Kuyper, Warfield, and Van Til

Abraham Kuijper generally known as Abraham Kuyper, was a Dutch politician, journalist, statesman and theologian. He founded the Anti-Revolutionary Party and was prime minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905. Kuyper is well known for having started the discussion about "worldviews." He identifies people into two categories, the believers and non-believers. He argues that the non-believers are in a state of believing propositions that are false. He argues that both the believers and non-believers think they are doing what it takes to gain knowledge; however, according to Kuyper, these two people have two different basic principle views. These principles are not “common sense” and are not agreed upon by all humans. He states that because these two kinds of people have two different starting points, they in turn will have two different conclusions.

What are the implications for reason and common ground if worldviews are each based on starting points that are irreconcilable? According to Kuyper, he does not believe that there are two different kinds of logic; he argues that there is only one kind; therefore, the unbelievers are not following the “right reason.” This logic does not make the first principle in the same way reason would because logic can only manage once there is the application from which to make the conclusion. This means that the two worldviews are contradictory and that they both cannot be true and they both cannot be false. Since Kuyper uses logic for the starting point, these lead to different conclusions, therefore there can never be a common ground between these two worldviews (believers and non-believers).

Benjamin Warfield, the principal of Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921, also agrees that there are two different worldviews. While he believes that the Christian worldview is the only rationally correct view, Warfield argues that the unbeliever is inconsistent in believing what their basic belief is. The unbeliever claims to still be using reason, but reason must also be consistent, which the unbeliever fails to be. Since the unbeliever is not consistent, Warfield believes that there is one common reason that will lead to one common truth and worldview.

Cornelius Van Til, a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist, argued that starting points (presuppositions) cannot be proven, they must be assumed without proof. He did not believe that this starting point leads a person to coming to have knowledge. Van Til instead argues that the interpretations of such assumptions are what lead people to have knowledge. The method Van Til used was called “presuppositional”. This is when the apologist will locate and challenge the first principle, which is a person’s most basic belief, on which the non-Christian view hinges. VanTil states that “To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underline and control one’s method.” Does Van Til's position end in fideism? Is there any way out of this problem? It does seem as though his position ends in fideism, however, we need to understand that reason is to be used as the laws of all thought, not a presupposition precisely because reason is needed to establish any meaningful presupposition.

Van Til maintained that Adam and Eve had a direct, immediate, intuitive relationship with God before the Fall.

Does the temptation reveal that such a relationship is insufficient? How should Adam and Eve known God? If an intuitive relationship was insufficient then, what are the implications about knowing God now?

Although Adam and Eve were with God intuitively and immediately, this relationship appears to be insufficient because of the way they responded to the temptation. Van Til argues that fallen humans suppress what they know, in the sense of both knowing and trying not to know at the same time, resulting in the problem of desire. This means that a person knows that God is the source of all things good, but does not want the good. In knowing God, one knows that God is good; when someone fails to know this of God, they are failing to know God.