David’s Moon objection to Van Til in his Master’s Thesis “Reforming Virtue”

There’s a thesis for a Master’s in Theology over at Southern Seminary that seems fascinating titled “Reforming Virtue: Bavinck’s Method of Engaging with Virtue Ethics from a Reformed Perspective” by David Moon.  It was completed in December 2022.

I want to examine something in the thesis that was critical of Presuppositionalism and its founder, Cornelius Van Til.

If you read this blog you know that I subscribe to Presuppositional Apologetics.  I won’t be rehearsing what Presuppositional Apologetics is but check out here for a compact definition and here for a lists of many lectures and of those many messages check out Apologetics: What Would Jesus Do? 4 Messages if you can’t decide

While I want to comment about the author’s thoughts on Van Til and Presuppositionalism I want to also say there’s things that one can learn from in the thesis and in no way should this post be seen as a dismissal of everything that’s written in the thesis.

The part I want to respond to is found on pages 2-3:

Within Reformed apologetics, the debate on the relationship between special and general revelation has led to an ever-widening rift between evidentialists and presuppositionalists. The former affirms the value of natural theology per Anselm and Aquinas and applies it to the defense of the faith. The latter consists of those who view any reliance upon evidences outside of the framework of God’s self-revelation in Scripture as erosive to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the self-attesting nature of Revelation. 7 In particular, Van Til explains why natural reasoning cannot arrive at an accurate notion of God:

Here’s his quotation of Van Til, which is from page 133 of Van Til’s Introduction to Systematic Theology:

In the first place, when men say that we can reason from nature to nature’s God, they usually take for granted that nature as it exists today is normal, and that the human mind which contemplates it is normal. This is not true. Nature has had a veil cast over it on account of the sin of man, and the mind of man itself has been corrupted by sin. Accordingly, we must not, now that sin has entered into the world, separate natural theology from theological psychology. After sin has entered the world, no one of himself knows nature aright, and no one knows the soul of man aright. How then could man reason from nature to nature’s God and get anything but a distorted notion of God?

From this quote from Van Til, David Moon concludes:

However, J. V. Fesko has specifically argued that in taking such a position which renders natural theology worthless and rejects the doctrine of general revelation, the Van Tillian camp more closely resembles a Christianized version of German Idealism rather than the historic Reformed tradition

I think the thesis here is problematic in not handling Van Til carefully.  I think also there’s statements given here that does not follow from the evidence.

Here’s my take:

1. The author gave a footnote for the sentence “The latter consists of those who view any reliance upon evidences outside of the framework of God’s self-revelation in Scripture as erosive to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the self-attesting nature of Revelation.”  That footnotes states “For the position that natural theology and evidences cannot be a neutral ground upon which the defense of the faith can be conducted see Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, ed. K. Scott Oliphint, 4th ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008); Greg Bahnsen and K. Scott Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles & Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013).”  Greg Bahnsen did not author Covenantal Apologetics with K. Scott Oliphint; that’s Oliphint’s book he wrote himself without a coauthor.  That’s an error with his footnoting.
2. From the quote from Van Til’s Introduction to Systematic Theology, David Moon concludes “in taking such a position which renders natural theology worthless and rejects the doctrine of general revelation.”  Van Til did not reject the doctrine of general revelation from that quote.  In fact any serious readers of Van Til will know he never rejected general revelation, but argues instead for the organic unity of general revelation and special revelation.  For an excellent nuanced discussion of the relationship of general and special revelation in Van Til’s theology see his famous essay “Nature and Scripture” here.
3. From point 2 what Moon does here is equivocating natural theology as Van Til used the term, as the same thing as general revelation.  The two are not the same thing (general revelation is defined as what God has objectively revealed about Himself in God’s creation and creatures; natural theology here is used to refer to the study of general revelation that does not take into account of man’s theological psychology with the implication of man’s sinful noetic effect impacting on that endeavor).  One can have a flawed natural theology since man is sinful; and yet God in His act of revealing Himself through general revelation is without flaw. Rejection of a flawed theological method undergirding a type of natural theology does not mean a dismissal of general revelation.
4. If one read Van Til’s quote carefully again one sees that it is not a total dismissal of human engagement with general revelation in of itself, but in the following instance: “we must not, now that sin has entered into the world, separate natural theology from theological psychology.”  So its strange that Moon concludes Van Til “renders natural theology worthless,” unless Moon thinks all natural theology must be done in a vacuum from theological psychology, and divorced from consideration of the state of man.  But then the burden of proof is on him to argue why that’s a good idea why natural theology should be divorced from consideration of theological psychology of man, and it seems suspect that we should not consider the state of the knower who is involved epistemologically with knowledge of general revelation.
5. Moon’s conclusion about Van Til’s view of natural theology and general revelation “more closely resembles a Christianized version of German Idealism.”  But Van Til was highly critical of Idealism; see his book Christianity And Idealism.  Moon acknowledges in the footnote that Van Til did not fully subscribe to Idealism and that Van Til was at times critical of it.  Moon cites J. V. Fesko as a secondary source to buttress his claim that Van Til resembles more German Idealism than Reformed Theology with regards to Van Til’s view of natural theology.  I appreciate Fesko’s scholarship in Christian theology such as his defense of justification by faith alone and other discussions about God’s Word but I do think Fesko’s dismissal of Van Til is highly problematic here.  Fesko’s book that Moon cited argues that from German Idealism we get historic worldview theory which was what Van Til adopted.  James Anderson has done a very good analysis of Fesko’s argument from Fesko’ chapter where Anderson demonstrates Fesko’s claims that Van Til’s thoughts parallel with that of German does not follow and remains unsubstantiated or lack acknowledgement of important Van Tillian nuances.  See his post here.
6. Later in the same paragraph on page 4 Moon states there’s a “rift between special and general revelation as represented in the conflict between evidential and presuppositional apologetics” but I thought it was ironic that its not Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics that has a rift between special and general revelation but Moon who dismiss Van Til, even though Van Til thinks there’s not a rift between general and special revelation, that God’s Word in the Bible gives us input that has implications for understanding nonbeliever’s misuse and misunderstanding about himself in evaluating General revelation and also his actual conclusions from considering General Revelation.

I think this is a case of someone trying to blow from one’s lung to try to take down the brick house of Biblical Apologetics.

Advertisement