Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositionalist apologetic has often been understood as a critical rejection of the classical apologetic of Old Princeton stalwart Benjamin B. Warfield in favor of the viewpoint of Dutch statesman/theologian Abraham Kuyper. However, as Greg Bahnsen has pointed out, an accurate reading of Van Til qualifies this common assumption.¹

Of course Van Til is critical of Warfield and appreciative of Kuyper, but Van Til’s assessment of both Warfield and Kuyper is much more complex than a categorical rejection of Warfield and wholesale embrace of Kuyper would suggest. In fact, Van Til attempts to build on the strengths and eschew the weaknesses of both these two Reformed giants. Van Til provides a critical appropriation of both Warfield and Kuyper as he seeks to explicate his presuppositional approach to apologetics.

A clear understanding of Van Til’s relationship to, and appropriation of, the insights of both Warfield and Kuyper is essential to grasping Van Til’s method. Greg Bahnsen has said as much:

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.²

Bahnsen helps the student of Van Til with a descriptive analysis of Van Til’s appropriation of Warfield and Kuyper. My goal in this series of posts will be to offer a reading of the primary sources with the assistance of Greg Bahnsen.³ My method will be to first note Bahnsen’s schematic of Van Til’s critical appropriation of Warfield and Kuyper, then conduct a brief discussion of each point in Bahnsen’s analysis after which I will conclude with my own assessment of Van Til’s critical appropriation. In the end we will see that Van Til stood on the shoulders of giants, and because of that, was able to see farther and more clearly than the giants themselves.⁴

1 Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1999), 596-97.

2 Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 597. Italics are the author’s. Bahnsen tells us that the first reason for examining Van Til’s response to and evaluation of Kuyper and Warfield is that it will falsify the view that Van Til completely sided with Kuyper over against Warfield, a point already noted above.

3 In addition to Bahnsen’s encyclopedic Van Til’s Apologetic, I have examined the following sources, all but one of which Van Til cites in his critical appropriation of Kuyper and Warfield. For Abraham Kuyper’s insights, see his Principles of Sacred Theology (Trans. J. Hendrick De Vries. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980). This is a partial translation of Kuyper’s three volume Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid (a portion of vol. 1 and all of vol. 2 with an introduction by B. B. Warfield). For Warfield’s insights into apologetics, see his Introduction to Francis R. Beattie’s Apologetics in Benjamin B. Warfield: Selected Shorter Writings (Ed., John E. Meeter. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1970), 2: 93-105. Although not cited by Van Til, Warfield includes almost verbatim remarks from his Beattie introduction about Kuyper in his, A Review of De Zekerheid Des Geloofs, also found in Selected Shorter Writings, 2: 106-123, which is an interesting evaluation of Herman Bavinck’s The Certainty of Faith. Two further Warfield resources include his article, Apologetics, in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Studies in Theology (Ed., Ethelbert D. Warfield. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 9: 3-21 and The Real Problem of Inspiration, in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Revelation and Inspiration (ed., Ethelbert D. Warfield. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 1: 169-226. For Van Til’s assessment of Warfield and Kuyper, see his A Christian Theory of Knowledge (Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1969), 229-254 and The Defense of the Faith (3rd Edition. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1967), 260-299.

4 Van Til has made comments to this effect, Standing on the shoulders of Warfield and Kuyper we honor them best if we build on the main thrust of their thought rather than if we insist on carrying on what is inconsistent with their basic position. Then we are most faithful to Calvin and to St. Paul. Defense of the Faith, 299.