But the essentially scholastic or Romanist procedure on the matter of the application of some abstract system of logic to the facts of experience is followed even by some Reformed theologians. This is done particularly in the field of apologetics. We therefore touch on the matter very briefly here. (Introduction to Systematic Theology, 301)

Perhaps we can clarify this whole matter by contrasting the scholastic procedure, with respect to finding knowledge of God, to that which we have here advocated as being the consistently Christian procedure. To do this, we may conveniently turn to the work of a modern Catholic philosopher. We take the work of P. Coffey on Ontology, in order to see what he says with respect to the being-of God. We quote a portion of his chapter, “Being and Its Primary Determinations.” (ibid, 328)

Scholastic theology indulged its speculative tendency when it spoke of a lumen gloriae by which man is supposed to be lifted out of his creatural limitations in the life hereafter in order that he may have a large measure of insight into the very being of God. (ibid, 370)

These are just three examples from one text of Van Til’s writings, but they are fairly representative. This means that Van Til was not against or critical of “scholasticism” as such. Scholasticism, rightly demonstrated by the Muller school, is primarily a method of organizing and presenting content. It need not necessarily carry with it particular content. So for example Thomas was a scholastic in that he organized his material in a systematic way and in a way that was intended to instruct and convince. Francis Turretin was a scholastic in this same way. Yet no one in their right mind would ever confuse Turretin for Thomas in terms of context. Turretin and Thomas both used a scholastic method, but their theology couldn’t be more different.

What Van Til goes after are medieval theological systems which compromise Christianity with pagan thought. He does not go after “scholasticism” as such, much less Reformed scholasticism. For him to have done so would have been to bite the hand that feeds him. After all, no one influenced Van Til’s theology more than Vos and Bavinck. And Vos and Bavinck were very dependent upon Reformed scholasticism for their theological insights. They generally do not adopt the scholastic method, but they do adopt Reformed scholastic theological content. We may speak similarly about Old Princeton. Old Princeton feasted upon the meat of Francis Turretin’s great systematic theology Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Van Til received that theology from his professors at Princeton. As we have noted in a previous post Van Til disagreed with his professors’ apologetic, but not their theology. He believed that their apologetic was too influenced by a synthesis with modern thought which was reminiscent of Thomas’s synthesis with Aristotle. It is that synthesis which he often dubs “scholastic.”

But it must be made clear that Van Til in no way rejected, but rather upheld, Reformed scholasticism (also called Reformed orthodoxy). Van Til often criticized other systems of thought over against Reformed scholasticism/Reformed orthodoxy. Reformed orthodoxy stood with Calvin’s thought over against Rome and Barthianism, so he can say: “There is less appreciation for Barth’s Christ as act in Calvin and in Reformed orthodoxy than there is in Romanism” (Christianity & Barthianism, 89).

This is just one example among others. But the idea is finally and ultimately established by how Van Til uses the expression “Reformed orthodoxy” in his criticisms of Karl Barth. Where he quotes Barth and polemicizes against him (see for example footnote 25 in A Christian Theory of Knowledge, pp. 363-365) Barth uses the language of Reformed orthodoxy and Reformed scholasticism interchangeably to describe the same theological phenomenon, namely Reformed theology in the 17th century. It is the Reformed scholasticism of the 17th century that Barth attacks and which Van Til defends. Again, Van Til is not concerned to defend Reformed scholasticism’s method (Van Til himself did not use this method), but rather Reformed scholasticism’s theological content.

What is the upshot of all this? Van Til should not be used by us today to reject “scholasticism” as such and with a sweeping wave of the hand. Nor should we blame Van Til for today’s depreciation of scholasticism. And what is more, perhaps, we should not think that “Calvin and the Calvinists” appropriated pagan sources the same way medieval scholastics did. Van Til was very critical of how the medievals synthesized Christianity and pagan thought, but did not see the same kind (or the same level) of synthesis among Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy. Van Til, after all, is dependent (albeit mediated by others) upon the theology of Reformed scholasticism, even as he is critical of medieval forms of scholasticism.

But I was recently surprised by Van Til while reading Common Grace and the Gospel.  There he writes:

As for “Old Princeton Theology” in the booklet on Common Grace, I have scarcely referred to it. Elsewhere I have expressed disagreement with its apologetics. In this I was following Kuyper. But never have I expressed a basic difference with its theology or its basic epistemology. (p. 177)

In context Van Til is defending himself against a number of charges leveled against him by William Masselink. Masselink asserts that Van Til disagrees with Old Princeton (among others such as Kuyper, Hepp, etc.) on the matter of epistemology. And here Van Til retorts that while he does disagree with Old Princeton on apologetics, he does not disagree “with its theology or its basic epistemology.”

This surprised me, in part, because I have always thought of Van Til’s criticism of Old Princeton as a criticism—first and foremost—of its epistemology. Of special interest here is what Van Til says about Warfield’s notion of “right reason” (for example in Defense of the Faith, 350). Is Van Til’s criticism against Warfield’s notion of how the unbeliever knows, or against his approach to the unbeliever apologetically? Or is it both?

I won’t try to answer that question here. But, it seems to me, it is awfully difficult to separate out Warfield’s idea of “right reason” (which seems to be an epistemological issue) from his apologetic method. Is Van Til being completely consistent with himself here?

Again, I raise the question not to answer it here. It seems the answer would be complex enough to warrant a longer study. Or, at the very least, it seems to warrant further discussion.

Now it’s your turn. Thoughts?

One text where the instinct for logical systematization reveals itself is 2 Thessalonians 2:13–14. Indeed, James Denney spoke of these verses as “a system of theology in miniature.”[ii] This is something of an overstatement, to be sure, for Paul’s interest here is concerned with the way in which salvation is applied. Yet the remark usefully highlights the unmistakeable nature of Paul’s impulse towards dogmatic theology. These statements naturally draw strong interest for the content of what Paul affirms here. My purpose here is more narrowly formal, however, limited to exploring the systematizing instinct in this passage, quoted from the NKJV:

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 2:13-14).

Paul has in mind the source, process, and culmination of salvation. Salvation takes its rise from God’s choice, is carried on through sanctification and belief (to which the Thessalonians were introduced by the gospel call), and reaches its goal in glory. It is quite clear, then, that the materials of the doctrine of salvation are being coherently correlated. There is thus an indication on the surface of this text of what could be called Paul’s “proto-dogmatics.”

Though it is apparent on the surface, it is far from superficial. Here Paul’s thought reflects a Trinitarian organizing principle. He speaks of God, the Spirit, and the Lord Jesus Christ, each of whom are particularly associated with an aspect of the Thessalonians’ salvation. Thus it is God (meaning especially the Father, as is usual in Paul) who has chosen them for salvation; that salvation is enjoyed through sanctification by the Spirit; and it culminates in obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This organizing principle is quite significant, for it shows that different loci in Paul’s dogmatics, to speak anachronistically, are inter-connected. Paul’s theology proper is basic for his conception of soteriology. It is quite likely the case that it was through God’s saving acts that Paul came to understand the nature of God,[iii] but that understanding of God then structured the way he spoke of salvation. Paul’s soteriology (and indeed, all of his doctrine) is profoundly theocentric and Trinitarian.

Yet this is no way created a rigid pattern capable of no versatility. On the contrary, one of the striking things about this short passage is precisely the place accorded to Christ. His saving work is not explicitly mentioned, but presupposed. Here Paul does not speak of Christ as the believer’s righteousness, or of Christ delivering us from wrath, or as dying for our sins, as he does in other texts. In this passage, Christ is rather held out as the goal which salvation ultimately reaches. The Thessalonians were chosen by the Father, sanctified by the Spirit, and called by the Gospel for the great end of obtaining the glory of Jesus Christ. The expression of Paul’s dogmatic impulse, then, reveals flexibility as well as form.

Notice, moreover, the perspective from which soteriology is viewed. Paul can explain the aspects of salvation from the standpoint of what the Thessalonians are experiencing. God’s choice of them for salvation has come to expression in the Spirit’s work and their belief of the truth. Those realities entered their lives through the calling received by means of the gospel (which in practical terms refers to the proclamation of the gospel message). Whereas in Romans 8:29–30 Paul would lay down the golden chain of an ordo salutis proceeding in a logical order of means and ends, here his materials are treated somewhat differently. Again, the dogmatic impulse is not a straitjacket, but allows appropriate variety.

Finally, it should be noticed that Paul’s dogmatic impulse does not reflect a tendency to improper abstraction or merely theoretical concerns. Paul begins his miniature system of applied soteriology expressing his obligation to give thanks to the Lord. The materials of dogmatic theology led him to praise. There is no sense here that one could divorce ideas about God and his work from worship of him. Furthermore, the soteriology is followed up with a strikingly appropriate exhortation in v.15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” The doctrine of salvation undergirds and leads to the call for steadfastness. From this, as well as from the contextual contrast between Thessalonian believers and followers of the “lawless one” (v.8), it is clear that Paul expected doctrine to provide comfort also to believers. To be taught and developed properly, the enterprise of systematic theology should be undertaken for the strengthening of believers and out of love to the church.

It is true that Scripture itself does not offer us a systematic theology. But in 2 Thessalonians 2:13–14 and similar passages one sees the inevitable necessity of a coherent dogmatics, as well as many desiderata for the execution of the dogmatic task. Scripture does not give us a systematic theology, per se: but Scripture drives us to logically systematize the materials it gives, in a worshipful spirit, out of love, unto edification, and carrying out in practice the implications of the truths we coherently confess.

For Further Reading

Those interested in more about the need and place for systematic theology can consult, in addition to the various introductory sections to systematic or dogmatic theologies, two articles by B.B. Warfield, both found in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol 2 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1973):

• “The Right of Systematic Theology” (pp. 219–279)
• “The Indispensableness of Systematic Theology to the Preacher” (280–288)

[i] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1948), 16.

[ii] James Denney, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1892), 342.

[iii] Cf. the general argument to this effect by B.B. Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 2: Biblical Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 133–172, esp. 143–147.

But, while we believe in the centrality and primacy of Christ in all the church’s mission and theology, there is a sense (an all-important sense) in which we do not mean to speak of the centrality of Christ. Van Til points this up in his An Introduction to Systematic Theology:

Again, there is much in the Scriptures about Christ. After the entrance of sin into the world, Christ is the only way through whom God can be known. He is not only the one through whom we can more fully than otherwise know the Father; it is through him alone that we can come to the Father. Furthermore, Christ is God, so that when we know him we know God. In spite of all this it should always be remembered that Christ’s work is a means to an end. Even if we think of the fact that Christ is the second person of the Trinity, we ought still to remember that it is the full Godhead with whom we ultimately have to do and about whom, in the last analysis, we wish to know. Hence, theology is primarily God centered rather than Christ centered. (p. 16)

I think this is absolutely correct, and is a word of exhortation that theologians—especially today—need to heed. Especially in light of some contemporary attempts to find a new prolegomena and new starting point for doing systematic theology. Usually, these theologies purport to begin with the works of God—whether that be election, creation, the incarnation, or the Gospel, or even eschatology. But theology in general, and systematic theology in particular, must not begin with the works of God.

The intentions of those who want to begin somewhere upon the field of history and the works of God therein are admirable and understandable. Regular listeners of Christ the Center have heard us say time and again how important eschatology is, even invoking Vos’ great maxim: eschatology precedes soteriology. Listeners have heard us harp on the idea that pastoral and preaching imperatives must always be grounded in the indicative of the Gospel. So, why is theology not to be Christ-centered, or Gospel-centered, or grounded in eschatology?

Here Van Til’s answer is as helpful as it is simple: “Christ’s work is a means to an end.” We cannot confuse the absolute, necessary triune being of God with redemptive history. We need to understand both God’s necessary nature AND his works in redemptive history. But the two are not equally primal or important.

That is because God existed—as triune—before he elected, created, or was incarnate. God is necessary, we are not. With all reverence and fear we must even say that not even Jesus Christ—understood as the God-man—is necessary. The God-man is not necessary because creation and sin and redemption were not necessary. The God-man presupposes all those things. Likewise, God did not have to decree to do anything outside of himself (ad extra), he was perfectly content in himself (ad intra). Why was he content? He was content because, without even a thought about us, he is and enjoyed perfect love in the perichoretic relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If he never chose to elect or create or become incarnate he would have been perfectly content in and with himself. Everything he does ad extra is contingent and unnecessary. That means every work of God is always and only to the greater end of his own self-glorification. It is all to serve the triune God.

Therefore, we begin with God himself. He, as triune, is the ground of everything. He is the ground of election, creation, the incarnation, the Gospel, and eschatology. Without the self-contained ontological Trinity there can be no intelligible understanding of anything: not election, not creation, not the Gospel, not eschatology, nothing! So once again from An Introduction to Systematic Theology:

God, as self-sufficient, as the One in whom the One and the Many are equally ultimate, is the One in whom the persons of the Trinity are interchangeably exhaustive, is the presupposition for the intelligent use of words with respect to anything in this universe, whether it be the trees of the garden or the angels in heaven. (p. 180)

Since the triune God is the ground of all things, systematic theology (especially, but not just systematic theology) must begin here, and nowhere else. All true theology, then, has no one and no thing other than God himself at its center.

Finally, why this contemporary desire to begin with God’s acts? It is almost assumed today that to speak about the Trinity is to do speculative theology. It is too often presupposed (and orthodox theologians have allowed the presupposition to go unchallenged!) that talk about the existence, being, and nature of God is philosophical and not properly theological. It is true that in the history of theology the doctrine of God has been treated that way (i.e., as an object of philosophical/speculative study). But that method must be challenged. And Van Til does that for us here. No, beginning with the Trinity is not—and must not be—speculative. Why? Because the triune God of Scripture has directly revealed to us something of his eternal and everlasting nature. While he is eternal and we are not, and therefore we can never comprehend him, we can nevertheless know him truly (albeit in a limited and imperfect way). And we can know him truly, though not comprehensively, as the self-contained ontological Trinity. It is here—and nowhere else—where Van Til will begin his theology and his apologetic approach.