A Word from Bob  

You’re reading the first of a three-part blog mini-series on Cornelious Van Til and common grace.

In Part 2 (Cornelius Van Til on Common Grace: In His Own Words), I focus on Van Til’s beliefs about common grace and how they relate to the use or non-use of extra-biblical resources in biblical counseling.

In Part 3 (Cornelius Van Til: “Zombie-Infected”?), I highlight Van Til’s view of what contributions the non-Christian can make—including Van Til’s view of non-Christian psychology.

Here in Part 1, I’m focusing on a more specific issue:

Can biblical counselors legitimately follow the common grace teachings of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck? Or, as some claim, to be a true biblical counselor, must we only follow the teachings of Cornelius Van Til on common grace? 

Introducing Common Grace             

In Reformed Christian theology, unregenerate persons are totally depraved and all of their thinking is seen as under the noetic (mind) impact of sin and fallenness.

Yet, also in Reformed thinking, the unregenerate/unsaved person can make valid contributions to society, culture, the arts, research, science, and more.

How can these two truths be held together at one time?

The Reformed doctrine of common grace explains how we can maintain both truths. It also explains how to engage with and evaluate common grace resources using the lens/spectacles of God’s all-sufficient Word.

For the past two years, I’ve been re-studying common grace. I’ve collated quotes from leading Reformed theologians on common grace. I’ve collected all of that material into one free 120-page, 46,500-word PDF, which you can find here: Common Grace and Biblical Counseling: Wisdom from Reformed Theologians.

The Importance of Cornelius Van Til for Biblical Counselors 

Cornelius Van Til (May 3, 1895 – April 17, 1987) was a Dutch-American Reformed theologian, professor, and author. He is credited with being the originator of modern presuppositional apologetics. Both Jay Adams and David Powlison expressed the impact that Van Til’s writings had on their thinking (see: Presuppositional Counseling: An Introduction to Van Til’s Influence Upon Jay Adams by Jared Poulton).

In 1990, Adams reflected on the influence of Van Til on Adams’s foundational approach to counseling.

“At Westminster Theological Seminary, under the impetus of Cornelius Van Til’s insistence that every movement be examined presuppositionally according to the Scriptures, basic questions were asked concerning the foundations of the pastoral counseling movement and the teaching and practices forming an integral part of it” (“Reflections on the History of Biblical Counseling,” in Practical Theology and the Ministry of the Church, 1952–1984: Essays in Honor of Edmund P. Clowney, ed. Harvie M. Conn, 212).

The Importance of Van Til, Kuyper, and Bavinck for Biblical Counseling 

Some current biblical counselors have taken Van Til’s impact on Adam an additional unwarranted step. They claim that biblical counselors must exclusively follow Van Til’s teaching on presuppositionalism and on common grace, to the exclusion of the writings of other Reformed thinkers, including Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck.

If someone wanted to substantiate the claim that biblical counselors can only follow Van Til and not follow Kuyper and Bavinck, they would have to establish that Van Til argued that following Kuyper and Bavinck placed a Christian outside of Orthodoxy. In truth, the opposite is the case. For example, Van Til’s praise of Bavinck’s Reformed theology is emphatic:

“Herman Bavinck has given to us the greatest and most comprehensive statement of Reformed systematic theology in modern times” (An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 43, emphasis added).

Van Til consistently highlighted his indebtedness to and alignment with Kuyper and Bavinck. This is true in terms of Reformed theology, in terms of presuppositional apologetics, in terms of common grace, and in terms of natural theology.

Van Til’s Indebtedness to Kuyper and Bavinck for His Presuppositional Apologetics 

In his book, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Van Til notes that in developing his presuppositional Reformed apologetics he is “greatly indebted to the great Reformed dogmaticians of modern times, such as Charles Hodge, Thornwell, Dabney, Shedd, Kuyper, and especially Herman Bavinck” (5, emphasis added).

Mentioning Kuyper and Bavinck, Van Til acknowledges that,

“The greater part of what is presented here is due to the fact that the writer stands on the shoulders of the great Reformed thinkers mentioned above”—Kuyper and Bavinck (A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 23, emphasis added).

In speaking again of the foundation of his presuppositional apologetics, Van Til writes,

“And have I, following such a method, departed radically from the tradition of Kuyper and Bavinck? On the contrary, I have learned all this primarily from them. It is Kuyper’s Encyclopedie that has more than any other work in modern times, brought out the fact of the difference between the approach of the believer and of the unbeliever. It is Bavinck’s monumental work which set a ‘natural theology’ frankly oriented to Scripture squarely over against that of Romanis which is based on neutral reason” (A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 301, emphasis added). 

Van Til’s Own Assessment of Kuyper and Bavinck 

In Van Til’s book, Common Grace and the Gospel, he directly addresses his view of Kuyper and Bavinck. Notice Van Til’s high assessment of Kuyper and Bavinck, especially related to presuppositional thinking and common grace:

“It is well to emphasize again that it is from Kuyper, more than from anyone else in modern times, that we have learned to think concretely. Both on the question of the universal and on that of particular, Kuyper has taught us that we must build on our own presuppositions. In similar words I began my section on Bavinck by praising him for having shown, better than any one before him, the necessity of building up one’s theology from one basic principle, namely, Scripture” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 177, emphasis added).

Speaking of Kuyper and Bavinck as “Amsterdam” and speaking of B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge as “Old Princeton,” Van Til writes five pages (Common Grace and the Gospel, 214-218) about his common agreement with Kuyper, Bavinck, Warfield, and Hodge on seven essential, foundational theological convictions about common grace. He introduces these seven areas of essential agreement saying,

“Here then is, so far as I am now able to see, the direction in which we ought as Reformed Christians to travel” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 214).

Then Van Til detailed these seven areas of agreement on common grace (over five pages), which I will provide in introductory form:

1. “The foundation of the thinking of both the Amsterdam and the Old Princeton men was that which both derived via Calvin and from Paul, namely, the fact that God has unavoidably and clearly revealed Himself in general and special revelation….” (214).
2. “Both the men of Amsterdam and the men of Old Princeton agree that God has promulgated to mankind in Adam His will of command. He set before mankind the task of subduing the earth….” (215).
3. “Amsterdam and Old Princeton agree that the relation between the will of the decree and will of command cannot be exhaustively understood by man….” (215).
4. “Amsterdam and Old Princeton agree on the doctrine of sin….” (216).
5. “Amsterdam and Old Princeton agree on the doctrine of election….” (216).
6. “Amsterdam and Old Princeton agree on the genuine significance of human responsibility….” (216).
7. “Both Amsterdam and Old Princeton taught common grace as well as the common offer of the gospel to the generality of mankind….Therefore, also through common grace the natural man is enabled to do good works….” (217).

That’s five pages of detailed, minute, specific essential theological alignment between Van Til and Kuyper/Bavinck. Van Til penned these specifically to disprove that he was out of alignment with Kuyper and Bavinck.

Speaking of his views of the theistic proofs, Van Til notes his, “close adherence to the Old Princeton and the Amsterdam [Kuyper/Bavinck] theology…. Happily I do so in view of the theology that I have learned from Old Princeton and Amsterdam [Kuyper/Bavinck]” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 223, emphasis added).

Writing in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (1960), Van Til specifically aligns himself with Bavinck’s definition of common grace.

“The doctrine of common grace, says Herman Bavinck, enables one to recognize and appreciate all that is good and beautiful in the world while at the same time holding to the absolute character of the Christian religion. Whereas special grace regenerates the hearts of men, common grace: (1) restrains the destructive process of sin within man in general and (2) enables men, though not born again, to develop the latent forces of the universe and thus make a positive contribution to the fulfillment of the cultural mandate given to men through the first man, Adam, in paradise” (Cornelius Van Til, “Common Grace,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Carl F. H. Henry, 1960, 131, emphasis added).

While acknowledging some disagreement over the minutia on common grace, Van Til strenuously disputes the notion that he disagrees with the root of their theology—calling Kuyper and Bavinck “great theologians.” He explicitly associates himself with Bavinck’s description of common grace. For any biblical counselor today to claim that a fellow biblical counselor was not a real biblical counselor because instead of following Van Til they follow Kuyper or Bavinck, is to go against Van Til’s own assessment.

Van Til’s Alignment with Kuyper and Bavinck Against “Natural Theology” 

In today’s biblical counseling discussions, there is debate about whether Van Til saw Kuyper and Bavinck aligning with his opposition to Catholic natural theology. Van Til addresses this in detail.

Van Til unambiguously affirms his alignment with Kuyper and Bavinck in their mutual opposition to Catholic natural theology.

“It is therefore the essence of Protestantism, and in particular of the Reformed theology to reject the ‘natural theology’ of Rome. Kuyper and Bavinck have done so in no uncertain terms” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 220, emphasis added).

“Now both Kuyper and Bavinck, following Calvin, insist again and again that we shall break with the natural theology of Rome. They insist that a true natural theology is a frank interpretation of nature by means of the principle of interpretation that is taken from Scripture” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 65).

Van Til further explicitly affirms Bavinck’s rejection of “Rome’s” (Catholic) thinking on natural theology:

“But Rome’s natural theology, he [Bavinck] argues, is illegitimate. Its natural theology is attained by natural reason without reference to Scripture. Against such a position, Bavinck firmly asserts that theology must be built upon the Scriptures only” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 56, emphasis added).

Van Til also openly aligns with Kuyper regarding natural theology, the natural man, and knowledge of God.

“I took my position with Kuyper rather than with Hodge and Warfield…. Kuyper was surely right in stressing that the natural man does not, on his principles, have any knowledge of the truth” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 212).

To say that Van Til was a “detailed theologian” is an understatement. Van Til was notorious for digging into the minutia of theological arguments, and for placing himself in the “Goldilocks Zone” of perfect balance between everyone else who was either to the “left” or the “right” of himself. So, yes, Van Til did distinguish some of his application of teachings on presuppositional apologetics, common grace, and natural theology from some of the applications made by Kuyper and Bavinck on these matters. However, Van Til never claimed that alignment with Kuyper and Bavinck on these issues put someone outside Reformed thinking. In fact, as we have seen, Van Til greatly praised both Kuyper and Bavinck.

A Letter on Common Grace 

In Common Grace and the Gospel, Van Til includes a 50-page “Letter on Common Grace.” Van Til wrote this letter to dispute fellow Reformed theologian William Masselink’s contention that Van Til’s view of common grace was aligned against Kuyper and Bavinck. Here’s Van Til’s pointed response:

“The second point [of Masselink] is calculated to make the reader think that my disagreement with these great theologians [Kuyper and Bavinck] goes to the root of their theology…. Well, has there been in anything I have ever said or written as much as an insinuation that the root of their thinking was not from the Bible?” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 177, emphasis added).

Van Til specifically writes this letter to prove that his views are not in rebellion against the views of Kuyper and Bavinck.

“My main purpose in this letter is to seek to remove some misunderstandings that have developed with respect to my views” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 171).

“My position is reported to be a part of a reconstruction theology, a theology of rebellion against the views of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck of Holland” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 170).

Van Til also wrote to dispute Masselink’s contention that Van Til’s teaching meant that Christians could learn nothing from non-Christians. Van Til is writing specifically to prove that he does believe that Christians can use the results of the scientific work of non-Christians:

“Dear Friend: Recently you wrote me asking about my views on common grace. You remarked that somebody had made a statement in your hearing that if he were to take my position on common grace he did not see how he could make any use of the results of the scientific work of those who are not Christians. This gentleman apparently got the impression that on my view the non-believer must be thought of as being unable to discover any truth at all of any sort in any field” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 169).

“I am said to hold to an ‘absolutist position,’ a posting that involves ‘intellectual Anabaptism,’ a position that is out of accord with the Reformed confessions, which speak of the ‘natural light’ that remains in men after the Fall and of the ‘remnants’ of knowledge of God and of morality that they still possess” (Common Grace and the Gospel, 170).

Van Til on Bavinck: An Assessment by Brian G. Mattson 

In the Spring 2008 issue of the Westminster Theological Journal, Brian G. Mattson wrote, “Van Til on Bavinck: An Assessment” (WTJ 70:1 (Spring 2008)). While indicating areas of distinction, Mattson also noted many areas of admiration.

“Cornelius Van Til wrote that ‘Herman Bavinck has given to us the greatest and most comprehensive statement of Reformed systematic theology in modern times,’ an indication of his great admiration for the Dutch theologian” (112, emphasis added).

“References to Bavinck abound in Van Til’s works, and even where absent, the deep impressions made by Bavinck’s four-volume Gereformeerde Dogmatiek are evident in Van Til’s theological writings. He appreciated Bavinck’s commitment to truth and his ability to learn from others” (112).

Quoting Van Til: “‘[Bavinck] was deeply concerned to make the Christ of the Scripture speak to his age. In this sense he was a truly modern theologian. He studied the development of modern philosophy and science with great care. He knew that true unity of thought and harmony of life could come to man only if he made every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. But he also knew that those who did not center their life and thought in Christ had, in spite of this, much to teach him. As a true Protestant he learned much from Romanism and as truly Reformed he honored Luther. Bavinck’s magnum opus shows true catholicity of spirit as well as unswerving loyalty to the truth as he saw it’” (112, emphasis added).

Mattson continues,

“Van Til admired Bavinck not only for his erudition and catholicity, but also for his character: ‘Humble before God and courteous to his fellow-man, Bavinck always refused to compromise his Saviour whose voice he heard in the Scriptures’” [quoting Van Til) (112).

Mattson summarizes his thinking:

“One other feature of this article is noteworthy, and that is, in spite of Van Til’s personal reservations he defends Bavinck against attacks by those whom he deems of a less-than-Reformed persuasion. This recurring motif provides a glimpse into something of Van Til’s ‘relationship’ to Bavinck, though there is no indication the two ever met: a younger brother may criticize the older, but is quick to defend when a perceived interloper does the same. This explains why he often seems comparatively reluctant to criticize Bavinck… Might one suspect that Van Til at bottom realized that Herman Bavinck was, in fact, the one theologian closest to his own views?” (116, emphasis added).

“Bavinck is the one Reformed theologian intellectually closest to Van Til” (123).

Interestingly, on those occasions when Van Til does critique Bavinck, Mattson repeatedly documents from primary sources that Van Til misunderstood or mischaracterized Bavinck (see pages 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126). Some examples:

“Bavinck’s actual discussion of the theistic proofs reveals that Van Til is rhetorically carried away with himself” (123).

“Van Til seizes on an infelicitous comment and proceeds to paint what can only be called a caricature” (124).

“Van Til again confuses a question of style with a question of principle” (126).

“Van Til’s superficial and at-times uncharitable reading of Bavinck is unfortunate” (126).

Mattson writes in his conclusion: 

“If this article establishes anything it is the deep affinity in their theological instincts. Van Til never had an intellectual ‘friend’ like Herman Bavinck. The fact that he sometimes failed to realize it is no reason for contemporary readers of Bavinck to do likewise. One hopes that those whose apologetic sympathies lie with Van Til, yet have new opportunity to study Herman Bavinck in English, might do so without Van Til’s often needless and excessive reservations; instead, may they eagerly and expectantly mine what truly is ‘the greatest and most comprehensive statement of Reformed systematic theology in modern times’” (126, emphasis added).

WWCT?: What Would Cornelius Think?—Van Til, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Biblical Counselors 

So, yes, Van Til’s approach to presuppositional apologetics and to common grace was not 100% identical to the approaches taken by Kuyper and Bavinck.

So, no, Van Til would not tell biblical counselors that they were not “real” biblical counselors if they studied and derived application from Kuyper and Bavinck.

No, Van Til would not call you a “so-called biblical counselor” or a “neo-integrationist biblical counselor” for studying and deriving application from Kuyper and Bavinck.

No, Van Til would not judge or mischaracterize your motives as “an instinct to integrate because of your fascination with psychology and your frustration with Scripture” for studying and deriving application from Kuyper and Bavinck.

So, yes, you can be a member of the modern biblical counseling movement and study and derive application about presuppositional apologetics and common grace from Cornelius Van Til, and/or Abraham Kuyper, and/or Herman Bavinck.

WDSS?: What Does Scripture Say? 

I believe in the value of church history. I believe in the value of biblical counselors learning from church history—this is why I’ve written three books and one Ph.D. dissertation on church history and biblical counseling. I believe it is wise and humble to check our interpretations of Scripture against that great cloud of historical witnesses—the great Christian theologians of the faith throughout 2,000 years of church history. I believe it is wise and humble to build our approach to biblical counseling in community—with the iron sharpening collaborative work of a multitude of counselors—both past and present. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) is not Sola Me (my interpretation of Scripture alone).

That said, in our discussions regarding what theologians biblical counselors can legitimately follow, we do have to be careful lest we end up with Sola Van Til, or Sola Jay Adams, or Sola David Powlison, or Sola Bavinck, or Sola Kuyper. While we stand on the shoulders of these leaders; they are human. Their interpretations of Scripture are not Scripture. Their application of the Bible to life is not the Bible.

Biblical counseling is a movement built on the sufficiency of Scripture. We must be careful lest we convey the idea of “the sufficiency of Cornelius Van Til,” or “the sufficiency of Jay Adams.” What if we could prove that Jay Adams only followed Van Til, and that Van Til said we cannot follow Bavinck/Kuyper? So what?

We do not build our model on Jay Adams or Cornelius Van Til.

We are not bound by the opinion of Van Til about Kuyper and Bavinck.

We are not bound by the heavy, cumbersome traditions of men (Matthew 23:1-39).

We do not let go of the Word of God and hold on to human traditions (Mark 7:1-13).

We do not nullify the Word of God for the sake of human traditions (Matthew 15:1-20).

We are bound by Scripture. Our conscience is captive to the Word of God. We assess Adams, Powlison, Van Til, Kuyper, Bavinck, and our own interpretations by Scripture. After all, we are seeking to be “biblical counselors,” not “Jay Adams counselors,” or “Cornelius Van Til counselors.”