An Introduction to Systematic Theology - Van Til - Chap. 2

Continuing to read through Van Til's An Introduction to Systematic Theology.

Notes on Preface and Chap. 1.

Chapter 2 

Our method of systematic theology is foundational. Van Til says that Christian theism "has a methodology quite distinct from other general interpretations of reality" (27).

Nothing is neutral. This includes our methods. Christian theism presupposes the existence of God. Our initial position, our starting posture is founded upon the God who is there.

The God who is there has always existed. He existed before the world. A world that He created ex nihilo. God is God and we are part of creation, therefore, God is incomprehensible to us (but he is not incomprehensible to himself). "Man's inability to comprehend God is founded on the very fact that God is completely self-comprehensive. God is absolute rationality." To be more specific, the Triune God is full rationality. The Trinity has exhaustive knowledge. Nothing is a novelty to the Trinity. This God, the Triune God, reveals himself to the creation. By way of special revelation the Triune God reveals himself to the image bearers.

Man does not have comprehensive knowledge. A Christian theist believes in the Trinity and knows that in order to have any knowledge it must be analogical to the knowledge of the Triune God. "The distinguishing characteristic between the very non-Christian theory of knowledge, on the one hand, and the Christian concept of knowledge, on the other hand, is therefore that in all non-Christian theories men reason univocally, while in Christianity men reason analogically" (31). By this Van Til means that non-Christians assume that space, time, man, and God are on the same plane, and that God and man are correlative, both working beneath a higher system of logic, etc. That is false. God existed before everything created; God is "self-conscious and self-consistent" and the created beings (creation) "cannot furnish a novelty element that is to stand on a par with the element of permanency furnished by the Creator" (32). To elaborate, "Christians believe in two levels of existence, the level of God's existence as self-contained and the level of man's existence as derived from the level of God's existence. For this reason, Christians must also believe in two levels of knowledge, the level of God's knowledge, which is absolutely comprehensive and self-contained, and the level of man's knowledge, which is not comprehensive but is derivative and reinterpretative. Hence we say that as Christians we believe that man's knowledge is analogical of God's knowledge" (CCS emphasis) (32).

"As man's existence is dependent upon an act of voluntary creation on the part of God, so man's knowledge depends upon an act of voluntary revelation of God to man. Even the voluntary creation of man is already a revelation of God to man" (34-35).

Van Til, therefore, calls our method for systematic theology a method of implication. "It is really only the Christian who can speak of implication, because no one but him really takes the idea of an absolute system seriously" (35). This method of implication may be referred to as transcendental, but not in the modern philosophic sense. It is a transcendental method because God is the method's point of reference. "It is only the Christian who really interprets reality in exclusively eternal categories because only he believes in God as self-sufficient and not dependent upon time reality" (36).

This analogical knowledge is theological knowledge. Analogical knowledge makes God the point of reference, and all other knowledge and methods make man himself the final point of reference. Analogical knowledge is the only true Christian position or approach to true knowledge--"When consistently expressed, it posits God's self-existence and plan, as well as self-contained self-knowledge, as the presupposition of all created existence and knowledge. In that case, all facts show forth and thus prove the existence of God and his plan. In that case, too, all human knowledge should be self-consciously subordinated to that plan. it's task in systematics is to order as far as possible the facts of God's revelation" (42-43).

Systematics does not, however, attempt to make an exact delineation point-by-point of the doctrine of the knowledge of God. That is not the point of systematics. If you collapse the sign of human knowledge into the signified (God's knowledge), you break the proper relationship between the creature and the Creator. It would no longer be derivative but one in the same, "And when this dependence is broken man's knowledge is thought as self-sufficient" (43). The method of systematic theology must be harmonious with the world-reality of the creature conducting the method, a creature (servant) who's life and knowledge is derivative.

As John Frame put it, a servant-thinker is one who “adopts God’s world as his own." Therefore, “the believer [servant-thinker] . . . is affirming creation as it really is; he is accepting creation as the world that God made, and he is accepting the responsibility to live in that world as it really is" (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 28). That is our method of systematic theology. A method of implication, a method of transcendence, a method that accepts the creation of the world that God made.