What do you think?
The Defense of Christianity & My Credo
Book by Cornelius Van Til
- GenresChristianityTheology
93 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
About the author
Cornelius Van Til
156 books127 followersCornelius Van Til, was a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist.
Biographical sketch
Born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, The Netherlands he was the sixth son of Ite and Klazina Van Til, who emigrated to the United States when "Kees," as he was known to friends, was 10. He grew up helping on the family farm in Highland, Indiana.
Van Til graduated from Calvin College in 1922, receiving a ThM from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1925 and his PhD from Princeton University in 1927. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics.
He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in which, according to John Frame, neither man was at his best and neither quite understood the other's position.
Van Til's thought
Van Til is perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more consistently Christian methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Source: Theopedia
Biographical sketch
Born on May 3, 1895, in Grootegast, The Netherlands he was the sixth son of Ite and Klazina Van Til, who emigrated to the United States when "Kees," as he was known to friends, was 10. He grew up helping on the family farm in Highland, Indiana.
Van Til graduated from Calvin College in 1922, receiving a ThM from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1925 and his PhD from Princeton University in 1927. He began teaching at Princeton, but shortly went with the conservative group who founded Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for forty-three years of his life as a professor of apologetics.
He was also a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church from the 1930s until his death in 1987, and in that denomination, he was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Gordon Clark over God's incomprehensibility known as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in which, according to John Frame, neither man was at his best and neither quite understood the other's position.
Van Til's thought
Van Til is perhaps best known for the development of a fresh approach to the task of defending the Christian faith. Although trained in traditional methods he drew on the insights of fellow Calvinistic philosophers Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd to formulate what he viewed as a more consistently Christian methodology. His apologetic focused on the role of presuppositions, the point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews.
Source: Theopedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 16, 2026
VAN TIL PRESENTS A REFORMED APOLOGETIC IN A HYPOTHETICAL DIALOGUE
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) was a Calvinist philosopher and theologian, and perhaps the leading Christian exponent of "presuppositional" apologetics. He taught at Westminster Theological Seminary for more than 40 years, and was one of the leaders in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
The Publisher’s Note explains, "‘The Reformed Pastor and the Defense of Christianity’ is a chapter in ‘The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought.’ In that book Dr. Van Til also deals with traditional and modern Roman Catholicism, Ecumenism, and Modern Protestantism (including Kant). ‘My Credo’ is an introductory but basic selection in ‘Jerusalem and Athens' [which I have reviewed separately]. It is felt that these two relatively brief and popular selections will prove invaluable as an introduction to the thinking of Cornelius Van Til.”
In the ‘Reformed Pastor’ essay, Van Til wrote, “The primary purpose of this discussion is constructive, not polemical. We hope to show how the Christian view of life may most effectively be proclaimed and defended. In this connection, we have in mind the responsibilities of the young pastor who must guide his people, especially his young people, into an ever deeper grasp of the Christian faith. But the Christian faith is frequently ridiculed… It is said to be contrary to the facts of science… Appealing substitutes, which are often disguised in the words of Scripture, are offered for it. How will the young pastor guide his flock… in the midst of this confusion? He has no time to read many books… He must understand the reasons why men reject historical Christianity. He must know how to evaluate these reasons…” (Pg.1)
He explains Calvin’s view: “Natural revelation is perfectly clear. Men OUGHT from it to know God and ought through it to see all other things as dependent on God. But only he who looks at nature through the mirror of Scripture DOES understand natural revelation for what it is. Furthermore, no one can see Scripture for what it is unless he is given the ability to do so by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. Only those who are taught of God see the Scriptures for what they are and therefore see the revelation of God in nature for what it is… As taught of God, the elect both understand the Bible as the Word of God, and interpret natural revelation through the Bible. The rest of mankind, not taking Scripture as the Word of God, in consequence also misinterpret the natural revelation of God.” (Pg. 11)
He tells the story of a hypothetical young pastor, “our pastor realized in a general way that his sympathies lay with Calvin. He began to realize that the difference between Roman Catholic theology and the Reformed faith is an all-pervasive one. He began to realize too that this all-pervasive difference in theology implies a difference in the method of defending Christianity. He sensed in particular that on the Romanist basis he would still be the victim of the battle between experts. There would be no finished revelation available to him… And such would be true even for the experts themselves. The Pope himself … would tend to be no more than a wiser man than other men.” (Pg. 25-26)
He creates a dialogue between three characters to illustrate his points: “Mr. White would define man, and therefore his freedom, in terms of scripture alone… Mr. Grey, on the other hand, must at all costs have ‘a point of contact’ in the system of thought of Mr. Black, who is typical of the natural man… Mr. Grey is afraid of being charged with circular reasoning… [or] talking about something that is ‘outside of experience.’ So he is driven to talk in general about the ‘free spirit of man.’ … Mr. Black will be greatly impressed with such an argument as Mr. Grey has presented to him the truth of Christianity. In fact, if Christianity is thus shown to be in accord with the moral nature of man, as Mr. Black himself sees that moral nature, then Mr. Black does not need to be RADICALLY converted to accept Christianity. He only needs to accept something ‘additional’ to what he has always believed.” (Pg. 40-41)
Mr. Black says to Mr. Grey, “By your own definition your God is not absolute or self-sufficient. You say that he ‘probably’ exists; which means that you admit that he may not exist. Probability rests upon possibility. I think that any scientific person should come with an open mind to the observation of the facts of the universe. He ought to begin by assuming that ANY sort of fact may exist. I was glad to observe that on this all-important point you agree with me. Hence the only kind of god that either of us can believe in is one who may or may not exist. In other words, NEITHER of us does or can believe in a God who CANNOT NOT EXIST. It was just this sort of God, a God who is self-sufficient, and as such necessarily existent, that I thought you Christian theists believed in.” (Pg. 62-63)
He continues, “Mr. Grey grew pale. In desperation he searched his arsenal for another argument that might convince Mr. Black… The arguments for God that he had so far used, he had labeled ‘a posteriori arguments.’ … But Mr. Black had pointed out that if you start with the ideas of cause and purpose as intelligible to man WITHOUT God… then you CANNOT consistently say that you need God for the idea of cause or purpose when these concepts apply to the universe as a whole. So now Mr. Grey drew out the drawer marked ‘a priori argument.’” (Pg. 63-64)
He adds, “Meanwhile, Mr. White took new courage. He realized that he had so far made a great mistake in keeping silent during the time that Mr. Grey had presented his arguments…. Mr. Black had been quite right in saying that a God whose is problematic, or a God who exists by the same necessity as does the universe, is still an aspect of, or simply the whole of, the universe. But now he felt that perhaps Mr. Grey was right in simply witnessing to the existence of God. He thought that, if the arguments used are not logically coercive, they may at least be used as a means with which to WITNESS to unbelievers. And surely witnessing to God’s existence was always in order. But poor Mr. White was to be disillusioned again. For the witness-bearing done by Mr. Grey was based on the assumption that the belief in God is a purely non-rational or even irrational matter.” (Pg. 65)
He concludes, “Mr. White now saw clearly that it was quite ‘proper,’ for Mr. Grey, to use a method of reasoning and a method of witness-bearing that is based upon the truth of anti-Christian and anti-theistic assumptions. Mr. Grey’s theology is not Reformed… From now on Mr. White decided that … he must go his own way in apologetics as he had, since the Reformation, gone his own way in theology… he had at last come to realize that not only had the effort been utterly fruitless and self-frustrating but, more than that, it had been terribly dishonoring to God. How could the eternal I AM be pleased with being presented as being 'A' god and as ‘probably’ existing, as probably necessary for the explanation of some things but not of all things, as one who will be glad to recognize the ultimacy of his own creatures? Would the God who had in paradise required of men implicit obedience now be satisfied with a claims-and-counter-claims arrangement with his creatures?” (Pg. 68-69)
This is an interesting presentation of Van Til’s apologetic method.
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) was a Calvinist philosopher and theologian, and perhaps the leading Christian exponent of "presuppositional" apologetics. He taught at Westminster Theological Seminary for more than 40 years, and was one of the leaders in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
The Publisher’s Note explains, "‘The Reformed Pastor and the Defense of Christianity’ is a chapter in ‘The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought.’ In that book Dr. Van Til also deals with traditional and modern Roman Catholicism, Ecumenism, and Modern Protestantism (including Kant). ‘My Credo’ is an introductory but basic selection in ‘Jerusalem and Athens' [which I have reviewed separately]. It is felt that these two relatively brief and popular selections will prove invaluable as an introduction to the thinking of Cornelius Van Til.”
In the ‘Reformed Pastor’ essay, Van Til wrote, “The primary purpose of this discussion is constructive, not polemical. We hope to show how the Christian view of life may most effectively be proclaimed and defended. In this connection, we have in mind the responsibilities of the young pastor who must guide his people, especially his young people, into an ever deeper grasp of the Christian faith. But the Christian faith is frequently ridiculed… It is said to be contrary to the facts of science… Appealing substitutes, which are often disguised in the words of Scripture, are offered for it. How will the young pastor guide his flock… in the midst of this confusion? He has no time to read many books… He must understand the reasons why men reject historical Christianity. He must know how to evaluate these reasons…” (Pg.1)
He explains Calvin’s view: “Natural revelation is perfectly clear. Men OUGHT from it to know God and ought through it to see all other things as dependent on God. But only he who looks at nature through the mirror of Scripture DOES understand natural revelation for what it is. Furthermore, no one can see Scripture for what it is unless he is given the ability to do so by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. Only those who are taught of God see the Scriptures for what they are and therefore see the revelation of God in nature for what it is… As taught of God, the elect both understand the Bible as the Word of God, and interpret natural revelation through the Bible. The rest of mankind, not taking Scripture as the Word of God, in consequence also misinterpret the natural revelation of God.” (Pg. 11)
He tells the story of a hypothetical young pastor, “our pastor realized in a general way that his sympathies lay with Calvin. He began to realize that the difference between Roman Catholic theology and the Reformed faith is an all-pervasive one. He began to realize too that this all-pervasive difference in theology implies a difference in the method of defending Christianity. He sensed in particular that on the Romanist basis he would still be the victim of the battle between experts. There would be no finished revelation available to him… And such would be true even for the experts themselves. The Pope himself … would tend to be no more than a wiser man than other men.” (Pg. 25-26)
He creates a dialogue between three characters to illustrate his points: “Mr. White would define man, and therefore his freedom, in terms of scripture alone… Mr. Grey, on the other hand, must at all costs have ‘a point of contact’ in the system of thought of Mr. Black, who is typical of the natural man… Mr. Grey is afraid of being charged with circular reasoning… [or] talking about something that is ‘outside of experience.’ So he is driven to talk in general about the ‘free spirit of man.’ … Mr. Black will be greatly impressed with such an argument as Mr. Grey has presented to him the truth of Christianity. In fact, if Christianity is thus shown to be in accord with the moral nature of man, as Mr. Black himself sees that moral nature, then Mr. Black does not need to be RADICALLY converted to accept Christianity. He only needs to accept something ‘additional’ to what he has always believed.” (Pg. 40-41)
Mr. Black says to Mr. Grey, “By your own definition your God is not absolute or self-sufficient. You say that he ‘probably’ exists; which means that you admit that he may not exist. Probability rests upon possibility. I think that any scientific person should come with an open mind to the observation of the facts of the universe. He ought to begin by assuming that ANY sort of fact may exist. I was glad to observe that on this all-important point you agree with me. Hence the only kind of god that either of us can believe in is one who may or may not exist. In other words, NEITHER of us does or can believe in a God who CANNOT NOT EXIST. It was just this sort of God, a God who is self-sufficient, and as such necessarily existent, that I thought you Christian theists believed in.” (Pg. 62-63)
He continues, “Mr. Grey grew pale. In desperation he searched his arsenal for another argument that might convince Mr. Black… The arguments for God that he had so far used, he had labeled ‘a posteriori arguments.’ … But Mr. Black had pointed out that if you start with the ideas of cause and purpose as intelligible to man WITHOUT God… then you CANNOT consistently say that you need God for the idea of cause or purpose when these concepts apply to the universe as a whole. So now Mr. Grey drew out the drawer marked ‘a priori argument.’” (Pg. 63-64)
He adds, “Meanwhile, Mr. White took new courage. He realized that he had so far made a great mistake in keeping silent during the time that Mr. Grey had presented his arguments…. Mr. Black had been quite right in saying that a God whose is problematic, or a God who exists by the same necessity as does the universe, is still an aspect of, or simply the whole of, the universe. But now he felt that perhaps Mr. Grey was right in simply witnessing to the existence of God. He thought that, if the arguments used are not logically coercive, they may at least be used as a means with which to WITNESS to unbelievers. And surely witnessing to God’s existence was always in order. But poor Mr. White was to be disillusioned again. For the witness-bearing done by Mr. Grey was based on the assumption that the belief in God is a purely non-rational or even irrational matter.” (Pg. 65)
He concludes, “Mr. White now saw clearly that it was quite ‘proper,’ for Mr. Grey, to use a method of reasoning and a method of witness-bearing that is based upon the truth of anti-Christian and anti-theistic assumptions. Mr. Grey’s theology is not Reformed… From now on Mr. White decided that … he must go his own way in apologetics as he had, since the Reformation, gone his own way in theology… he had at last come to realize that not only had the effort been utterly fruitless and self-frustrating but, more than that, it had been terribly dishonoring to God. How could the eternal I AM be pleased with being presented as being 'A' god and as ‘probably’ existing, as probably necessary for the explanation of some things but not of all things, as one who will be glad to recognize the ultimacy of his own creatures? Would the God who had in paradise required of men implicit obedience now be satisfied with a claims-and-counter-claims arrangement with his creatures?” (Pg. 68-69)
This is an interesting presentation of Van Til’s apologetic method.
February 7, 2019
This short book containing two of Van Til's publications is one of my favourites of his. The Defense of Christianity is a primer of Presuppositional apologetics and a very very distilled version of his Defense of the Faith. My Credo which first came out in Jerusalem and Athens is another brief primer to Van Tillian thought and a very easy and fun to read material to understand the basic tenets of his system.
June 19, 2021
Van Til argues for a unique Reformed apologetic as the only consistent method.
December 19, 2016
This was a tough read. Van Til is utterly, totally committed to the Reformed Faith and entertains little tolerance for deviating away from a Christ-centered faith or practice thereof. Even the philosophers of antiquity he finds deceptive, even corrosive, to a clear and understanding of Christian faith. He faults Thomas Aquinas, among others, for steering Christian thought too far off track in trying to apply philosophy to the Christian's understanding of "existence." Since only God creates, and existence is by virtue of His will, Van Til sees no merit in overstating a human assessment of that basic state of our place in God's plan. Rather, avoiding evil as best we can would suggest a need to keep focused on God's and His intent for his creation than to supplement man's speculations. The Catholic might turn to the philosophers to help him understand man, but Van Til says this is a fatal error, because the philosopher can't see the difference of the man before and after his salvation from Christ. These are slights of hand played by a Lucifer who would attempt to draw our eyes from Christ and His Sacrifice.
Van Til does suggest that non-Christians can, in the end, provide knowledge that's useful to a faithful Christian so long as the believer keeps in mind the perspective in which those ideas are proffered. The non-Christian has "a deformed view" of the God who created him, which means he's capable of incredible insights "in spite" of his state of rebellion against God. He has innate, lingering bits of God's original walk with man, and with those tiniest tailings can think and do great things worthy of consideration by the Christian.
My greatest risk here as an unworthy reader involves a skill to interpret the difficult message Van Til conveys. He goes over familiar ground considering the failing of the Roman Church and the variants among Protestantism that John Calvin sought to deny, and he clearly stands against "Weleyian" Armenianism (as do I!) The book has an excellent summation via a useful outline on Van Til's interpretation of his own critique, or his "Credo" at the end.
Van Til does suggest that non-Christians can, in the end, provide knowledge that's useful to a faithful Christian so long as the believer keeps in mind the perspective in which those ideas are proffered. The non-Christian has "a deformed view" of the God who created him, which means he's capable of incredible insights "in spite" of his state of rebellion against God. He has innate, lingering bits of God's original walk with man, and with those tiniest tailings can think and do great things worthy of consideration by the Christian.
My greatest risk here as an unworthy reader involves a skill to interpret the difficult message Van Til conveys. He goes over familiar ground considering the failing of the Roman Church and the variants among Protestantism that John Calvin sought to deny, and he clearly stands against "Weleyian" Armenianism (as do I!) The book has an excellent summation via a useful outline on Van Til's interpretation of his own critique, or his "Credo" at the end.
November 3, 2011
This was my first foray into Van Til. I went in expecting a tough read, and I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't as difficult as I'd been prepared for. That being said, it was still a difficult read--especially in several stretches when getting in depth into Aquinas and Arminianism.
The book is essentially a defense of Reformed Christianity against Roman Catholicism and Arminianism. Van Til shows how the Christian apologist must maintain strict allegiance to the self-sufficient Word of God alone as an apologetic. Once you begin arguing and defending God in terms of human reason or rationalism--you've lost the argument.
The book is very brief, and it didn't seem to quite finish the argument he was trying to make. But this is a good, brief introduction to Van Til.
The book is essentially a defense of Reformed Christianity against Roman Catholicism and Arminianism. Van Til shows how the Christian apologist must maintain strict allegiance to the self-sufficient Word of God alone as an apologetic. Once you begin arguing and defending God in terms of human reason or rationalism--you've lost the argument.
The book is very brief, and it didn't seem to quite finish the argument he was trying to make. But this is a good, brief introduction to Van Til.
December 17, 2013
An good read that sums up the basics of Van Til's thought in a format which is actually kind of interesting. Van Til presents his case through the eyes of a "young pastor" examining the apologetic of Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, etc. If you have never read Van Til this might be a good place to start before launching into other works. It is also only 90 pages.
March 18, 2019
Beginning is good, dialogue was not as good
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews