What Indeed Has Lexington to Do with Philadelphia? (Part 1)

Introduction

In 1953, Cecil De Boer, the editor of Calvin Seminary’s Calvin Forum published a series of articles criticizing the “new apologetic” of Cornelius Van Til.¹ Jesse De Boer,² the sharpest of Van Til’s critics in these issues, wrote a three-part series published from August to November criticizing Van Til’s use of categories borrowed from idealist philosophy. De Boer³ felt it was impossible to borrow these categories without compromising Reformed orthodoxy. The collective response in the Calvin Forum, led by Jesse De Boer’s articles, has become infamous in Van Tilian circles. The character and tone, coupled with superficial critiques, have placed the August-September 1953 Calvin Forum as the forefather of a series of mischaracterizations of Van Til’s apologetic system.

I will begin by describing De Boer’s critique of Van Til’s use of one particular idealist: Bernard Bosanquet. I will then briefly examine De Boer’s critique and, given the superficial nature of his critique and the unusual tone taken in his writing, I will offer an historical explanation for the character of De Boer’s critique. I will argue that the particular forceful language from Jesse De Boer is motivated by three main factors. The first factor is animosity toward Van Til, Westminster Theological Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church that had been growing throughout the years for several various reasons. The second factor involves Van Til’s writing style, which was obscure at points. De Boer admittedly did not fully understand Van Til’s apologetic system. Finally, Jesse De Boer was not thoroughly familiar with all of Van Til’s writings on idealist philosophy at the time. These three factors contributed to the particular character and shape of De Boer’s articles which were eventually published in 1953.

De Boer on Van Til’s Use of Bosanquet⁴

De Boer had many issues with Van Til’s apologetic system, but his main concern was Van Til’s use of idealist categories in describing a Christian reformed apologetic.⁵ De Boer goes well beyond mere nomenclature when he demands that by using idealist categories, Van Til must espouse idealist philosophy. Part one of De Boer’s series, which was published in the August-September 1953 issue of the Calvin Forum, was bluntly titled “Part 1: A Linguistic Bramble Patch.” In it he charged that

Van Til’s use of this vague idealistic language, borrowed perhaps from the idealistic logicians whose works he studied years ago, ought to be disconcerting to a Reformed mind, in fact to any Christian.⁶

I want to point out specifically how he uses terms and arguments borrowed from speculative idealism, and thereby to underline my view that he is skating on thin ice; his purism is turning into a boomerang. For modern idealism is no friend of Christianity.⁷

I mean only to say that his language is idealistic, and that by choosing to use such language he chooses to make idealistic, non-Christian statements.⁸

De Boer’s criticisms did, however, move beyond the bare use of idealist terms. He argued that Van Til’s apologetic actually contained idealist elements. De Boer’s main problem with Van Til’s use of Bosanquet was his method of implication. Bosanquet presented an alternative to linear inference, which is a straight, progressive syllogistic method of reasoning. Bosanquet hypothesized that reasoning comes by way of judgments that place individual truths in relation to an entire system of truth. For Bosanquet, any single truth presupposes the entire system of truth. Therefore, one cannot approach reality by beginning with one single truth and progressively and linearly syllogizing toward a fuller understanding. Rather, reality is approached by judging, namely, placing every truth within the system of truth which his tradition called the  absolute.

De Boer did not think this was acceptable.

My guess is that he considers idealist logic to be [a] handy weapon for the defense of his twisted and purist version of Reformed apologetics. Actually it is a boomerang.⁹

De Boer acknowledged that Van Til did not follow the idealist to his conclusions, but saw his use of Bosanquet’s logic as a gross inconsistency. De Boer argued that this idealist theory of knowledge resulted in pantheism. If all rational beings have true knowledge and no single human is omniscient, then the absolute system of truth is a summation of the knowledge possessed by each individual. Therefore, if one equates the idealist absolute with God, then every being with true knowledge would be a part of God. For De Boer, Van Til’s incorporation of idealist categories into his apologetic system meant the end of Reformed orthodoxy.

[more to come in future posts]

Footnotes

1. Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) was Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA from 1929 to his retirement in 1972. He continued to teach occasionally until 1979. For an excellent biography of Van Til, see John R. Muether, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008).

2. Jesse De Boer (no relation to Cecil De Boer) was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Kentucky.

3. I will refer to Jesse De Boer (rather than Cecil De Boer) by his last name throughout these posts unless indicated otherwise. I will also occasionally use the abbreviation CVT to refer to Cornelius Van Til in footnotes.

4. Bernard Bosanquet (1848-1923) was a British absolute idealist following in the philosophical tradition of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Bosanquet was a colleague of Francis Herbert Bradley at Oxford. Van Til often referenced Bosanquet and F. H. Bradley particularly when discussing a Christian approach to logic. Bosanquet held to a view that any single truth presupposed or required a complete system of truth.

5. De Boer criticized Van Til’s use of military imagery in describing apologetics, the way in which Van Til described the unbeliever’s knowledge, and several other elements of Van Til’s theology De Boer thought were the result of the influences of idealist philosophy.

6. Jesse De Boer, “Professor Van Til’s Apologetics,” The Calvin Forum 19, nos. 1-2 (1953): 10.

7. Jesse De Boer, “Professor Van Til’s Apologetics,” The Calvin Forum 19, nos. 1-2 (1953): 11.

8. Jesse De Boer, “Professor Van Til’s Apologetics,” The Calvin Forum 19, nos. 1-2 (1953): 11.

9. Jesse De Boer, “Professor Van Til’s Apologetics,” The Calvin Forum 19, nos. 1-2 (1953): 11.