A Word from Bob 

You’re reading the first of a two-part blog mini-series on Cornelious Van Til and common grace. In Part 2, I’ll 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.

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 this…and explains why it is possible for Christians to learn from non-Christians.

Resources 

For the past two years, I’ve been re-studying common grace. I’ve collated quotes from leading Reformed theologians on common grace, which you can find here.

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).

Some current biblical counselors have taken this impact an additional—unwarranted—step, claiming 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. With that in mind, we’ll start our study of Van Til by highlighting his alignment with Kuyper and Bavinck.

Cornelius Van Til on Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck 

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 teachings on presuppositional apologetics and common grace from some of the teachings of Kuyper and Bavinck on these matters.

However, Van Til never claimed that alignment with Kuyper and Bavinck put someone outside Reformed thinking. In fact, as we shall see, Van Til greatly praised both Kuyper and Bavinck.

A Letter on Common Grace 

In Van Til’s book, Common Grace and the Gospel, he 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. In Van Til’s own words:

“My main purpose in this letter is to seek to remove some misunderstandings that have developed with respect to my views” (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” (170).

Van Til is writing specifically to prove that his views are not in rebellion against the views of Kuyper and Bavinck.

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” (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” (170).

Van Til on His View of Kuyper and Bavinck 

Dr. Masselink was a follower of Kuyper and Bavinck. Masselink argued that Van Til was aligned against Kuyper and Bavinck. Here’s Van Til’s response:

“The second point [of Masselink] is calculated to make the reader think that my disagreement with these great theologians 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?” (177).

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.” For any biblical counselor today to claim that a fellow biblical counselor was not a “real biblical counselor” because they follow Kuyper or Bavinck, is to go against Van Til’s own assessment.

Notice Van Til’s high assessment of Kuyper and Bavinck, especially related to presuppositional thinking:

“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” (177).

Speaking of Kuyper and Bavinck as “Amsterdam” and speaking of B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge as “Old Princeton,” Van Til writes five pages (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” (214).

Then Van Til detailed these seven areas of agreement (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, that Van Til penned specifically to disprove that he was out of alignment with Kuyper and Bavinck.

Speaking further of his alignment with Kuyper and Bavinck, Van Til explains,

“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” (220).

Speaking of his views of the theistic proofs, Van Til notes, “my 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]” (223).

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 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. 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. [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.’”

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).

Mattson summarizes:

“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?”

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

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.’”

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.