Reason and Worldviews: Warfield, Kuyper, Van Til and Plantinga on the Clarity of General Revelation and Function of Apologetics [Paperback]

Owen Anderson (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 11, 2008

After the challenges of the Enlightenment from philosophers such as David Hume, contemporary philosophers of religion tend to think that proof is not possible and that at best humans have arguments for the probability or plausibility of belief in God. But, Christianity maintains that humans should know God. This book explores attempts to respond to the Enlightenment challenges by thinkers at Princeton Theological like Benjamin Warfield. It considers Warfield's view of reason and knowledge of God, his debate with Abraham Kuyper, and the attempt to reconcile differences between these two by Cornelius Van Til. It also considers Reformed Epistemology, which has become popular in recent decades and is credited for a renewed interest in Christian philosophy.

Editorial Reviews

Review

Anderson's book is an admirable history and discussion of the issues surrounding Reformed apologetics for the last 250 years. His analysis and evaluations are well worth considering by those on all sides of the controversies. (Dr. John Frame )

This book is written with a clarity and focus that is most welcome. Anyone working in Reformed circles or interested in the question of natural theology or those engaged in worldview analysis will find it very useful and challenging. (January 2010 )

Dr. Owen Anderson has ably analyzed the epistemology of B.B. Warfield in contrast to that of Abraham Kuyper and Cornelius Van Til. He has done this in order to draw attention to the necessity of clarity and inexcusability if the claims of historic Christian theism are to be meaningfully understood. Any thoughtful Christian apologetic must therefore begin with showing the clarity of general revelation in order to establish the inexcusability of unbelief. In philosophy, this intellectual endeavor has been the domain of natural theology. Dr. Anderson's analysis of Warfield has therefore shown the necessity for the project of natural theology. Dr. Anderson's analysis of recent contributors to this dialogue is therefore both valuable and timely. (Surrendra Gangadean )

About the Author

Owen Anderson is Assistant Professor of Integrative Studies at Arizona State University.

Product Details

• Paperback: 152 pages
• Publisher: University Press Of America (March 11, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0761840389
• ISBN-13: 978-0761840381
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 5.9 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,864,879 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars The Best of Intentions..., October 12, 2008

By 

Paul Manata (Grand Rapids, MI) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Reason and Worldviews: Warfield, Kuyper, Van Til and Plantinga on the Clarity of General Revelation and Function of Apologetics (Paperback)

Since the only reviews I've read of Anderson on Amazon are ones prsumablyby written by his students, I thought I'd offer a more unbiased review! :-) J/K

Owen Anderson wants to take seriously the biblical claim (Romans 1) that unbelief is inexcusable. That apologists can do a better job showing the irrationality of denying God's existence. This is to be lauded. But the $64,000 dollar question is, can he do it? Well, he doesn't show that he can in this book. In this book all we have are *claims* that it should and can be done. He has another book, which I have ordered, that supposedly fills this lacuna.

Some of my problems:

* I think he offers some poor critiques of Cornelius Van Til. He also gives a confusing portrayal of Van Til's position. At time he says that Van Til claimed that the Scriptures are the necessary presuppositions for knowledge. Other times he says that Van Til said that the ontological Trinity was the necessary presupposition. It's not that he's trying to show an inconsistency in Van Til, he seems to not even notice what he's done.

* He affirms what is known in discussion of moral responsibility and free will as "ought implies can." I think this is problematic for a Reformed Christian, one who believes in divine determinism. I have spoken with the author and he claims this is spelled out later, and he attempted to offer some explanations of what he means, but I remain unconvinced.

* He holds to classical, hypothetical compatibilism. Classical compatibilism has major problems as both libertarian and compatibilist and illusionist action theorists have pointed out.

* He holds to epistemological internalism. I find this view highly problematic as a constraint to place on knowledge. He told me he doesn't think these problems ultimately land. Feels he can offer rejoinders.

* He seems to hold to doxastic voluntarism.

* He critiques other apologetic methods of begging the question and holding to positions other religions can mirror, yet his view of the law of non-contradiction has the exact same problem with the dialetheists. He seems to except himself from his own critiques.

* He doesn't want to pull in claims from special revelation, yet he makes the claim that nature was created good, no death or sin, yet how would he know that without Genesis 1? He claims there was no natural evil, yet even some Christians would deny this (and say that the term "evil" is simply relative in how it affects humans now). He says natural evil is due to moral evil. How would he know without Genesis?

* His view on challenges to Christian doctrine (such as the rationality of the Trinity and the Incarnation) are problematic in light of what people like James Anderson have shown in his book _Paradox and Christian Theology_.

* He claims that our existence is open to doubt by those in Buddhist and other monist camps. Same with classical logic, then. But, when he critiques presuppositional apologists (wrongly) as assuming that logic is more basic than their apologetic (he equivocates on what presuppositionalists have meant by "basic" or "ultimate", btw), how does he not view the "self" as more basic (in his sense) than logic since one can't use the LNC to prove Christianity unless he *exists*!

* He doesn't believe that all men know that God exists, they just are *able* to know. Now, I know this is a viable alternative interpretation of Romans 1, but: (i) I don't think the exegesis supports that view (and it seems does neither the best commentaries on Romans), and (ii) if my view is correct, I can have everything Owen Anderson says an apologetic needs while taking nothing from his own methodology, rendering it superfluous.

* His focus on knowledge is wrongly placed as he never seems to place it on knowledge of Christ, his resurrection, justification, or our salvation in Christ. Paul does so:

I Cor. 2:2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Rom. 10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

He also claims Eve could have avoided temptation if she had just applied the laws of logic to her situation, viz. "a is not ~a, or creature cannot have knowledge like Creator." But when Jesus replayed the protological temptation with the devil in the wilderness, he answered: "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Adam and Eve needed to trust the Lord. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding."

This isn't a detailed review, and the author is aware of all of these worries I have as I've expressed them to him, but just some brief thoughts/notes on the book. He says some of the above is cleared up in later books, but perhaps not to the extent that I'd want. His purpose, though, is to speak to the inexcusability of unbelief. In response I claim that I'm not sure he succeeds in *showing* this, and since I am Reformed I can't help but critique positions I find incompatible with some of what (my particular understanding of) Reformed theology looks like. Since he also appealed to Scripture, then I can also judge his exegesis.

Nevertheless, his approach to apologetics and dealing with unbelief is a drink of fresh water compared to the anti-apologetical attitude out there and the so-called "tolerance" of "emerging Christianity" that tells us to not boldly confront unbelief, instead they say we should "love 'em" into the kingdom instead as if this wasn't an example of the fallacy from false alternatives.

At any rate, I may offer a more detailed review after I read his latest book since I'm just summarizing here the worries he already knows I have.

I would still recommend the book.

[EDIT: After further reflection, I do not hold to the actual possession of universal knowledge as that is cashed out as being true belief with some extra post-Getter analysis, so that part of my critique of Owen's book wouldn't stand for me anymore.]

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars An Update and Expansion of Apologetic Contrasts, October 26, 2009

By 

Mike Robinson "Mike A Robinson: Apologetic An... (USA) - See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Reason and Worldviews: Warfield, Kuyper, Van Til and Plantinga on the Clarity of General Revelation and Function of Apologetics (Paperback)

Anderson continues his epistemic analysis of what he calls the Calling for Clarity and Inexcusability in Apologetics.

Owen Anderson makes significant contribution in the exploration of the relationship between faith and reason. He accomplishes this epistemic exercise by contrasting the apologetic formulations of Warfield, Kuyper, Plnatinga and Van Til. He prefers Warfield's position, but is not sharply opposed to the majority of the work of Van Til and Kuyper.

He is extremely careful in pointing out error or incongruity in these scholars as his goal is to demonstrate "the scope and sequence of the proofs required in showing clarity and inexcusability."
Subjects covered are:
1. Princeton and Common Sense Philosophy
2. Warfield and Right Reason
3. Warfield and Kuyper
4. Warfield and Van Til
5. Plantinga's epistemic work

Manata in his review argues that Anderson is confusing and unclear in discussing Van Til's apologetic. I agree with Manata nevertheless the author tries to give a careful summary of Van Til's apologetic and he seems to agree with much of Van Til's thought. Nonetheless he writes that Van Til's analysis of Warfield and Kuyper "seems to leave some problems." He argues that all worldviews must be circular including Van Til's. And he seems to reject Van Til's ultimate pre-commitment forasmuch as he affirms Reason as the only correct starting assumption.

Anderson contends that theistic proofs can be advanced if the apologist deals rightly with Hume's and Kant's criticisms (Plantinga has with the OAEG). Anderson's work should be commended as excellent introduction in the contrast between the above named apologetic giants. I recommend this well constituted and clearly defined philosophical effort.

Letter to an Atheist Nation: Presupositional Apologetics Responds To: Letter to a Christian