Gwallard
Puritan Board Freshman
When continuing to read Bahnsen's Van Til Reader, I was struck by a contrast: Van Til completely disagrees with fideism, and completely disagrees that sinful man can be convinced by reason alone. Tell me if this is helpful, confused, or off base.
I do not think these are incompatible, but it may explain why people say that Van Til's method is fideism. If I can use testing as an example: God declares that he should not be tested as he was tested at Meribah in Exodus 17, but he also commands that he be tested in Malachi 3. The first testing is one that attempts to establish faith by a sign, when abundant signs have already been given - making God something of a slave or a puppet of those who doubt. The second testing is one that comes from an already established faith which will be accompanied by signs. Those who test the Lord in Exodus 17, in effect, say "not enough evidence," though his workings are still within recent memory; those who would test the Lord in Malachi 3 say, "I believe you already" though they may be timid in trusting all his promises fully in light of their current circumstances.
Fideism is (Bahnsen 73) "the view which assumes knowledge originates in a fundamental act of faith, independent of rational presuppositions." There are those who will attempt to test God's claims to establish faith, and will not have faith until what they desire is demonstrated before them. These people will call Van Til's view fideism because VT claims with the Bible that men and women are not convinced of the truth by rational demonstration, but by the Holy Spirit's inward testimony. The Calvinists of these people will also say that man is totally depraved, and that man often uses his rational faculty to attempt to dethrone the God they already know very well in their hearts in any way they can.
But why Van Til's method is not fideism is because those arguments which demonstrate the rational truth of God's existence are essentially true; those same arguments which the unbeliever rejects as uncertain are in their essence actually certain, but the unbeliever declares the opposite. The knowledge exists before faith is placed upon God, but he simply desires to "test" God ad infinitum to establish it. That the unbeliever cannot be turned by rational proof alone is not the problem of the proof, but of the unbeliever, so the Holy Spirit must be waited upon to do his work.
Van Til also might be called a fideist in the same way that anyone might: knowledge includes faith. Knowledge is "justified, true belief" afterall. The Christian just has a new relation to the knowledge which he already had - the knowledge becomes the source of joy, peace, life, and application. God calls his people to trust his promises in Deuteronomy toward Israel and put him to the test (Malachi 3:10) by doing righteousness, so they might see (have it demonstrated) that they are true.
True demonstrations are everywhere. Demonstration which the person accepts only follows the work of the Holy Spirit. That is not fideism...
(personal ramble below)
...but I honestly struggle with it, because I am like the Israelites at Meribah - I want a demonstration that is so clear that I cannot be in doubt about it. Certainly, there can be no rationality at all without the Triune God, and therefore he is certain, but my subjective appropriation of that truth is much like the rebellious Israelites. I seek to test God to believe in him who is already without doubt, because I feel there is doubt within me though I know it is born of sin. Though I know now that I can say that Van Til's view is not fideism, there are still little lights going off in my head telling me something is wrong with that evaluation, for whatever reason. The evidentialist might say trust those inhibitions, and the Van Til disciple might call that the result of sin and unbelief.
I do not think these are incompatible, but it may explain why people say that Van Til's method is fideism. If I can use testing as an example: God declares that he should not be tested as he was tested at Meribah in Exodus 17, but he also commands that he be tested in Malachi 3. The first testing is one that attempts to establish faith by a sign, when abundant signs have already been given - making God something of a slave or a puppet of those who doubt. The second testing is one that comes from an already established faith which will be accompanied by signs. Those who test the Lord in Exodus 17, in effect, say "not enough evidence," though his workings are still within recent memory; those who would test the Lord in Malachi 3 say, "I believe you already" though they may be timid in trusting all his promises fully in light of their current circumstances.
Fideism is (Bahnsen 73) "the view which assumes knowledge originates in a fundamental act of faith, independent of rational presuppositions." There are those who will attempt to test God's claims to establish faith, and will not have faith until what they desire is demonstrated before them. These people will call Van Til's view fideism because VT claims with the Bible that men and women are not convinced of the truth by rational demonstration, but by the Holy Spirit's inward testimony. The Calvinists of these people will also say that man is totally depraved, and that man often uses his rational faculty to attempt to dethrone the God they already know very well in their hearts in any way they can.
But why Van Til's method is not fideism is because those arguments which demonstrate the rational truth of God's existence are essentially true; those same arguments which the unbeliever rejects as uncertain are in their essence actually certain, but the unbeliever declares the opposite. The knowledge exists before faith is placed upon God, but he simply desires to "test" God ad infinitum to establish it. That the unbeliever cannot be turned by rational proof alone is not the problem of the proof, but of the unbeliever, so the Holy Spirit must be waited upon to do his work.
Van Til also might be called a fideist in the same way that anyone might: knowledge includes faith. Knowledge is "justified, true belief" afterall. The Christian just has a new relation to the knowledge which he already had - the knowledge becomes the source of joy, peace, life, and application. God calls his people to trust his promises in Deuteronomy toward Israel and put him to the test (Malachi 3:10) by doing righteousness, so they might see (have it demonstrated) that they are true.
True demonstrations are everywhere. Demonstration which the person accepts only follows the work of the Holy Spirit. That is not fideism...
(personal ramble below)
...but I honestly struggle with it, because I am like the Israelites at Meribah - I want a demonstration that is so clear that I cannot be in doubt about it. Certainly, there can be no rationality at all without the Triune God, and therefore he is certain, but my subjective appropriation of that truth is much like the rebellious Israelites. I seek to test God to believe in him who is already without doubt, because I feel there is doubt within me though I know it is born of sin. Though I know now that I can say that Van Til's view is not fideism, there are still little lights going off in my head telling me something is wrong with that evaluation, for whatever reason. The evidentialist might say trust those inhibitions, and the Van Til disciple might call that the result of sin and unbelief.
Last edited: