Of Rocks and Trees: Mattson in Defense of Gaffin and Van Til
Three decades ago, the Westminster Theological Journal published an article by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., with the modest title, “Some Epistemological Reflections on 1 Cor 2:6–16.” Gaffin’s main purpose was to provide some direct exegetical argument to support “several key emphases” in the epistemology of Cornelius Van Til. (Read the first page of the article to get the fuller context.)
In my humble estimation, Gaffin’s article is a masterclass in theological exegesis. But it has recently been subjected to criticism by two Reformed writers, Joel Carini (here) and Keith Mathison (here). Both contend that Gaffin illegitimately imports into his exegesis a philosophical doctrine that also polluted Van Til’s thought: the idealist theory of “epistemological holism,” according to which only exhaustive knowledge can be true knowledge, due to the unity and interconnectedness of all truth.
I think the criticisms of Carini and Mathison miss the mark, and fortunately I don’t need to prove it myself, because Brian Mattson has written an eloquent defense of Gaffin and Van Til. I commend it to you.
Thom Notaro’s excellent little book, Van Til & the Use of Evidence, has been out of print for years. However, Thom holds the copyright and has generously granted permission for me to make a scanned copy of the book available for free download. Enjoy!
My overall assessment of the book can be summarized as follows: I think Dr. Fesko does a great job of defending the use of natural revelation (“the book of nature”) in apologetics and in showing how the mainstream Reformed tradition has consistently and enthusiastically affirmed such use (albeit with important qualifications related to the noetic effects of sin and the necessary interpretive role of special revelation). However, the major shortcomings of the book are its repeated misinterpretation and mischaracterization of Van Til’s position (and that of other presuppositionalists, such as John Frame and Scott Oliphint) and its failure to establish its thesis that Van Til’s views are significantly at odds with Calvin’s views or with confessional Reformed theology. In fact, given what Dr. Fesko affirms in