Here’s a doctoral dissertation that Southern Seminary has made available titled “Revelational Foundationalism: A Constructive Synthesis of the Epistemologies of Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga.” This is a treat for those into Presuppositional apologetics! The dissertation was written by Steven Adam Wilhoit and was completed on May 2022. Its neat to see his dissertation is available online for free.
Here’s an abstract:
Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga are titans in the arena of Christian philosophy. They both come from Dutch Reformed Calvinist traditions and studied under William Jellema at Calvin College. Yet, their approaches to philosophy are distinct, stemming from their different academic and social contexts. Sadly, they never seriously interacted with one another. Currently, a lacuna of scholarship exists integrating both philosophers together. I propose that a constructive synthesis of certain select philosophical and theological ideas of Plantinga and Van Til, as they are taken together and allowed to critically interact, provides a more robust Christian epistemology than either of them can deliver on their own.While some take Van Til to be an internalist, others still see some externalist criteria in his epistemology. Plantinga is explicitly an externalist. Plantinga’s externalism emphasizes how a person acquires knowledge while Van Til’s approach provides the grounds for all rationality, including the very possibility of externalism. Van Til has a deep biblical understanding of the noetic effects of sin. He explains these effects in such a way as to limit the ability of fallen man to understand anything truly, distinguishing knowledge in terms of epistemological and metaphysical. Plantinga affirms the reality of the noetic effects of sin. However, he accounts for the noetic effects as mostly limited to the subject matter of the knowledge of God. Van Til allows no epistemological common ground between unbeliever and believer while Plantinga believes there is vast agreement between the two depending on the subject matter. Van Til argues that the unbeliever relies on borrowed capital from the Christian worldview in order to reason intelligibly while Plantinga ties epistemic progress to properly functioning cognitive faculties. Van Til’s approach to apologetics centers on transcendental arguments and the necessary preconditions for rationality. Plantinga’s approach shows the self-defeating nature of evolutionary naturalism. Given Van Til’s distinction between metaphysically and epistemologically knowing, his understanding of how presuppositions function within one’s worldview, and Plantinga’s understanding of the necessary conditions for knowledge, general revelation is the foundation for metaphysical warranted true belief, and special revelation is the foundation for epistemological warranted true belief.
Thanks for the great resource. I am sure a lot of work went into the dissertation. Not an easy process.
Shalom!
Wow.
Now all I need to do is:
1. Locate the kick start on my brain and
2. Also locate that mental carburetor cleaner
Some of us don’t do will with early-morning Bible study.
This might be read after coffee. Plantinga and Van Til isn’t easy to understand for most people and this dissertation of how the two can be compatible is really awesome but might be a lot for many of us in the morning lol. Blessings to you sir!!!
I read the section on the Trinity and this looks like a very useful way to get to know Plantinga and Van Til by contrasting them with each other. In particular, agree with Van Til’s view: “The Trinity is necessary to solve the problem of the one and the many”.
Amen! I think Van Til is very helpful for applying the truth of the Trinity to the philosophical issues of the one and the many/particular&universals. Awesome that you went through the thesis. Blessings to you Frank!!!
Brother, I broke out in a rash when I attempted to read this intro. This is like taking a 4YO on the Cyclone roller coaster! Speaking of doctoral dissertations, I had De Chirico’s dissertation spiral bound at Staples yesterday and I started reading it last night. On page 16 he’s already referencing Van Til!!! Man, I’m in big, big trouble. I have 296 pp. to go and my head is already starting to spin.
Wow! I’m impressed he cited Van Til! Van Til isn’t always easy to understand but I think Van Til point of looking at false belief systems as a system is so important both to expose false teachings and also to critique with total destruction of a false belief system rather than piece-meal only refutations of one doctrine here and there. Now granted Van Til often notes and comments on the philosophical assumptions of RC’s metaphysics but every day Christian can benefit from his insight of the whole system is problematic in ways that are practical such as pointing out how false teaching such as when Catholic says we believe in grace too I think it’s helpful to say but what is the definition of grace (follow up: is it the same as biblical grace?) and how does grace fit in or undermined with other doctrines of Romanism. How is the rest of your day going??
Thanks for the good follow-up! Van Til is actually one of De Chirico’s main sources throughout this dissertation, along with Berkouwer, Donald Bloesch, David Wells, and…argh…John Stott, to get the ecumenical perspective.
Cut half the backyard and need to start a small wall-papering project that my wife wants me to do. I never wall papered before and don’t want to start. How does your Wednesday look?
Reblogged this on By the Mighty Mumford.
Van Til: He’s firm in the Word and doesn’t compromise
May we be the same
As he held to strong doctrinal convictions Van Til impacted many even outside Presbyterian circles
[…] Free PDF Apologetics’ Dissertation: Revelational Foundationalism: A Constructive Synthesis of the … […]
[…] 4.) Free PDF Apologetics’ Dissertation: Revelational Foundationalism: A Constructive Synthesis of the … […]
I hope we see more from the writer in the future
May the Lord raise future generation of Presuppositionalists!
Amen to that
For me personally Alvin Plantinga’s writing is hard to understand