Notes on Cornelius Van Til, Letters from America

Cornelius Van Til, Letters from America, edited by Daniel Ragusa, was published in 2025, but I just heard about it now, having been given a copy. The subtitle of the book is “A Dutch Reformed Perspective for Orthodoxy in American Presbyterianism (1935-1940).” This subject and era of church history is of great interest to me, having written multiple chapters in The Presbyterian Philosopher on the “Clark – Van Til Controversy” of the 1940s.

The book contains the English translation of twenty-four of Cornelius Van Til’s letters to the Dutch publication De Reformatie. These letters provide a window into the mind of Van Til during the tumultuous times when the OPC was founded and J. Gresham Machen suddenly passed away.

Instead of writing a review, I just want to note some items of interest.

Van Til criticizes the leaders in the PCUSA who pushed out Machen. Those leaders, he notes, care little for the doctrinal standards of the church, but are keen to push their authority in the structure of the church. He writes, “It may certainly be regarded as ridiculous and a deeply sad phenomenon that someone, who did not even consider it necessary that one believes in the substitutionary atonement of Christ in order to be a lawful minister in the Presbyterian church, should now all of a sudden be seized by a fit of zeal for ‘pure’ church polity.” (p. 44)

In another letter, Van Til refers to the events then underway in the Presbyterian Church as an afschieding (separation) like that in the Dutch church a century before.

Then, in 1935, he writes a letter on “Karl Barth and Christian Unity.” Had I known of this letter, I might have included reference to it in an article I wrote some years ago on “Gordon Clark and Other Reformed Critics of Karl Barth.” Van Til argues that Barthian influence is seen in the American church through the work of Adolf Keller who like Barth denies the truth of Biblical history. Interestingly, Van Til is seen here (though perhaps not elsewhere in his writings) as an advocate of “system.” He writes, “In short, in Keller’s book just as in Barth, and in Barth just as in Keller’s book, a pagan system of ideas, or rather a pagan-like absence of all system, seeks to connect itself with the history of redemption and the connected rendering of God in Scripture. They want the eternal counsel of God, but they also want the irrationalism of modern philosophy. Whether they like it or not, the truth thus becomes relative.” (p. 60) His final critque then comes back to the Presbyterian church: “Is it any wonder that those here in this country use Barth for ‘church union’ propaganda? And is it any wonder that they must then ultimately come together on the basis of the lowest common denominator? Is it any wonder that Dr. J. Ross Stevenson receives Barthianism with open arms at Princeton?” (p. 60)

In another letter on Barth, in 1936, Van Til speaks of Methodist Dr. Edwin Lewis as Barthian. Here, Van Til advocates not only system, but logic. He writes, “If one were now bound by the antiquated laws of logic, it would be said that Christ must both die and yet not die for our sins. But you see, it is really all in that new logic. Or better, it is the absence of all logic.” It would be interesting to know more of Van Til’s views on system and logic, given his later advocacy of paradox in theology.

Van Til could have been one of the first to break the news to the Dutch of Machen’s suspension from office. He wrote, “What seemed inevitable last year has happened. The General Assembly (general synod) of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. suspended Dr. Machen and many others with him.” (p. 79) Later he notes, “One of the biggest mistakes made by the orthodox is that they did not immediately bring charges against the Affirmationists.” But, as I’ve noted elsewhere, Gordon Clark with a couple of others actually did bring charges against men in their presbytery who signed the Auburn Affirmation. It just didn’t succeed. Good to see Van Til agreeing with Clark on that direction.

In a 1936 letter, Van Til claims that the new Presbyterian church “fully sides with the Christian Reformed Church” (p. 87) on the subject of common grace. Some years later, in the Clark case, there were majority and minority reports not on common grace but on the related subject of the “Free Offer of the Gospel.” It is clear that the OPC wasn’t unanimously supportive of common grace. Today, sadly I find that most Presbyterians assume common grace and aren’t even aware of its troubles and the debate over the idea. There are yet a good number of Presbyterian ministers, who like myself, side with our Confession of Faith and deny common grace.

Another 1936 letter gives Van Til’s view that the struggle against modernism has been won, but struggle against fundamentalism is just beginning. (p. 91) Van Til clearly sees himself as something other than fundamentalist; he sees himself as Reformed. He argues that the Fundamentalist’s creeds are “brief and generic,” “drawn up to which everyone [of various denominations] can agree, except the modernists.” (p. 92) And he notes that “chiliasm is a distinguishing mark of fundamentalism.” (p. 92) So he writes, “There is thus no doubt that the battle must be waged against ‘fundamentalism’ in general. Still, not everyone can be lumped together; justice must be done to the moderate chiliast.”

The first letter of 1937 speaks of the passing of J. Gresham Machen, whom Van Til says “we thought him indispensable to Westminster Theological Seminary … as a leader of the Presbyterian Church of America … to Christian science … — but enough; God has taken him away.”

In an article on Fundamentalism, Van Til notes that dispensationalists “usually do not want to hear about secession.” He attributes this to their doctrine of dispensations. That is, since “Jesus is coming soon” there is no need, in the eyes of some dispensationalists, to quarrel about leaving the modernist churches.

Van Til speaks also of a struggle in the new church as one between “the Reformed and the fundamentalists, most of whom are also permeated with the leaven of dispensationalism.” (p. 109) Here he is referring to the growing divide that would result in the separation of the BPC from the OPC. He was clearly aware of that divide. He noted, “The extent to which the struggle will openly erupt at the General Assembly, which gathers in June in Philadelphia, cannot yet be said with certainty. But it is clear that the clouds are gathering.” (p. 110) When the split did happen, Van Til writes, “We cannot help, then, but consider it a great blessing that Rev. Buswell, Rev. McIntire, and others have left us.”

It ought be noted that there is a pattern with Van Til. He doesn’t want to associate with Modernists or Barthians, nor does he like Fundamentalists. He’s against Hoeksema’s view of common grace, and later against Gordon Clark and others in the OPC. There are few that he can work with. The church he most praises is the Christian Reformed Church. I wonder what his view of that church was in the later years of his life when the CRC had changed so much.

Much of the rest of Van Til’s letters are against Karl Barth and continue to raise the alarm over the trend towards Barthianism at Princeton. I must say I generally like Van Til on this subject.