Morphology of Knowledge,28 but reacted to several other writings as well. Pringle-Pattison29 (1856-1931) represented a move within idealism away from the absolutism of Bradley and Bosanquet toward a greater emphasis on the individual. Much of his writing consisted of the analysis of other phi- losophers. Of particular interest to Van Til were his works Hegelianism and 26 Francis Herbert Bradley, Appearance and Reality: A Metaphysical Essay (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955 [1897]). 27 See Jonathan Robinson, "'Bradley and Bosanquet,'" Idealistic Studies 10 (1980) 1-23. Rob- inson argues that there was a profound and basic disagreement between the two throughout their careers, so that they could in no sense be considered to represent jointly a school of thought. He may be overstating the case somewhat in reaction to the many authors who have merely lumped the two together as the typical representatives of "British idealism." Van Til was more concerned with the general tendencies and assumptions of idealism and not so much with the niceties of dis- tinctions as an idealist philosopher might be. One such sweeping generality that would fit Van Til himself is the tendency to take a sweeping view of the whole rather than a detailed analysis of a particular (which would be more the tendency of the analytic philosophy which reacted against idealism). 28 Bernard Bosanquet, Logic, or the Morphology of Knowledge, 2 vols. (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911 [New York: Kraus Reprint, 1968]). 29 Andrew Seth adopted the surname Pringle-Pattison in 1898 in order to inherit a family estate in Scotland. Thus his writings can be found under both names. 564 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Personality30 and The Idea of God in the Light of Recent Philosophy.31 The latter book especially dealt with Pringle-Pattison's continuity with, and di- vergence from, the views of Bradley and Bosanquet. Pringle-Pattison, unlike Bradley and Bosanquet, clearly identified himself as being within the Chris- tian traditon and made use of Christian terms and doctrines in his argu- mentation.32 For example, he wrote, The essential feature of the Christian conception of the world, in contrast to the Hellenic, may be said to be that it regards the person and the relations of persons to one another as the essence of reality, whereas Greek thought con- ceived of personality, however spiritual, as a restrictive characteristic of the finite—a transitory product of a life which as a whole is impersonal. Modern Absolutism seems, in this respect, to revert to the pre-Christian mode of conception. .. .33 Among the modern Absolutists whom he clearly had in mind were Bradley and Bosanquet. One of the issues debated within idealist philosophy had been the rela- tionship between the Absolute, as that concept was developed in the idealist tradition from Hegel down through Bradley and Bosanquet, and the God of Theism or Christianity, as the doctrine had been traditionally taught in the Church. Bradley and many others explicitly denied that these terms were identical in reference. For example, Bradley wrote, If you identify the Absolute with God, that is not the God of religion. If again you separate them, God becomes a finite factor in the Whole. And the effort of religion is to put an end to, and break down, this relation—a relation which, none the less, it essentially presupposes. Hence, short of the Absolute, God cannot rest, and, having reached that goal, he is lost and religion with him. . . . God must certainly be conscious of himself in religion, but such self- consciousness is most imperfect.34 For Bradley, any religious concept of God must be less than the whole of Reality, and hence must be finite and not equal to the Absolute. 30 Andrew Seth, Hegelianism and Personality (Balfour Philosophical Lectures, University of Edinburgh; repr. New York: Burt Franklin, 1971 [1887]). This series of lectures followed up on issues raised in a previous series, published as Scottish Philosophy: A Comparison of the Scottish and German Answers to Hume (Balfour Philosophical Lectures, University of Edinburgh; Edin- burgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1885). Note that these were both published prior to Pringle- Pattison's change of name. 31 Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison, The Idea of God in the Light of Recent Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Aberdeen in the Years 1912 and 1913; Oxford: Clarendon, 1917). 32 In this he reminds one somewhat of Hegel, who also made use of the Trinity and the Incar- nation in his philosophy, although there are also clear differences. Bradley and Bosanquet did not refer back to Christian doctrines in this way. 33 Pringle-Pattison, The Idea of God 291. For Van Til, Pringle-Pattison exemplified the attempt to use Idealist philosophy to reinterpret Christianity. For example, in this work Pringle-Pattison de- fended the notion of creation, but it turned out to be the old Hellenistic idea of an eternal creation, in which God and the universe are correlate, each necessary for the other. Thus his many orthodox- sounding statements have only a "formal" similarity, due to the reinterpretation of their meaning. See the discussion below of Van Til, "God and the Absolute." 34 Bradley, Appearance and Reality 395-96. THE APOLOGETICS OF CORNELIUS VAN TIL 565 Nonetheless, for many within the religious community, idealism was looked upon as a form of apologetics for belief in God, even for Christianity. Many of the "Hegelians of the Right" had viewed Hegel in this manner and had interpreted him in a highly theistic way. This approach continued, especially within liberal Christian circles, so that Van Til easily found pro- ponents for identifying God with the Absolute among more contemporary authors. For example, W. H. Moberly published an essay entitled "God and the Absolute," in which he argued that philosophy and religion attack the same problem of the Being and Nature of God, only from different angles.35 Thus while he recognized differences between the theological and philo- sophical views of God, he considered them to be on a converging path, so that an identification should be ultimately possible. For example, he found it to be a defect, albeit a correctable one, that Absolutism ultimately denied personality to God/the Absolute. He argued that such a denial is based on an inadequate view of personality.36 Pringle!Pattison had a similar approach in The Idea of God, in which he argued against Bradley's impersonal Absolute as denying value to finite selves, and instead held to the self!communicating life of the Absolute. He wrote, But although the individual may not make himself his own End, the world of finite individuals may well constitute the End of the Absolute. How can we ascribe to the Absolute, as many theologians have done, the self!centred life, the contemplation of His own glory, which spells moral death in the creature? Is it reasonable to deny of the fontal life of God that giving of Himself and find- ing of Himself in others, which we recognize as the perfection and fruition of the human life? This would be, under the pretext of exalting the divine, to place it lower than the best we know.... The idea of end or purpose may not be literally applicable in such a sphere, but we may at least say that just 'from the side of the Absolute' the meaning of the finite process must lie in the creation of a world of individual spirits; for to such alone can He reveal himself and from them receive the answering tribute of love and adoration.37 Pringle!Pattison did not so much argue for the identification of the concepts of God and the Absolute as assume it. In the passage quoted, as well as else- where in the book, he used the terms interchangeably. III. VAN TIL'S CRITIQUE OF IDEALISM 1. God and the Absolute. In his dissertation, "God and the Absolute," Van Til wrote against the view that Idealism provided a metaphysical de- fense of Christianity. In the introduction he clearly stated his thesis: I shall in this paper attempt to prove that the apparent similarity between Idealism and Christianity covers a fundamental diversity, that consequently 35 W. H. Moberly, "God and the Absolute," in Foundation: A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought, by Seven Oxford Men (ed. Β. H. Streeter; London: Macmillan, 1913) 423!524. 36 Ibid. 504!5. 37 Pringle!Pattison, The Idea of God 294!95. 566 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY we must make a choice between them and that the choice for Christianity is philosophically the more tenable. To do this it will be sufficient to take the pivotal conception of God which lies at the basis of all Christian theism and contend that it is the only conception that can offer a possible unity to human experience. The only alternative to belief in this God is scepticism.38 Several major themes that can be found throughout Van Til's writings were apparent in this brief statement. First, he clearly saw a similarity between Idealism and Christianity and thus felt free to make use of Idealist terms. However, he also saw a fundamental difference which prevented a straight- forward adoption of Idealism. Second, the basis of his apologetical system was already evident in that the Christian concept of God was said to be the only thing which could give unity (or meaning) to human experience. Third, he structured his argument to allow only two alternatives, Christianity and skepticism. The flow of the argument within the dissertation was first to delineate the position of Pragmatism, with the conclusion that it failed to give intellec- tual satisfaction or any grounding for the rationality of human experience, as Idealism had attempted to do. However, Pragmatism took seriously the human experience of time and change, as Idealism had been unable to do. Then Van Til gave a brief outline of Christian Theism as the position he defended.39 After that a lengthy analysis of Idealism followed, frequently noting its formal similarity with Theism, but also its ultimate divergence due to its differing underlying presuppositions. The final conclusion was that Christian Theism did justice to both the rationality of our experience and the reality of change and time in a way that the one-sided philosophies of Ideal- ism and Pragmatism did not, and could not, do. It would be useful to look at Van Til's procedure as well as his specific comments on Pragmatism and Idealism. In the opening pages he outlined his basic procedure: Beginning with the simplest of data Christian Theism contends that they imply the existence of an Absolute God. The origin, preservation, and destiny of the phenomenal world have their explanation in God only. Without the con- ception of a selfsufficient God our human experience would be meaningless. It is well to note at once the nature of the argument; it is transcendental and not formally logical.40 Thus he claimed to be using a "transcendental argument" rather than one based on formal logic. He stated that such an argument is indirect, based on arguing "from the impossibility of the opposite," and that it seeks for the presuppositions that make experience intelligible. Thus he went on to state, Our metaphysics cannot be more geometrici demonstrata [sic]: you cannot prove your position to anyone unless you have completely comprehensive knowledge 38 Cornelius Van Til, "God and the Absolute" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1927) 1-2. 39 For Van Til in his dissertation, Theism or Christian Theism referred to the general position of Reformed Orthodoxy regarding the doctrine of God. 40 Van Til, "God and the Absolute" 3. "Selfsufficient" and "Absolute" are used synonymously here; they both refer to the concept that God is not dependent on anything else in any way.