A Word from Bob
You’re reading Part 3 of a three-part blog mini-series on Cornelius Van Til and common grace. You can read Part 1 here: Van Til, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Biblical Counselors: An Assessment. You can read Part 2 here: Cornelius Van Til on Common Grace: In His Own Words.
Here in Part 3, we focus on how some within the modern biblical counseling world might assess Van Til—if they treated his writings the same way they treat the writings of their fellow biblical counselors today.
Of Zombies and the Trojan Horse of Common Grace
In May of 2024, Heath Lambert began a series of podcasts on zombie-infected biblical counselors. You can find one of my responses to Heath’s posts here: Engaging Publicly with Heath Lambert’s Public Writings: Part 2: Hearing Heath.
It is Heath’s contention that many in the modern biblical counseling movement have been “infected” by the “zombie virus” of secular psychology. In a later podcast, Heath sought to connect his “zombie” imagery to the language of Ephesians 2, where the unsaved are pictured as dead in sin, and the language of Ephesians 4, where unsaved thinking is pictured as darkened understanding. Throughout his series of podcasts, Heath and his colleagues at First Baptist Church Jacksonville claimed that some biblical counselors were smuggling secular psychology into the church through the Trojan Horse of a false application of the doctrine of common grace.
Heath Lambert: A Catalyst for Further Study
Both Jay Adams and David Powlison often spoke of using writings, even of unbelievers, as a catalyst for challenging the biblical counselor to return to Scripture to answer questions raised by secular thinking. Heath Lambert’s podcasts and writings have been a catalyst for me to delve more deeply into Scripture and church history regarding common grace.
Because Heath is raising vital questions for those of us in the modern biblical counseling movement, I have spent a good deal of time re-studying the doctrine of common grace. As part of that study, I’ve collated 30,000 words of quotes from leading Reformed theologians on common grace, which you can find here.
The Valid Question
I’ve been seeking to answer the question:
How have Reformed theologians applied the doctrine of common grace in relationship to the use of extra-biblical resources from non-Christians?
That’s the specific question we need to be asking. No one in the biblical counseling movement is denying the existence of the doctrine of common grace. Though some are, quite remarkably, suggesting that modern biblical counselors should redefine the historic doctrine of common grace. Francine Tan, writing for ACBC’s Journal of Biblical Soul Care, shockingly writes,
“Thus, I propose that biblical counselors ought to revisit how we define CG and make a few qualifications to the traditional Reformed view of CG” (JBSC, 8, no. 1, Spring 2024, 84).
Rather than redefine historic common grace, I want to know if we modern biblical counselors are applying the doctrine of common grace the way the Reformers like Calvin, Bavinck, Kuyper, Van Til, and Powlison applied it.
Did Reformed theologians so emphasize the antithesis of the noetic effect of sin that they refused to use common grace insights from non-Christians in their ministries?
Or,
Did Reformed theologians minister at the intersection of the noetic effect of sin and common grace, and, therefore, use common grace insights from non-Christians in their ministries?
John Calvin: “Integrationist”?
In John Calvin: “Integrationist”?, I was amazed to see how frequently Calvin affirmed specific examples of the philosophical psychology of non-Christians like Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, among others. Was Calvin, therefore, an integrationist? Was he zombie-infected?
No, Calvin was not a zombie-infected integrationist. Instead, Calvin believed that because of common grace, non-Christians could make contributions to fields like philosophy and psychology, and Christians could use the spectacles of Scripture to assess those potential contributions.
Calvin’s approach is similar to David Powlison’s view of using the “lens of Scripture” to assess potential common grace findings. See, David Powlison on Common Grace, Biblical Counseling and Secular Psychology.
Worldview Integration
I would not choose to use Lambert’s “zombie” imagery. However, I could agree that someone was “integrationist”:
If a person were building their comprehensive model/theory/theology of biblical counseling (people, problems, solutions) on common grace insights from non-Christian thinkers.
However, I do not see biblical counselors doing that. Instead, I see biblical counselors:
Building theologically-saturated models of biblical counseling and then using God’s Word to assess whether there are any common grace findings that might make any contribution to our ministries to embodied-souls. (For my thinking on this approach, see: 6 Biblical Counseling Convictions.)
It is my conviction that simply using common grace insights—assessed with Scripture—is not integration. If it were, then Van Til would be a zombie-infected integrationist.
CVT: Cornelius Van Til
Recently, I began re-reading Cornelius Van Til. (I started reading Van Til in 1978—before many current biblical counselors were even born.) Van Til is “the poster child” for many biblical counselors who claim that other biblical counselors are misusing common grace. Because it has been awhile since I had read Van Til, I didn’t know what I would find. Honestly, here’s what I thought I’d find:
Van Til never affirmed that non-Christians could make valid contributions to fields like psychology!
To my shock, I began finding Van Til making numerous statements about contributions that non-Christians can make to every field of study, including psychology.
Cornelius Van Til on Contributions from Zombie Psychologists
Cornelius Van Til is one of the most conservative Reformed theologians on the noetic effect of sin, total depravity, common grace, presuppositionalism, and apologetics. Yet, speaking of the “natural man” (the non-Christian, the unsaved person), Van Til explains,
“In principle he is hostile to God. But he cannot carry through his principle completely. He is restrained by God from doing so. Being restrained by God from doing so, he is enabled to make contributions to the edifice of human knowledge” (A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 22).
“The forces of creative power implanted in him are to some extent released by God’s common grace. He therefore makes positive contributions in science in spite of his principle and because both he and the universe are the exact opposite of what they, by his principles, thinks they are” (A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 22).
Is this just the hard sciences? No. It is fascinating what Van Til says in A Christian Theory of Knowledge (43-44) about how those who are dead in sin can discover truth about people and problems—the content of psychology.
“Thus the Christian apologist should, to be sure, look sympathetically into the efforts of men in general when they seek to analyze themselves and their problems. There will be no doubt elements of truth in such an analysis….”
“Just now we spoke of elements of truth that may be found in the non-Christian diagnosis of sin and evil…. Reformed theologians speak of this restraint upon mankind in general as due to common grace. The restraint of God upon fallen mankind enables it to help build the culture of the race….”
“In spite of what he does against God, he yet can and must work for God; thus he is able to make a positive contribution to human culture. Thus it comes to pass that they of whom Scripture says that their minds are darkened can yet discover much truth….”
“But in spite of being dead in sins, they can, because of God’s common grace, discover truth…. Fallen man knows truth and does morally good things in spite of the fact that in principle he is set against God.”
Consider what these primary source quoations teach us.
- Van Til taught that those who are dead in sin (Ephesians 2) with darkened understanding (Ephesians 4) can discover truth as they analyze people and problems—the content of psychology.
- Van Til taught that Christians “should look sympathetically” upon spiritually dead people who analyze people and their problems—zombie psychologists!
So, how should we view Van Til?
Should we label Van Til “zombie-infected”?
Or,
Should we label Van Til a “Conservative Reformed Theologian” who understands the intersection of the noetic effect of sin and God’s common grace and who assesses common grace findings with scriptural spectacles?
Covenant Keepers Using the Works of Covenant Breakers
Van Til labels Christians “covenant keepers” and non-Christians “covenant breakers.” What use can Christians make of non-Christian resources?
“The covenant keepers will make use of the works of the covenant breakers which these have been able and compelled to perform in spite of themselves. As Solomon used the cedars of Lebanon (1 Kings 5:8-10), the products of the rain and the sunshine that had come to the covenant breakers, and as he used the skill of these very covenant breakers for the building of the temple of God, so also those who through the Spirit of God have believed in Christ may and must use all the gifts of all men everywhere in order by means of them to perform the cultural task of mankind” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 138).
“The case is similar with respect to the knowledge of unbelievers and their ability to do that which is relatively good. The fact that they are in principle opposed to God and would destroy the very foundation of knowledge and ethics, yet, in spite of this, because of God’s common grace, they can discover much truth and do much good” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 190).
“Since sinners are not consistent, and have what is from their point of view an old man within them they can engage in science and in the general interpretation of the created universe and bring to light much truth. He can discover that which is true and usable for the Christian” (A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 294).
Like Calvin before him, Van Til goes far beyond an abstract doctrine of common grace. He moves to specific application—covenant keepers/Christians can and must make use of truth brought to light by covenant breakers/non-Christians—in science, in psychology, in culture…
Van Til did not limit the Christian use of non-Christian thinking to the “hard sciences” or to “earthly, inferior matters.” He saw value and even usefulness in secular philosophy.
“It should be carefully noted that our criticism of [the church’s use of Aristotle] does not imply that we hold it to be wrong for the Christian church to make formal use of the categories of thought discovered by Aristotle or any other thinker. On the contrary, we believe that in the Providence of God, Aristotle was raised up of God so that he might serve the church of God by laying at its feet the measures of his brilliant intellect” (A Survey of Christian Epistemology, In Defense of Biblical Christianity 2, 1969, 57).
“Brilliant intellect”…speaking of…Aristotle. God raised up a secular philosopher “so that he might serve the church of God….”
Dr. Jared Poulton on Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Secular Psychology
Biblical counselor, Jared Poulton, who wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on Van Til, notes several specific psychology-related contributions that Van Til commended. I’m sharing these, with Jared’s permission, from a larger section of material that Jared recently posted on Twitter/X.
“One of the most fascinating developments in the history of biblical counseling is the fact that very little attention has been given to Van Til’s own engagements with psychology. In my doctoral research here is what I found.”
“In Christian Theistic Evidences (200), Van Til ‘rejoices’ that non-Christians have ‘finally come to the study of the abnormal.’”
“Biblical counselors overlook the semi-positive recommendation of Freudian psychology in Van Til, since Van Til sees the ‘unconscious’ in Freud as consistent with the Calvinistic position that people are driven by forces that occur in the unconscious (Rom 1:18) (Christian Theistic Evidences, 197-198).”
“Since Christians and non-Christians share the same intellect, ‘there may be territories in the field of science where the unregenerate and the regenerate consciousness may cooperate’ (Unpublished Manuscripts, Logos).”
“As one example where the unregenerate and regenerate consciences may cooperate, Van Til lists, ‘in the collection of sense material, also in the somatic aspects of psychological science, and thirdly in logic, for the laws of reason have not been abrogated.’ Clearly Christians and non-Christians can cooperate in some of the bodily/somatic aspects of the psychological sciences.”
“In Van Til’s lectures on the Psychology of Religion (1-3), he provides the following charge to pastors: ‘Ministers of the gospel should have a knowledge of a sound psychological approach to men. . . . We see then that as Christian ministers we can no doubt learn something from the technique of the modern school of psychology of religion. We should always be thankful for any improvement in the technique of handling men that any one offers us.’”
Dr. Poulton ends his thread with these words:
“Biblical counselors may disagree with Van Til, but we should at least read Van Til correctly.”
Poulton goes even further in his dissertation, Reforming Counseling: The Adaptation of Van Tilian Concepts by Jay Adams. Poulton writes, “Van Til’s writings reveal an undisputable reality—Van Til would have disagreed with Adams’s assessment of psychology” (270). He continues:
“While Adams uses Van Tilian presuppositions to argue that Christianity and secular psychology are fundamentally incompatible because of their conflicting presuppositions, Van Til’s writings reflect both a critical and positive application of presuppositional analysis to the psychological disciplines” (271).
“In chapter 8 and chapter 9 of Christian Theistic Evidences, Van Til addresses the topic of general psychology and the psychology of religion. Within these chapters, Van Til demonstrates a comfortable command over psychology within its historic and modern forms, utilizing a faculty psychology to describe human nature while evaluating modern developments, such as the growth of child psychology and abnormal psychology. Most notably, he provides quite a different take than Adams on the developments within the psycho-analytic tradition, affirming that Freud, Adler, and Jung have ‘good elements.’ Van Til does not write as one who believes that secular psychology has nothing to offer Christians. Rather, he references the ‘good things’ accomplished by secular psychology despite his critiques. Van Til even argues that modern psychoanalytic psychology, having shown that ‘the individual’s conscious life is dominated by drives that come up from his unconscious life,’ is consistent with Calvinism, since it explains the suppression of the truth of God in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). ‘Scripture,” Van Til asserts, “is full of the idea of the subconscious. . . . The church has never limited personal responsibility to the selfconscious activity of man’” (270-271).
Free from the influence of Thomas Szasz, O. H. Mowrer, and the anti-psychiatry movement, Van Til views psychology as a legitimate science…. Van Til recognizes that non-Christians have legitimate aid to offer Christians and pastors in the ‘technique of handling men.’ It appears that, according to Cornelius Van Til, secular psychologists can serve as servants, not architects, in the building of the spiritual temple of God (1 Pet 2:5)” (274).
Poulton concludes his comparison of Van Til and Adams’s views of psychology with this penetrating assessment.
“The logic of Adams’s theological analysis also provides little room for the recognition of any knowledge among non-Christians. Furthermore, Adams’s application of presuppositional analysis goes beyond Van Til’s assessment of psychology. Adams rejects the methods and insights of secular psychology and psychiatry because of their foundational principles. Van Til remains open to the insights of secular psychology” (274).
Again, does this make Van Til—upon whom Adams built his presuppositional approach to counseling—“zombie-infected”? Or, does it show that even the most theologically conservative Reformed theologian(s) see God’s common grace at work even within the realm of psychology?
Van Tillian Biblical Counselors
I would add to what Jared says. If we read our fellow biblical counselors correctly—in light of Van Til—then:
We should not call them “zombie-infected neo-integrationists.”
Instead, we should call them “Van Tillian biblical counselors.”
The Intersection of Grace and Sin
In our modern biblical counseling world, at times we oversimplify theology. This is true with our discussions of common grace. We simplistically pit two concepts against each other: the noetic effect of sin and common grace.
However, Van Til (and Calvin, Bavinck, and Kuyper) interacted about the intersection of several interrelated concepts:
- On the one hand, they considered multiple overlapping theological concepts such as sin, the spiritual antithesis, the noetic effect of sin, total depravity, the darkened minds of those who are dead in sin, etc.
- On the other hand, they also considered multiple overlapping theological concepts such as grace, common grace, the imago Dei, the Creation Mandate, creation, nature, general revelation (the book of nature), the book of conscience (Romans 2), God’s providence, God’s affectionate sovereignty in providentially maintaining human society, etc.
Van Til frequently addresses this complexity. For example:
“In practice, therefore, the man of the street is a complex individual. He is first the creature made in the image of God. He is now in principle opposed to God. He is dead in trespasses and sins…. But he does not live fully from his principle. Therefore he does not react in the exclusively negative way that we would expect him to, if we look at the principle that ultimately controls him. Like the prodigal of the scriptural parable he cannot forget the father’s voice and the father’s house…. On the one hand he will do the good, in the sense of that which externally at least is in accord with the will of God. He will live a good moral life. He will be anxious to promote the welfare of his fellow men” (A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 225).
“It is therefore of the utmost importance to distinguish between what the natural man is by virtue of his adopted principle and what he still is because of the knowledge of God as his creator that he has within him and because of the non-saving grace by which he is kept from working out his principle to the full and by which he is therefore also able to do the morally good” (A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 225-226).
Just as Christians never live in perfect consistency with the new person we are in Christ, so the non-Christian never lives in perfect consistency with the old person they are without Christ. The natural man is always also the man created in the image of God and the man influenced by the common grace of God. The natural man can never fully suppress the consciousness of God and can never fully resist the common grace of God. Therefore:
- The non-Christian—under the control of God’s sovereign common grace—can discover truth.
- The Christian—under the control of God’s sovereign saving grace—assesses common grace findings under the control of God’s all-sufficient Word.
Oh the Riches of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God!
In saving grace, we know that where sin abounds, grace superabounds (Romans 5:20). Likewise, in common grace, where sin abounds, common grace superabounds. God’s sovereign plans will never be thwarted. God’s common grace will never be thwarted.
Saving grace glorifies God, rather than glorifying the Christian. So also, common grace glorifies God, rather than glorifying the non-Christian.
“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (Romans 11:33).
