In 1976 Cornelius Van Til published an article entitled “Calvin the Controversialist” in a collection of essays in honor of John H. Gerstner, a former student of his. The article was a fitting tribute to Gerstner, himself no stranger to theological controversy and one with whom Van Til had crossed apologetic swords. Moreover, by writing about Calvin, Van Til wisely chose to appeal to his and Gerstner’s common theological forefather. In explaining Calvin’s life and work, Van Til noted that Calvin’s life of controversy began when he embraced Protestantism. As a Protestant, controversy was no option for Calvin. In outlining the contours of Calvin’s theology, Van Til underscored that throughout his work the Genevan reformer bore a practical and ecclesiastical burden. For Calvin, the Protestant Reformation was the recovery of the Christian story for the Christian community.
At the time he wrote the article, Van Til was eighty-one years old, and he had recently retired from his long tenure of teaching apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Accordingly, the article took on a subtle autobiographical character as well, and Van Til likely used the occasion to reflect on his vocation as a theological controversialist. Van Til’s career was controversial at every turn. He polemicized against fundamentalists and evangelicals, modernists old and new, and both pre- and post-Vatican II Roman Catholics. Read more
In one of his writings on romantic love, C. S. Lewis alludes to a man skulking through the streets looking for a woman. This, says Lewis, is not true love. True love seeks to have and to cherish, while lust only desires for itself. That would seem to be a coherent Christian statement, but Cornelius Van Til would have considered it to be inadequate. Was that man not a sinner in need of Jesus Christ? What is the difference between Christian and non-Christian love? Without a proper Christian context, Lewis’s statement expresses merely an idealism not much different from refined paganism. Van Til said, “Ideals are like a highway in the sky. There are no entrance ramps.”
The skulking predator would have to change his attitudes and behavior to comport with gentlemanly ideals. But for Van Til, Christians need a more consistent Christianity based upon the authoritative Scriptures, the Reformed faith, and the historic creeds of the church. The legacy of C. S. Lewis has been the diminution of theology. One of his famous followers, Elizabeth Elliot, once said, “If more people read C. S. Lewis, there would be less need for seminaries.” Harvard professor Armand Nicoli maintains that Lewis’s reasoning is based on God-but is this the God of the Bible or the God of Platonism? The tendency in many pulpits today is to portray theology as an addendum to Christian life, to treat doctrine as an unpleasantness and to regard action as the only test of faith. Read more
Educators have always been concerned about how information is transferred from the teacher to the pupil. Specifically, does the student acquire a sufficient understanding of a subject in order to apply it to life? Over the years, students have voiced this concern with regard to Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987)—they find his language difficult to understand and difficult to apply to apologetic situations.
One reason for this is that they are not trained in philosophy. Even so, their failure to comprehend and apply Van Til’s philosophical language has not diminished their enthusiasm for his apologetic starting point, which is the self-attesting Christ of Scripture. For them, the authority of God’s Word and the preeminence of Jesus Christ transcend their own ignorance of philosophy. They know that the apologist is not to compromise the Christ of Scripture with any principle or system of secularization! Even if Van Til’s philosophical language is unclear, his students support his initial commitment to the gospel found in the infallible Word of God. Read more
For your consideration, here is an unpublished manuscript from 1970, a short article by Cornelius Van Til, in favor of the seminary where he taught and loved. The following quote is the conclusion:
“I started this talk by speaking of Kuyper and Bavinck, of Warfield and Vos. I said that it was their aim to deepen and broaden the Reformation principle. This must, in our day be done anew. The enemy has broadened and deepened its attack. The enemy now controls, or seems to control, every area of human interest, of art, of science, of philosophy and of theology. We must as believers in Christ challenge Satan’s right to anything, least of all to the fealty of the hearts of man.
We must, like Noah, tell men that they await the wrath of the lamb unless they repent for what they have done with their past, their present, and their future. If you can point out other institutions of learning, whether seminaries, colleges, or universities, where this is being done we shall with you rejoice. We are not rivals to any institution. There is need for many more. It is our aim, at Westminster, at the strategic place of influence which God has given us, to do what Noah did. We know that God has sent his Son into the world that men through him might be saved. We know that the whole world lies in darkness; and is on the way toward the wrath of the lamb. Our faculty and our board are in entire agreement on the nature of our task in this situation. We would do what Machen tried to do, what Kuyper and Bavinck, Warfield and Vos tried to do, namely, take the flag with the name of Jesus to the top of the highest mountain. We have little strength, we need more strength, but what counts for most is that we have kept his Word and by his grace are resolved not to deny his name.”
In the northern part of Holland in the province of Groningen is a small town called Grootegast. In the town lived the Reinder Van Til family. The grandfather was an owner and manager of an inn. Reinder also considered himself a theologian. He and his family were members of what we know as the Gerefemerde Kerken in Nederland. These people had separated from the state church in 1834 under severe stress and at times persecution. Initially they were barred from worshiping in formal church buildings and had to meet in barns and public buildings. The Van Tils were godly people.
Like many other people in that region, Reinder’s son Ite became a dairyman, buying and selling cattle and farming his 40 acres which produced vegetables for market. On this farm on the 3rd of May, 1895 in a farmhouse that was attached to the barn a sixth child was born to Ite and Kiazina Van Til. The world did not know about this birth as the birth of one whose name would be written about in the annals of history. To the Van Tils it was the birth of a covenant child and that God had blessed them with a healthy baby. God gave them eight sons and one daughter. The daughter died at an early age in a childhood accident. The young boy was soon to gain the name “Kees” as he was known as by friends and family to his death. For those of us who were younger and out of respect he was “Oome Kees.”
The influence of the Christian home was seen at every point. Family worship was also a vital part of the Van Til home as it was in “Oome Kees’s” home as long as I can remember. The Bible was always read at mealtimes followed by prayer. In his youth Dr. Van Til soon learned the Heidelberg Catechism as did his brothers. The first question and answer were well ingrained in his mind and he often made reference to it.
Christian school was never a question in the minds of the Van Til family. It was part of what made up the training of children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The Van Til children walked two miles to go to the Christian school. As an adult Oome Kees made reference to the fact that sometimes they ate beans instead of meat in order to pay the Christian school tuition. Worship in the church on the Lord’s day was a regular part of the spiritual development of the family.
Not long after Kees began his schooling his family moved to the village of De Leek located close to the boarders of the provinces of Friesland and Groningen. There father Ite had a twenty acre farm that was productive in the raising of vegetables and also peat which the family sold for fuel and fertilizer. But their stay in De Leek was not for long. Word of the promise of a better life for the family in America reached the ears of father Ite and he began thinking of what there might be for his sons in a new land. Many Dutch families were making such moves and the idea intrigued Mr. Van Til. In addition, the sons were coming of age when they would be called to military service. One of the sons, Reinder, married and with his father’s permission left Holland and headed for America with his bride. They settled in Highland, Indiana. His letters continued to urge his parents to come there as well.
II. THE IMMIGRATION
In the spring of 1905 when Kees was just 10 years of age, the family left their homeland and their son, Hendrik, and the many relatives and friends who were so much a part of their life. They sailed on one of the ships owned by the Holland-America Lines and arrived in New York on the l9th of May, 1905. From there they took a train to Hammond, Indiana. The trip was remembered as a grueling trip especially for the seventh son, Sidney. Sidney became a Christian school teacher and served for years in Christian school in Paterson, New Jersey. He predeceased Kees as did all of his brothers.
Reinder was at the station in Hammond to meet his parents and the rest of the family. In a horse drawn wagon he brought his family to Highland which in that day consisted of a post office, a Christian Reformed Church a school house, blacksmith’s shop, a round house and a saloon. Reinder had rented a house for them there.
They immediately got to know the minister of the church, Pastor Sherda, who was an influence in the formative years of Kees’s life. Once again, the church was the center of this family’s life. The boys went to the two room school house in the town. Kees, at ten years of age, was put in first grade but by the end of the year had advanced to the fifth grade. He was known as Big Klompa and his brother as Little Klompa. When another brother came to school he was called, Brother of the two Klompa.
Father Ite began fanning and again raised vegetables for sale to the market and to make wine from the wild grapes on the land he farmed. Kees loved the soil. That was a characteristic he never lost. Even in older years he enjoyed that. He always loved to visit farming country and to see what was being done in the production of crops. At his home at 16 Rich Avenue in Flourtown, he always had a large garden from which they ate all summer and canned much of what that garden produced.
I remember well his telling me how as a boy he would take loads of vegetables and sell them in towns near to Highland. They worked hard in the field and in delivering what they harvested. He said occasionally on the way home he would stop and buy a 5 cent glass of beer. He never worried about getting home because the horse knew the way.
After 10 years in Highland Ite decided to move to Munster, Indiana which was a few miles away. It would be here that Kees met the love of his life, Rena Klooster, who later became his bride and to whom he was married for 53 years.
III. THE STUDENT
As the years passed, Kees felt more and more that God was calling him to the ministry and away from the farm. At the age of 19 he left his family and his sweetheart and went the 150 miles or so, to Grand Rapids, Michigan to attend Calvin Preparatory School and College. It was here that he became devoted to the writings of Abraham Kuyper and little did he know at that time, Kuyper’s work would become part of the backbone of the Apologetic he himself would formulate in the years to come.
In 1921 Kees enrolled in Calvin Seminary. After a year at Calvin Seminary, he found himself at a crossroad. He had originally thought of finishing at Calvin and then taking a church in the Christian Reformed Church. But the possibility of going to Princeton Seminary would give him access to the great scholars such as Gerhardus Vos, Casper Wister Hodge and J. Gresham Machen. It would also enable him to take courses in philosophy at Princeton University. After much deliberation, he decided to go to Princeton. In that day the University was influenced by relativism but the Seminary still recognized the Scriptures as the final authority.
It was here at the Seminary Kees came to know Gerhardus Vos not only as a teacher but as a friend. When discussing the writing of this paper with Dr. Richard B. Gaffm, he also reflected how in his later years Oome Kees often spoke of the privilege it was to study under Vos and then to know him personally. He had a great influence on Kees’s life and Kees considered Dr. Vos one of the four persons who made a significant impact on him. The other three were Abraham Kuyper, Klaas Schilder and J. Gresham Machen. The evidence of their friendship is seen in the fact that when Dr. Vos died in 1949, Kees was asked by the family to conduct the funeral service in the little Pennsylvania town of Roaring Branch. His text was II Cor. 5:1: “For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”
In the spring of 1925 Kees finished his Th.M. at Princeton Seminary and that fall, on September 15, married his sweetheart, Rena Klooster. Their first home was in Princeton, New Jersey where Kees continued his studies at the University and famished his Ph.D. in the spring of 1927. They then returned to Indiana to wait for a call to a Christian Reformed Church. While traveling in The Netherlands for a few weeks, he received a call from Bates St. CRC, in Grand Rapids which he declined. Immediately thereafter he received a call from Spring Lake CRC. This being a small somewhat rural community he took the call and began his first and only pastorate.
IV. THE CALL TO BE A SCHOLAR
While Oome Kees expected to be in the pastorate in Spring Lake for several years, his time there was not going to be long. In the summer of 1928, not even a year after he had assumed the pastorate, he received a call to teach Apologetics at Princeton Seminary that fall. This was the beginning of the teaching of presuppositional apologetics at Princeton Seminary.
After his one year assignment was completed, he and Rena returned to Spring Lake and he was glad to take up his pastoral work again. Trouble was brewing at Princeton Seminary with a total reorganization of the board structure underway. The changes would move the seminary in a more liberal direction. It soon became clear that several professors would leave Princeton to form a new seminary. The only position left to fill was in Apologetics. A call was made to Spring Lake for Kees to return to the east coast but this time to a new seminary called “Westminster.” He declined the invitation. Then Dr. Oswald T. Allis journeyed to Spring Lake but Kees would not change his mind. The next set of visitors were J. Gresham Machen and Ned B. Stonehouse. The answer was still, “no.”
Undoubtedly, Oome Kees must have thought of an earlier conversation with Dr. Vos who urged Kees to be involved in the debate bringing about the change in Princeton Seminary. Dr. Vos told Kees, “this is going to be a much broader matter than a single denominational issue.” And further, speaking to Kees, “You cannot, you dare not, stand by and look on like an indifferent spectator when conflict is being fought in the arena.”
However, by the middle of September, 1929, he changed his mind. He felt God’s call to be part of the new seminary and for a final time he said goodbye to his congregation in Spring Lake.
V. OUR FIRST MEETING.
In the winter of 1951 my parents were in Grand Rapids, Michigan and through a mutual friend, met Dr. Van Til. While they were together, they struck up a friendship and my parents invited Dr. Van Til to come and spend some time in our home in California. Dr. Van Til accepted the invitation and planned to come for a whole month. That summer of 1951 Dr. Van Til took his wife back to her family in Munster, Indiana and then boarded a train for Sacramento. There my parents met the train and brought Dr. Van Til to Ripon California. I had just graduated from the 8th grade the first time Dr. Van Til came to our home.
My Mother was very concerned about having such a great man be with us for several weeks. What would he be like and what would his demands be? That question was answered the first morning after breakfast when Oome Kees got up from the table and picked up the dishes, walked into the kitchen, put on my Mother’s apron and began doing the dishes. This we later learned was a task he joyfully did in his own home, chattering as he worked. My Mother knew then, Oome Kees was a very down to earth person and would fit into the family well.
Oome Kees developed a great love for my Mother. He saw her as a very spiritual person and one who had a heart for people. It was my Mother who gave me the insight into much biblical truth. It was she who six months before her death gave me all the Puritan writings then published by Sovereign Grace Publishers which came into existence at approximately the same time as the Banner of Truth Trust. Dr. Van Til came to our house every summer for a month for almost ten years until my Mother died in 1960 six months before I went to Westminster as a student.
In a letter to an uncle and aunt, he wrote of my Mother, “I am happy you recall your last visit with Gilbert and Jessie in Heidelberg Germany. I have never known a person whom I think had a nobler Christian character than she. She was very much like her father. She had genuine piety, good humor, and a deep conviction of the truth with a determination not to compromise it.”
And to us in a card he wrote: “How deeply you must feel the loss of your Mother. Our prayers are with you in your sorrow. May the God of all comfort in whom she trusted so completely, sustain you.” Following her death in April, 1960 he only returned to Ripon the summer after she died and maybe on one other occasion. Two years later he published his book, Christianity and Barthianism and on a single page are the words, In memory of Jessie den Dulk
As mentioned above, Oome Kees loved the farm. When he was at our house, at least every week he would go with my grandfather to see what the sons and son-in-laws were doing each of the farms. My grandfather probably never had more than a sixth grade education but he was well read and would discuss with Oome Kees those developments which were taking place in the Netherlands and the development in the thinking of G. C. Berkouwer. Grandpa was aware of the thesis of Dr. Alexander de Jong and wanted to discuss it with Oome Kees. These discussions were a regular occurrence between these two as they did “roadside farming.”
VI. THE DEVOTIONAL AND PERSONAL LIFE OF VAN TIL
The first six weeks I was in seminary I lived in the home of the Van Tils after which time my wife came with our new baby and we moved to an apartment. What I saw there was only a continuation of what I had seen when Oome Kees was in our home. You were in the presence of a very godly man who felt a deep need for the forgiveness of sins and who in every aspect of his life wanted, out of thanksgiving, serve God with his heart and soul and mind.
His day began with God. His mealtime was not only a time of fellowship but also a time when the Bible or some devotional meditation was read. It was a time when a hymn was recited or sung. That was something Kees and Rena always did together. In letters he refers to singing Psalms in the hospital with Aunt Rena and how when she came out of the anaesthesia of an operation she was singing a Psalm.
Dr. Edmund P. Clowney shared with me he made a visit to the hospital during Aunt Rena’s last illness. When he arrived there the door to the room was closed. He thought maybe a nurse had closed it. He heard what he thought was a groan. He quietly opened the door to learn it was not a groan at all but two loving people singing a Dutch Psalm together. He said he felt like he had intruded in a holy time.
Oome Kees knew himself as a sinner saved by grace. In a letter to my Father’s brother Bill, telling of Aunt Rena being hospitalized because of a fall, on 1/2/73 he wrote, “I wish I were not such a horrible sinner as I am, constantly worrying. ‘Be careful for nothing but in everything by prayer and supplications make your requests known unto God.’ Only if we do this will the peace of God keep our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Yet at this point I fail every day. Pray for us.”
And in a private conversation with Uncle Bill, he said, how when he was young man, he seemed tempted of the devil in so many ways and thought that as he got older those temptations would go away. However, he said, as you get older the temptations are no less but actually greater.
VII. THE EVANGELIST
The Van Tils lived at 16 Rich Ave. in Flourtown, Pa which is about 5 miles from Westminster Seminary. Their home was a big stone house with three stories of which they basically used the first two floors. The house was almost at the end of a dead end street and had a large area where they had a garden every year. On the front porch sat two rocking chairs which were well used by them and by guests who came to learn from the gifted professor. But also here lived C. Van Til, the evangelist.
At least once a day Oome Kees would walk at least a couple of miles. The people in the neighborhood knew him as Dr. Van Til and he would always strike up a conversation with those who were on the route he took that day. While walking with him, you would pass various houses on the way, and he would talk about his contacts with this or that family. He had a deep passion for the souls of those he met and those who were his neighbors. In one of the areas where he walked was a convent and he would talk to the nuns and the priests.
In the last years of his life he had a large print Bible. Just as he would make notes in the margins of the books he was reading, he did the same in his Bible. Here is the note on the two pages where Psalm 35 to 37 were printed: For years I have prayed for George and Reba Moody: give them the gift of a new heart by thy Holy Spirit 0 Lord my God. Aug.23, 1982.
On the same page was written: For several years I have prayed daily for the Guyons, The Rexes, The Dicksons,… and two other ladies… may they repent and be saved from the wrath of the Lamb.
What had to be within the last two years of his life, known by the changes in the character of his hand writing, still on the same page of his Bible, he wrote: I still pray every morning for Mr. & Mrs. Moody, for Mr. & Mrs. Guyon and Dan, then for Mr & Mrs. Rex, for Mrs. Dickson, for Mr. & Mrs. Rich, give them 0 Lord, a new heart, repentance that they forever see thee face to face.
Directly south of the seminary grounds was several acres of trees and brush and on the property was an old house, you might almost call a shack. In the shack lived an elderly man. From time to time Oome Kees would go visit the old man and talk to him about Jesus. One day when Oome Kees came there he found the man to be sick. He saw to it the man was cared for. Before his death, professed faith in Jesus Christ and when the man died, Dr. Van Til conducted his funeral.
On another occasion I went to the hospital with Oome Kees to visit a student who had just had an appendectomy. After visiting the student we walked out of the hospital and were in the parking lot, he turned around and had that look on his face of reminiscing of the past. Then he said to me, “For years I used to go to the hospital every Sunday afternoon and go from bed to bed to read and pray with people and share the gospel.” And then he told me about a patient who was there who was losing her eyesight. Oome Kees selected a group of texts and had one of the secretaries at the seminary make up large cardboard sheets with the verses written in large letters. He then brought the card boards to the person. A year later, the same person was back in the hospital with the “cardboard Bible.”
Someone m Philadelphia shared with me a story of a man from Middletown, Pa. traveling to Philadelphia on business and stopping at a Horn and Hardart coffee shop. In walked another man who sat down next to him and they began talking. The second man asked the first, “do you go to church?” The first man replied by saying how he had not gone to church but after he came home from the war he had decided to go to church especially since he now had young children. They had become members of this Orthodox Presbyterian Church and how wonderful it was and the doctrines of Grace which they taught and they were part of denomination that supported a seminary named Westminster. As the second man got up, he said, “let me introduce myself, I am Cornelius Van Til.”
Dr. Van Til was not ashamed of the gospel. He used every opportunity. As a boy, when Oome Kees would be at our house for a month in the summer, I remember him going to visit a patient of my Father’s who was dying and who didn’t have long to live. That was not an isolated experience. I drove him to Carlisle one day in the late 70s. We stopped for a cup of coffee and gas on the turnpike. Another man was waiting for his gas to be pumped and within a few minutes Oome Kees had turned the conversation to the need to know Jesus Christ. His lack of fear of sharing the gospel led him to preach on the streets of Philadelphia and to Wall Street when he was in his 80’s.
VIII. OOME KEES, THE WISE COUNSELOR
Oome Kees was one of those people you trusted with the most intimate information and whose advice you sought whenever possible. I learned that already as a young man working both at home and on the farm. It was not unusual for him to walk out to where I might be working in a field or doing tractor work and he would talk with me for awhile. In those formative years as well as all the years I knew him, you took his counsel very seriously.
There is one time when what he had to say was indelibly written on my mmd. It was in the early 1970’s and I had an offer for a top position at a company that has now become a national company. I also had an inquiry from another institution. Oome Kees knew of these offers and so he took me for a walk on the circular drive around Machen Hall at Westminster in Philadelphia. We talked about the possibility of my leaving the seminary and what it would mean to me personally and to the seminary and then he said, “The beachhead of the Reformed faith is so small. We need everyone down to the janitor.”
I never forgot those exact words. There have been many occasions since then that those words have influenced the decisions I have made.
IX. OOME KEES, THE HUMORIST
Oome Kees had a wonderful sense of humor. It was a regular occurrence for him to send humorous mail to his many friends. Let me give you just a few examples.
He would often write to my Uncle Bill in German. When he sent him a copy of his classic, Defence of the Faith, he included a picture of the cannibal and under the picture was the sentence, “Here is the last of the cannibals. This old tribesman remembered the feast in which (and here Oome Kees inserted) K. Barth was eaten. Oome Kees. Karl Barth had referred to Oome Kees as a “menschenfresser” and Oome Kees often referred to himself that way in fun.
In another letter, he says, “Last spring I heard the great Barth lecture three evenings at Princeton. At one of them, as they were rushing him out, Dr. Hendry of Princeton said to him: ‘Here is Dr. Van Til.’ Barth looked at me as though I were a Frankenstein Monster and said, ‘are you Van Til? Are you Van Til? You have said many bad things about me.’ But patting me on the shoulder) ‘I forgive you, I forgive you.’ I was so flabbergasted that I didn’t have presence of mind to say anything but admit to the great crime of being Van Til.”
Continuing in the letter he said, “The day before Rev. B. Jones, whom I have known since Princeton days had Barth plus his secretary in his car, having picked him up on the street as he was going somewhere. Jones told Barth that he knew me. “You know Van Til? You know Van Til? Tell him he is a bad boy. He’s not going to heaven.”
“But since his last word was that he forgave me and since I heard that with my own asinine ears I take courage.”
In a letter from the Van Tils who were on vacation in Cedar Grove Wisconsin to my wife in 1962 he wrote:
We got a letter today from “The Benson Beast”, the new Modern Bible Translation, Inc. and from Bob, Nellie, Gil, and Tim Casey. (Tim was born on Oome Kees’s birthday) How confusing can you get? So I am writing a “line” at once. Life is so busy here that it would be easy to forget. We saw in one day: one ship, one robin, one dozen sea-gulls, two gentlemen, two ladies walking on the beach. So we are nearly exhausted with all sources of amusement. It’s 9:30 p.m. now and coffee is on the table. And that is the end of another perfect day. Read all day; eat – sleep! Oome Kees.
Probably one of the funniest events I remember is when my brother sent Oome Kees a page out of a magazine published here in the west. It was an advertisement for MJB Coffee. In the ad it said, “What could be worse than one weekend in Philadelphia without MJB coffee but two.”
Oome Kees took the ad and wrote MJB coffee in San Francisco a letter and said the following:
Dear MJB Coffee:
I have your expression of deep sympathy for people who have to live in Philadelphia and have no MJB coffee. I am one of those poor people and I deeply appreciate your expression of sympathy. It is really terrible to have to rise up in the morning and have to retire at night without a cup of MJB coffee all day long. Certainly the least you can do to express your commiseration existentially is to send your humble servant a pound of your marvelous coffee.
Sincerely yours, Cornelius Van Til
In response the following letter came back:
Dear Humble Servant:
You are absolutely right. Sending you a pound of coffee is the least we can do. Your letter was so nice, in fact, that we’re sending you two pounds. Thank you so much for writing. Your interest in MJB coffee and our advertising is greatly appreciated.
Oome Kees wasn’t done. He made a copy of his letter and also the response he received and sent them with the following letter to my brother:
From your early training in the Ripon Christian School you may recall the story of Joseph and his brethren. His brethren sold Joseph to Egypt. They meant it for evil, but as it happened their evil was overpowered for good. Your original letter containing the matter of an old man named O ome Kees, your humble servant, was meant for evil. As it turned out Mr. William J. Meyers of MJB coffee made it turn out for good. The enclosed letters will convince you of these facts.
Sincerely yours, Cornelius Van Til, Th.M., Ph.D.
On another occasion he sent a letter to my brother just addressed Mr. Clarence A. den Dulk, Carlisle, Pa. The large dairy farmer right by the turnpike entrance.
X. OOME KEES, A MAN OF COMPASSION.
While being an arch defender of the faith and plowing new ground with the development of presuppositional Apologetics, Oome Kees yet had a heart of compassion. He had his differences with J. Oliver Buswell who taught at Covenant Seminary. When both men were retired and Buswell was living at the retirement home in Quarryville, Pa. Oome Kees drove there one day to see friends and included a visit with Dr. Buswell.
William Harry Jellema had a distinguished career as professor of Philosophy at Calvin College and he was there when Oome Kees was a student. Dr. Jellema had been influenced by the study of Idealism. While philosophically the two men differed, they remained friends. On a visit to Grand Rapids when Jellema was in his declining years, Oome Kees went to visit him and commended him for his work. Jellema’s response was “Yes, but Kees, it was you who at times kept us from going too far.”
When James Daane, with whom he had crossed swords in print, was dying, Oome Kees wrote him a letter not about their differences but about the fact that eternity was near. He received a most warm spiritual letter back from Dr. Daane which he read to me at the time. Oome Kees’s compassion and concern for these people and others as well as his neighbors continued to come through.
Oome Kees was a terrific correspondent. To my parents he wrote a letter almost every Sunday while my Mother was alive and frequently to my Father thereafter. They were not the only people he wrote on a somewhat regular basis. He did some by dictation and many by hand. Unfortunately, not many of the letters were saved. During those last fifteen years of his life there was no one to file his letters or the letters he received nor anyone keep them. I once read a letter from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones which Dr. Van Til received on his 7Oth birthday. It was a beautiful letter and one that should have been saved. That is most disappointing because so much of it was a reflection of the personal life of the man. One of the letters you can see is his last letter to John Murray when Prof. Murray was dying of prostate cancer. It is found in the third volume of Prof. Murray’s collected works (Banner of Truth). I would urge you to read it.
XI. OOME KEES, THE LOVE OF READING
Oome Kees was an avid reader. Whether it was his Bible or a the book he as reading you would find all kinds of notes in the margins on the sides of the page. His reading was not just works of philosophy. Every year he read through such things as Dante’s Inferno and Pilgrim’s Progress. During the week of Easter he always read one of the volumes of Klaas Schilder’s Trilogy on the death of Christ.
He loved to read the Puritans. I so well remember his reading of Arnold Dallimore’s first volume of the life of George Whitefield. He was thrilled with the reading of that volume. He called my attention to a word picture of Whitefield preaching on the deck of one ship and the other two ships being side by side and Whitefield being heard by all of the passengers. It is found on page 158. He was so moved by that.
He told Ernie Reisinger after reading that volume he would love to be able to spend his time reading books like that but he would deal with the giants that seek to undo the Christian faith.
XII. OOME KEES, THE PREACHER
I had intended to include a section on the preaching of Oome Kees. I only wish that copies of his sermons from Revelation and Job and on Good Friday had been preserved. There are some which can be obtained from Westminster Media in Philadelphia or from Mt. Olive Tape Library.
The reason I have not included a section is because there is an excellent article which was part of the Van Til lecture series given by Dr. Edmund P. Clowney. This lecture was published in the Westminster Journal, Fall 1984 and also as an appendix in John Frame’s book, Cornelius Van Til, An Analysis of His Thought. Dr. Clowney makes it very clear that Oome Kees’s apologetics and his preaching began at the same point, with the God of the Bible and he applied his preaching to the culture of the day. I would urge you to read this wonderful article.
Oome Kees spoke of being influenced by four people: J. Gresham Machen, Gerhardus Vos, Klaas Schilder and Abraham Kuyper. My life has also been influenced by four people. One of them is Cornelius Van Til.
When J. Gresham Machen left Princeton in 1929 to start Westminster he insisted that Cornelius Van Til be the professor of apologetics at the new seminary. To students who would later study with Van Til Machen’s resolve was obvious; the Dutch Calvinist’s presuppositional apologetics was the backbone of a truly Reformed education. But to Machen’s former students and colleagues and Princeton his choice of Van Til was odd. Van Til’s apologetical method broke with Old Princeton’s evidentialism and appeared to undermine Machen’s claim that Westminster was perpetuating Princeton.
Orthodox Presbyterians have tried to fit together the pieces of the Machen-Van Til apologetics puzzle if only because of the importance of both men in shaping the identity of their denomination. For instance, the late Greg L. Bahnsen argued that Van Til’s presuppositionalism was fundamentally compatible with Machen’s reliance upon rational proofs and that the apparent tensions between Machen and Van Til stemmed from a misreading of both. In contrast, Charles G. Dennison has tried to show that Machen in his later years was learning from the new faculty at Westminster and so would have come around to Van Til’s position in due course. Whatever the merits of these explanations, Machen’s choice of Van Til could not have been better given the context of the ecclesiastical and theological struggles of the 1920s and 1930s. That decision also continues to be instructive for Orthodox Presbyterians today who desire to preserve the unique and faithful witness of the church.
THE PUBLIC RELATIONS VALUE OF VAN TIL
Cornelius Van Til was crucial to the founding of Westminster Seminary, not because he was brilliant, not because he was militantly Calvinistic, and not because he was Machen’s trusted friend. All of these attributes may have been true of Van Till. But his importance to Machen was much simpler. In order for Machen to claim that Westminster was the perpetuation of Old Princeton he believed that at least half of the original faculty had to come from the older seminary. Westminster began with eight professors and Machen, along with Robert Dick Wilson and Oswald T. Allis, both of whom taught Old Testament at Princeton, were committed to serving on the faculty of the new seminary. But Machen needed a fourth and Van Til was the only one who could fit the bill of having taught at Princeton.
At first Van Til declined Machen’s invitation. After serving as a pastor in rural Michigan from 1927 to 1928, Van Til taught apologetics at Princeton for the 1928-1929 academic year. He had no intention of remaining at Princeton after the seminary’s reorganization that year put modernists on the board of trustees and after Machen, to protest the changes at Princeton, had decided to start a new seminary. But neither did Van Til want to teach at a fledgling seminary in downtown Philadelphia. He and his wife had just given birth to a baby boy and he was looking for a call to a Christian Reformed congregation back home in Michigan.
When Machen received word of Van Til’s decision he was very disappointed. First he sent Ned Stonehouse, a fellow Dutchman, to Michigan to persuade Van Til to reconsider. When this did not work Machen himself traveled to Michigan despite his heavy responsibilities in creating a seminary virtually overnight. So desperate was Machen that he decided, with the consent of other faculty members, to give Van Til free reign in the department of apologetics and offered whatever salary was necessary. As a last resort Machen suggested that Van Til only come for one year in order to “rescue… the Princeton tradition.” Under the pressure of Machen’s arm twisting Van Til finally accepted the offer. The rest, as they say, is history.
The circumstances under which Machen chose Van Til may indicate that apologetical method mattered less than the politics of starting the new seminary. In other words, if Machen had been able to choose a professor of apologetics strictly on the basis of what he perceived as the theological merits of the individual, perhaps he would have chosen someone more in harmony with Old Princeton’s tradition of evidentialism. Though this hypothesis is plausible, Machen’s choice turned out to be astute because of the congruity between Van Til’s apologetics and Machen’s understanding of the relationship between church and culture.
THE PROBLEM OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT
For a variety of historical reasons American Presbyterians throughout the nineteenth century were fully committed to the Enlightenment and scientific methods as the surest means for arriving at truth. Though still believing in the authority of Scripture, the best—or at least the most widely accepted—way of demonstrating the truth of the Bible was by appealing to reason and Scripture’s harmony with nature and the self-evident truths of human experience. Even though the Presbyterian theologians who taught at Princeton Seminary, such as Charles Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield, believed in and defended the sinfulness of man, including human reason, their fundamental acceptance of the Enlightenment also produced apologetics that in many cases deemed the mind to be a reliable and authoritative guide to truth, including the truths of the Bible.
Old Princeton’s apologetic also implied a certain attitude toward the American nation. The United States was heavily indebted to the Enlightenment. Having rejected the crown or established church as a way to maintain social stability, the Enlightenment ideals of science and reason provided America with a rival form of cultural authority, one that was available to all right-thinking people and did not depend upon family blood and place/land. The scientific method and right procedures of argumentation gave to Americans public criteria for determining the true, the good and the beautiful. Thus, the church and the nation shared a similar outlook. Unlike the situation in Europe where the Enlightenment was explicitly anti-clerical (e.g. the French Revolution), in the United States most Protestants imbibed the ideals of the Enlightenment and supported the War for Independence which rested upon those ideals.
This was the tradition out of which Machen worked as an American Presbyterian and a member of Princeton Seminary’s faculty. Yet, his argument against Protestant liberalism questioned the close identification of the church with American culture, a tradition that extended back to the American revolution. Machen recognized that the church was fundamentally different from society, and that its faith and practice stood above (and at times against) the norms of America. The mainline churches, he argued, had compromised their witness because they had substituted the ideals of liberty, democracy and equality for the good news of the gospel.
Machen’s recognition of the antagonism between church and culture made him sympathetic to confessional ethnic communions like the Dutch Calvinist tradition from which Van Til came. He admired, for instance, the confessional witness of the Christian Reformed Church, its practice of catechetical sermons, its system of Christian schools, its college and seminary. He also esteemed the CRC’s separateness from the wider culture, its ghetto mentality as it were, rooted in the conviction that the church must avoid all associations that might compromise its witness. In an editorial for the Presbyterian Guardian written shortly before founding of the OPC, Machen praised the CRC’s practice of church discipline which “preserved its separateness from the world.” This was precisely the opposite of what Machen saw in Protestant mainline denominations where in order to gain the acceptance of the world churches had adjusted their preaching and ministry. As Machen wrote in Christianity and Liberalism, “religion is thought to be necessary for a healthy community; and therefore for the sake of the community [people] are willing to have a church.” But, he added, Christianity could not be treated this way. “The moment it is so treated it ceases to be Christian… Christianity refuses to be regarded as a mere means to a higher end….”
Van Til was not only reared in the CRC but he came out of a tradition with a fundamentally different attitude toward the Enlightenment. Because in Europe the great philosophical developments of the eighteenth century were so hostile to the church, Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, took a dimmer—if not hostile—view toward the Enlightenment. A good indication of this difference is the name of Abraham Kuyper’s political organization in the Netherlands, the AntiRevolutionary Party. Van Til’s apologetics extended this insight from the intellectual and political realms to that of theology and the defense of the faith. Thus, he made the antithesis, that is, the fundamental difference and antagonism between believers and non-believers, central to the task and method of apologetics. The authority for believers was God’s Word, not reason. Appeals to the reasonableness of Christian truth were doomed to fail because without the effectual calling of God’s spirit human rationality was in rebellion against God and would not be persuaded of the gospel’s truth.
THE CHURCH AGAINST THE WORLD
Van Til was a great choice to teach at Westminster because his apologetics provided the theoretical foundation for Machen’s conception of the relationship between church and culture. If Machen wanted the church to be separate from the world, Van Til’s methods supplied the reason for this separation. To be sure, believers and unbelievers hold some things in common—thanks to the grace God showers upon both groups through his providential care. But Machen recognized that the task of the church, namely, proclaiming the gospel and nurturing the faithful, was fundamentally different and at odds with the agenda of the world. Van Til simply put flesh on the skeleton of his mentor’s understanding of the antithesis. Machen may not have blamed the Enlightenment for American Presbyterians’ failure to maintain the antithesis. But remarks he gave before a Dutch Calvinist gathering on the importance of Christian schools suggest that only three years before the end of his life he saw how the project of a public rationality had undermined the identity and separateness of the community of faith.
…the religion of the Christian man embraces the whole of his life. Without Christ he was dead in trespasses and sins, but he has now been made alive by the Spirit of God; he was formerly alien from the household of God, but has now been made a member of God’s covenant people. Can this new relationship to God be regarded as concerning only one part, and apparently a small part, of his life? No, it concerns all his life; and everything he does he should do now as a child of God. It is this profound Christian permeation of every human activity, no matter how secular the world may regard it as being, which is brought about by the Christian school and the Christian school alone… a truly Christian education is possible only when Christian conviction underlies not a part, but all of the curriculum of the school….
Machen recognized the deadly consequences of the church’s failure to see that the claims of Christ upon his people were all-encompassing and excluded all other loyalties. He believed the church of his day had become worldly in the sense that it had exchanged “the glory of the cross” for “human opinions about the social problems of the hour or easy solutions of the vast problem of sin.” Rather than being intolerant of ideas and practices that denied God’s truth, the church in America had become a public institution, tolerating all views and opinions in the same way that the United States protected freedom of thought. Even though Machen may not have understood or even agreed with all of Van Til’s ideas, his choice of the Dutch Calvinist to teach apologetics was wise. For Van Til deepened Machen’s insights and articulated systematically the fundamental antagonism between the church and the world.
The OPC has benefited mightily from the antithetical posture of Machen and Van Till. When tempted to compromise its Reformed identity for the sake of wider influence and outreach, either by forming alliances with non-Reformed Protestants or by confusing the spheres of the church and the state, the OPC has by God’s grace insisted upon the otherworldly nature of the gospel and, thus, the anti-worldly character of the church. Is the situation today any different from that faced by Machen and Van Til? No matter what one’s assessment of the culture in which the OPC now ministers, the antithesis is no less a reality now than it was for the early church. As Machen wrote, the antithesis was the “great principle” of the church and it continually needed “to be taken to heart.” And he warned that “if the sharp distinction is ever broken down between the church and the world, then the power of the church is gone. The church then becomes like salt that lost its savour….”
Forty-five years ago P&R published a small book by Dr. Van Til entitled: “The Confession Of 1967: Its Theological Background And Ecumenical Significance”. Fast forward a mere forty-four years and we read the following headline on CNN’s website “Presbyterian Church U.S.A. to allow gay and lesbian clergy” May 10, 2011. According to the article:
“The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on Tuesday voted to allow the ordination of openly gay and lesbian ministers. The church put the vote to its 173 presbyteries, or governing bodies, nationwide. On Tuesday, the Twin Citites Area presbytery, which covers Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, became the 87th presbytery — and the deciding vote — to approve an amendment that will remove the constitutional requirement that all ministers, elders and deacons live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. The change, which opens up the possibility that people in same-sex relationships can be considered for ordination, is expected to take effect starting on July 10. It is the latest move by a Protestant denomination toward the inclusion of gay and lesbian clergy.” – CNN 2011-05-10
Now rewind forty-four years, and read the introduction to Dr. Van Til’s book.
“The 1958 General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America appointed a committee to draw up “A Brief Contemporary Statement of Faith” (Report of the Special Committee on A Brief Contemporary Statement of Faith, p. 7). The proposed confession of 1967 constitutes a part of the report of this committee. Should the Confession of 1967 be adopted by that church, an entirely new phase in its life will be ushered in. This is true because this proposed Confession gives expression to and is based upon a new theology. Our concern in this booklet, therefore, is with the nature of this new theology which will be given creedal status if this proposed Confession is adopted by the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. The casual reader of the new Confession may not readily see that it is founded upon a new and relativistic view of truth. Is he not told that the Confession of 1967 is based upon Christ and his reconciling work? Does not the new Confession appeal to the authority of Scripture? Does it not use the phraseology of the Bible and of the Westminster Confession? Though we concede that the new creed and its new theology speak highly of both Christ and the Bible, we nevertheless contend that new meanings have been attached to old, familiar words. The whole question, accordingly, is one of reinterpretation. One may take a milk bottle and fill it with a poisonous white liquid and call it milk, but this does not guarantee that the poisonous liquid is milk. It may well be some thing that is highly dangerous to man. Such is the case, we believe, with the new theology: It is an essentially humanistic theology which disguises itself as an up-to-date Christian theology. Of course, we are told that the new Confession is contemporary in its view of truth. We are also told that the Westminster Standards are outdated, being written in an age of absolutism. By contrast, today’s theological thinkers know that truth is relative to man and the human situation. Has not Immanuel Kant taught us that man can know nothing of God and of Christ in so far as Christ is said to be God as well as man? From Kant recent philosophers and theologians have learned that man’s conceptual knowledge is limited to the impersonal world of science and does not apply to the religious dimension. Though the twentieth-century church has been informed by the new theology that it can have no objective or conceptual knowledge of God and of Christ, this same theology still continues to speak about God and Christ in eloquent terms. But, as we have already noted, these terms have new definitions. The God and the Christ of this contemporary theology have very little in common with the God and the Christ of historic Christianity. There is good reason to believe that the new theology has virtually manufactured a new Christ, a person who is essentially different from the Savior of the Scriptures.
First, the new theology speaks in the warmest terms of the great fact of the “Incarnation.” Are we not encouraged when we hear this? For a moment we are—only to be sharply disappointed when we discover the “God-man” of the new theology is not the self-existent and self-attesting Son of God of the New Testament, of Chalcedon, and of Westminster. Instead of a Trinitarian formulation of the doctrine of the Incarnation, the church is to learn that God is identical with “Christ” and that “Christ” is directly identical with the “work” of reconciling all men to himself, but only indirectly identical with Jesus of Nazareth. Men can be truly men only as they realize that their very manhood exists in their participation in this work which is of “Christ.” Men enter the kingdom of heaven as they follow “him” and they follow him if they treat all men as persons.
Second, this contemporary theology would have the church believe that Christ’s salvation is ultimately universal. The “Christ-Event,” the act of God’s saving all men in “Jesus Christ,” ideally reconciles all men to God and all men to one another.
Third, the new theology discounts the idea that the language of Scripture can truly represent the meaning of the “Christ-Event.” When the Scripture speaks of God’s reconciling act in terms of “vicarious satisfaction of a legal penalty, and victory over the powers of evil,” then the new theologians of the drafting committee hasten to explain that “these are expressions of a truth which remains beyond the reach of all theory in the depths of God’s love for man.” All that the Bible writers did or could do was point to a higher or deeper dimension of being opened up to them by this symbolic language of Scripture.
Thus when the new church, with its new creed, speaks to modern man about Creation, the Fall into sin, and Redemption through Christ, it is not speaking of the world of historical fact in the orthodox Christian sense. These theological terms are supposedly mythic and symbolic of another dimension of reality. It matters, but it matters only secondarily, whether these eyelets did or did not happen in the actual world of every day history. Such a question as this is largely irrelevant. Christ’s reconciling work is not primarily historical in that sense. It is said to be primarily in a world above history.
In what follows we hope to show that this new “dimensional” theology which controls the new Confession is, at bottom, a new heresy—that its use of traditional language is misleading and that, for all its praise of “Christ the Word,” its message is foreign to the teachings of the historic Christian faith. The new Confession presents an essentially man-centered instead of a God-centered theology.”
Now fast forward again 45 years and look where the new man centered theology has led us to, the self-deception of considering a lifestyle of sin, to merely be an “alternative lifestyle”.
A concise overview of the history of philosophy in relationship to the claims of Christ. These lectures also exist in audio tape form.
Ancient Man Replies
A. Who Blasphemes, Jesus or the Pharisees?
B. Stephen the Martyr
C. The Risen Lord Appears to Paul
D. Saul the Persecutor Becomes Paul the Apostle
1. Paul at Lystra
2. Paul and the Greek Philosophers
E. Paul’s World-Wide Mission
1. Paul at Athens—the Biblical Framework of Thought
a. All Men are Covenant-Breakers in Adam
b. The Resurrection Indicates the Coming Judgment
F. The Greek Paideia
1. Behold the Man: Socrates
2. Werner Jaeger on the Greek Paideia
b. The Search for a Divine Center: Socrates
c. The Contrast Between the Greek and the Christian Paideia
3. Platonic Idealism
4. Aristotle’s Form-Matter Scheme
Medieval Man Replies
A. Plotinus and Augustine
1. Plotinus and the Scale of Being
B. Augustine and the City of God
C. From Augustine to Thomas Aquinas
1. Negative Theology—Pseudo-Dionysius
2. Natural Theology
3. Mystical Theology
D. Gilson’s Argument for the Medieval Synthesis
1. Necessity—The Parmenidean Principle of Continuity
a. A Christian Philosophy
2. Contingency—The Heraclitean Principle of Discontinuity
E. Degrees of Knowledge
1. Thomas Aquinas as the Medieval Man—Par Excellence
F. Degrees of Love
G. The Total Picture
H. The Substantial Unity of Man
Modern Man Replies
A. Renaissance Man Replies
1. Renaissance Man vs. Reformation Man
a. Modern Science
2. Renaissance Man’s Idea of Himself
a. Nicolas Cusanus
b. Francis Bacon
3. Reformation Man’s Idea of Himself
a. Martin Luther vs. Boehme
b. Descartes vs. Calvin
B. Immanuel Kant and the Principle of Inwardness
C. Post-Kantian Man Replies
1. The Post-Kantian Theologian—Karl Barth Replies
2. The Post-Kantian Scientist—Teilhard de Chardin Replies
3. The Post-Kantian Philosopher—Robert Collingwood Replies
D. The Modern Church Replies—The Congress of 2000
1. The Confession of 1967
2. Lutherans and Calvinists
3. The Protestant Principle and the Roman Catholic Principle
4. The Christian Principle and the Jewish Principle
5. The Thirty-Eighth Parallel
” ’But who do you say that I am?’ asked Jesus. Ancient man replied, ’You are a mere man. ’ Medieval man answered, ’You are a man-God. ’ Modern man responds, ’You are Authentic Man.’ There has never been a time when the question of the identity of Jesus of Nazareth was so important as it is today. For example, was He the self-attesting Christ of the historic Protestant confessions; or is He, rather, the ’Christ-Event’ of post-Kantian philosophy and theology? The present booklet gives the writer’s reasons for believing Him to be not the latter but the former. If one would reject the genuine, self-attesting Christ of Scripture, he must do so, unavoidably, in terms of the self-attesting man. But the very existence of the latter presupposes, unavoidably, the self-attesting Christ; thus, to deny the former’s claim is self-stultifying.”-from the Preface
This syllabus on Jewish apologetics was published as a book in 1968.
1. Philo Judaeus
1. The Unknowability Of God
2. A Negative Mystical Theology
3. Logos Theology
4. Allegorical Theology
5. The God Of Mystery
6. The Higher Law
7. The Torah
8. The Mystic Moses
9. The Alexandrian Apologetic
2. Two Types Of Faith
1. Buber And New Testament Faith
2. Buber And Modern Philosophy
A. Spinoza And Hasidism
B. Eclipse Of God
3. Modern Thinkers On Buber
A. Will Herberg
B. W. Aalders
C. M. H. Bolkestein
D. Ludwig Binswanger
E. Maurice S. Friedman
4. The Nature Of Evil
A. The Eclipse Of God
3. The Torah
1. The Torah And The Old Testament
2. The Advancing Ethical Consciousness
A. The Development Along The Rabbinical Line
B. The Sopherim
3. The Unwritten Torah
4. Adjustments Of The Torah
5. The Revolt Against Hellenism
4. The Lord Of History
2. The Jewish Principle And Modern Protestantism
3. Holiness And Glory
4. The Origin And Destiny Of Man
7. The Kingdom Of Heaven
From the introduction…
“Modern Jews have a life-and-world view through which they seek to become a blessing to the world. This life and world view has no place in it for Christ. The Jews believe that men can know and serve the true God and therein be “saved” only if they reject the claims of Christ.
When a Christian worships Christ as the Son of God he is, says the Jew, an idolater. And he sees his mission as that of bringing such an idol-worshiper back to the God of Abraham and of Moses.
In seeking to fulfill his mission in relation to Christian idolaters the Jew must, of course, oppose the claims of Christ. Even so his ultimate aim is positive. It is to win the Christian to the service of the one true God.
Martin Buber speaks of Jesus as “a great Son of Israel.” 1 He says that “in the teaching of Jesus himself, as we know it from the early texts of the gospels, the genuinely Jewish principle is manifest.” 2 He adds: “From my youth onwards, I have found in Jesus my great brother.” 3
It would seem that Buber’s position is quite different from that of the Pharisees in Jesus’ day. But is this really so? Is it not rather true that according to Buber the “genuinely Jewish principle” has already won the battle. The Jews brought true monotheism into the world. Christians will now gladly follow their lead to the one God, the God beyond any and every form of human knowledge. The only Christians who need to be opposed today are those who still think that in Christ and in the Bible as his Word there is a direct and final revelation of the true God to man in history. All the rest already worship the true God. All the rest are in the kingdom of God, and even the “fundamentalist” will some day be.
Our main purpose in this brief monograph on Jewish Apologetics is, in turn, to understand and to evaluate the position of the modern Jew in order to win him to Christ. The historical mission of the Jews was to bring forth Jesus as Christ in order that through him the world, Jew and Gentile alike, might be saved. When Buber speaks of Jesus as his “great brother” without speaking of him as his divine Savior, this is still to reject Christ. And with the rejection of Christ by the Jew his mission in history dissipates as the waters of a river in a desert. But Christ will not allow the Jew thus to defeat himself in rejecting him. Through his Spirit Christ can and will create a new heart within him and give him true repentance toward him. Then, together with all Gentiles who truly repent, all Israel shall be saved.”
1 Martin Buber, Two Types of Faith (tr. Norman P. Goldhawk; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), p. 9.