Where Two…Agree…

It should not surprise us when Christian theologians actually agree with one another. This is especially so when both are understood to be Reformed. It is an interesting fact that Jonathan Edwards and Cornelius Van Til share a view of knowledge or understanding. Here is Van Til’s distinction between true and false knowledge:

The question of knowledge is an ethical question at the root. It is indeed possible to have theoretically correct knowledge about God without loving him. The devil illustrates this point. Yet what is meant by knowing God in Scripture is knowing and loving God: this is true knowledge of God: the other is false. (The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed., p. 38-39)*

Jonathan Edwards, commenting on knowledge, says the following:

Natural men may obtain a large notional knowledge and understanding of the doctrines of divinity. They may be very well versed in theology, and may have read an abundance of books which treat of divinity with much learning and great strength of reason. They may very much excel ordinary Christians in this, may have a very clear head, and may be able nicely to distinguish and to penetrate narrowly into the criticisms of divine theorems…

He may have such knowledge that he may be able to dispute very artfully and cunningly about theological matters, and he may be able to stop the mouths of his opponents…

Though he can talk as well and as rationally as most about the gloriousness of God, yet he loves him not half so well as some other things. And what is the reason? It must be because he does not discern this gloriousness of God, how well soever he can talk of it. It must be that there is a certain knowledge of God’s excellency he has not. Though he thinks he knows a great deal of divinity, yet some Christian, that he looks upon as ignorant in comparison of himself, has a great deal better apprehension of God’s loveliness than he; it is plain to a demonstration, because the Christian apprehends him better. (“A Spiritual Understanding Denied to the Unregenerate” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 14, pp. 72-76)

It is important that we not misunderstand Edwards here. He is not knocking notional or speculative knowledge. He is simply distinguishing between speculative and spiritual understanding. One can have speculative knowledge without having spiritual understanding, but one cannot have a spiritual understanding without speculative knowledge. Edwards is essentially making the same distinction as Van Til.

*Dr. K. Scott Oliphint offers this very helpful comment on p. 39n31:

There is perhaps no greater controversy surrounding Van Til’s thought than the question of knowledge. These qualifications, then, become important in discussions of his epistemology and apologetic. Without doing justice to the entire debate, we should note the following:

(1) Van Til sees the question of knowledge as “an ethical question at root.” It is such because included in it is one’s relationship to God. It is not simply, therefore, that one can have true knowledge if one assents to a particular true proposition. The context of that assent is as important as the assent itself. This is an apologetic point that is often overlooked, especially in philosophical discussions of knowledge.

(2) Van Til does admit that it is possible, and he would even say that it is the case, that one can have theoretically correct knowledge about God, or anything else, without loving God. However, because “knowledge is an ethical question at the root” theoretical knowledge falls far short of what it means, biblically, to know God(and by implication, to know anything else).

(3) When Van Til says, “What is meant by knowing God in Scripture…,” he does not mean to say that the only way Scripture uses “knowledge of God” includes “knowing and loving” God. Van Til says in numerous places that unbelievers know God truly. He means to say only that knowledge in its fullest sense in Scripture includes loving God as well.

(4) The last clause, “the other [knowledge] is false,” is, admittedly, a confusing way to speak. False knowledge can be a difficult thing to grasp. However, if ones sees knowledge “as an ethical question at root,” then “false knowledge” would be knowledge that is theoretically correct-that is, it assents to a true proposition and ascribes the right properties to a given thing-but it is false in that the context for such is rebellion against God, who not only gives the knowledge but alone can provide for an accurate account of it.

This explanation, I believe, brings Van Til and Edwards closer together.