Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 35:3 (Spring 1973)
Article: Crosscurrents
Author: Robert D. Knudsen

WTJ 35:3 (Spr 73) p. 303

Crosscurrents

Robert D. Knudsen

The collection of essays presented to Dr. C. Van Til and the responses he has made to them in the dedicatory volume celebrating his 75th birthday1 have touched issues of such fundamental importance that a continuation of the discussion is highly desirable. In fact, for anyone who wishes to labor in the spirit of Van Til’s reformational apologetics a firm grasp of certain of these problems has become a necessity. It is in the interests of furthering this discussion and of bringing into it a greater degree of understanding concerning my own contribution that I write what follows.

In the latter part of my essay2 there is a pointed summarization of certain lines of thought in Van Til followed by four questions that arise if someone takes his point of departure within the theoretical attitude of thought. It is important to understand this section of my essay in terms of what has preceded. The intent and force of the questioning can be understood only in terms of my previous description and interpretation of Van Til’s position as an illustration of transcendental apologetical method. This I presented as the most advanced and progressive effort today in the age-old attempt to relate the message of the Scriptures to those whom Schleiermacher called its cultured despisers. This earlier section comprises the body of the essay. The latter section was intended to pose the question, in effect, whether certain indicated lines of thought in Van Til really belong within the transcendental apologetical framework that had just been sketched. These questions were not intended at all to muffle the positive note that had been sounded before;3 they were

WTJ 35:3 (Spr 73) p. 304

intended to accomplish precisely what was described in the closing sentence of the essay: “They [the questions] have been set forth here in the interests of furthering the discussion of that progressive apologetics that Van Til has introduced into the Reformed arsenal.”4

It must be understood, therefore, that the line of questioning at the conclusion of my essay does not intend to pinpoint what I believe are the fundamental, controlling elements of Van Til’s thought. That is especially true of the four numbered questions at the very end. It is likely a tactical blunder that Van Til’s name is mentioned at all in this very last section. The thrust of the discussion here is described in the first full paragraph of page 295, where I say, “…we shall simply sketch at this point a number of the issues that arise if one holds...