It has become standard fare in any method of Christian apologetics to give a place to what theologians call the noetic effects of sin. How does sin affect our minds? In what way is one’s ability to reason corrupted by the fall and by the ongoing sin of the individual? No twentieth-century Christian philosopher seems to have engaged this question more thoroughly than Cornelius Van Til. Of course, like nearly everything that Van Til wrote, his views on the subject are quite controversial in apologetic theory. As thorough as Van Til was in discussing the noetic effects of sin, he failed to counterbalance this with a theory of salvation’s effects on the mind.
In one sense Van Til said quite a bit about the noetic effects of salvation. Everywhere that he speaks of the differences between the reasoning of believers and unbelievers he is discussing the effects of salvation on the mind. However, his theoretical development of the noetic effects of salvation is inchoate in comparison to that of the noetic effects of sin.
According to Van Til, unbelievers know God but are in rebellion against him. They know him but they hate him and seek to
deny their dependence on him for knowledge of any truth. Consequently, unbelievers’ rebellion profoundly affects their intellect. The moral problem creates an intellectual problem (Van Til, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 26-28). Since they have an ambition to deny the Triune God, they think in ways that are commensurate with this ambition. We should not be surprised that morality and intellect should be so intertwined. Or, as Van Til liked to say, “the intellectual itself is ethical” (Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 63). What our hearts desire to be true often governs our assumptions about and explanations of reality. On this subject Van Til was the Christian philosopher par excellence, and he spoke of it ad naseum.
However, there is a question that necessarily follows: “How does salvation repair the damaging effects of sin on the mind?” Here, Van Til’s thought is remarkably underdeveloped. Now, I have not read everything Van Til ever wrote, and I probably never will, but in my reading it is evident that his formulation of this doctrine is curiously assymetrical to his development of the noetic effects of sin.
Here are the relevant quotes from Van Til:
Reason, or intellect, is always the instrument of a person. And the person employing it is always either a believer or an unbeliever. If he is a believer, his reason has already been changed in its set, as Hodge has told us, by regeneration. It cannot then be the judge; it is now a part of the regenerated person, gladly subject to the authority of God. It has by God’s grace permitted itself to be interpreted by God’s revelation. If on the other hand, the person using his reason is an unbeliever, then this person, using his reason, will certainly assume the position of judge with respect to the credibility and evidence of revelation, but he will also certainly find the Christian religion incredible because it is impossible and the evidence for it always inadequate (Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 98-99).
To give us true wisdom or knowledge Christ must subdue us. He died for us to subdue us and thus gave us wisdom. (The Defense of the Faith, 34).
Through the fall of mankind in Adam, the first man, the representative of all men, all became creature-worshippers. But through the redemption wrought by Christ and applied to his people by the Holy Spirit, the chosen ones have learned, be it only in principle, to worship and serve the Creator more than the creature. They now believe the theory of reality offered in Scripture. They now believe in God as self-sufficient, in the creation of all things in this universe by God, in the fall of man at the beginning of history and the “regeneration of all things” through Christ (The Defense of the Faith, 48-49).
There are other passages, but they do not reveal any further development of Van Til’s thought on the subject.
Is anyone else left buried under the weight of questions that these passages prompt? Questions such as:
Van Til puts unbelieving thought and believing thought in such stark contrast, but how do the noetic effects of sin and the noetic effects of salvation simultaneously affect the minds of believers? In other words, how does the doctrine of simul justus et peccator bear on what we say about the noetic effects of salvation?
The work of salvation is begun but not complete. With regard to the progressive effects of salvation on the intellect, how does one’s doctrine of sanctification relate to this? Presumably Van Til would want to infuse a Reformed view of sanctification (whatever that may be) into the answer to this question. John Frame addresses this question in his Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 154.
Van Til chalks up the difference between believers’ and unbelievers’ intellects to the effects of regeneration, but what other aspects of salvation relate to the differences in intellects.
Does the effect of regeneration on the mind require an active presence of the Spirit’s influence on the mind or is does the effect of regeneration take place at the time of conversion only?
How does the believer’s new identity through union with Christ influence the intellect?
How do we account for situations in which some unregenerate people can think God’s thoughts after him better than the regenerate do?
The questions could continue.
Were we to ask similar questions about Van Til’s doctrine of depravity, we would find many more answers from his writings. Yet, without a similar level of development of the noetic effects of salvation we are left with an incomplete explanation of the differences between the minds of believers and unbelievers which Van Til was so prone to discuss.
Of course, to be fair, a person can only say so much in his lifetime, and one can hardly fault Van Til for any scarcity of writing. So one might expect those who took up his mantle to fill in the gaps. Do they? Hardly. Greg Bahnsen’s greatest contribution to the noetic effects of anything was his work on self-deception. As vital as his work in this area is, it once again only relates to the intellect of the unbeliever and not the positive effect of salvation on the mind of believers. One might also expect a thorough treatment of this in John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God but one would be disappointed. Frame talks about cognitive rest as a noetic effect of salvation but this won’t do for an explanation of the differences that Van Til says exist between the intellect of believers and unbelievers. To my knowledge, Van Til had next to nothing to say about cognitive unrest or angst in the unbeliever.
I’m open to correction if I’ve missed an obvious example where Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, et al develop a more thorough theology of the effects of salvation on the mind.
The significance of this problem is difficult to overstate. If presuppositionalism is to enjoy a future of increasing influence on apologetic theory, it is going to have to address vital questions that Van Til did not. In my opinion this is one of the most significant areas in which presuppositionalism can improve.
I have some thoughts on what we should say about the noetic effects of salvation, and I may address it in a future post, but whether I do so will depend largely on the interest expressed in this one.
These are excellent questions, John. Much has been said regarding the noetic effects of sin as to the unregenerate mind, but to what degree have those faculties been restored in the mind of the regenerate? I’m inclined to think the effects are progressively removed through sanctification (that is the believer thinks more and more clearly toward glorification), however Van Til may have approached this differently.
Perhaps a better question would be “When does an individual cease to suppress the truth in unrighteousness?” That suppression stops in a sense when a person confesses Jesus Christ as lord and savior, but in another sense, we are always suppressing the truth through our sin.
Camden,
From what I know of his theology, I think Van Til would have approached the regeneration of the mind in a way very similar to yours. However, for those of us who do not think in terms of an ordo salutis an alternate view is required.
You are right that suppression of truth is always with us, and that through Christ we no longer suppress the truth. It is odd then that Van Til spoke in such absolute terms about the differences between the believer and unbeliever. This is proper in many ways, but it is unbalanced because he does not explore how greatly we are still sinners awaiting our final redemption.
Any further thoughts on how the doctrine of simul justus et peccator relates to the intellect?
[...] The Noetic Effects of Salvation in Presuppositional Apologetics, by John Fraiser (posted 8/8/07). [...]
I think you raise a good question, and one that needs further development among Reformed apologists. But, to say that Van Til neglected the positive side of the antithesis (i.e. noetic effects of salvation) may be slightly overstated. Van Til was well acquainted with the eschatological aspect of theology ala Geerhardus Vos, and hints of the “already/not-yet” application of the antithesis can be clearly seen in Bahnsen and Van Til.
For example, see Bahnsen’s _Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis_ pp. 274-5; therein, Bahnsen discusses the difference between the antithesis “in principle” and “in practice.”
And in Van Til’s own words, see his _Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought_, pp. 78-9:
Though I have not had a chance to read it yet, I know of one book-length attempt to highlight the eschatological nature of Van Tillian apologetics: _Paul’s two-age construction and apologetics_ by William D. Dennison.
Lo,
Insightful comments. It’s great to get the perspective of someone who is as familiar with Van Til as you obviously are. However, I wish you had been as careful in reading me as you have Van Til. You have gotten the impression that I sought to avoid. I did not say that Van Til neglected the positive effects of salvation on the mind. I stated that it is underdeveloped in comparison to his doctrine of the noetic effects of sin.
You have pointed out some places where Van Til comments on the eschatological dimension of salvation. I had not considered the eschatological aspect of Van Til’s thought. But in none of those passages do I see an attempt to address the implications of eschatology for the intellect, which is the subject about which I’m particularly concerned. Now we may certainly be able to draw out what we think are the implications of those statements for the intellect, but it would still hold that these aren’t implications that Van Til made. I still find it an odd lack of development in Van Til’s thought about a subject of such vital importance.Does Van Til’s familiarity with Vos really give us more content of Van Til’s thought on the questions I raise with regard to the intellect?
I’ve been reflecting on Paul Helm’s recent review of Revelation and Reason (ed. K. Scott Oliphint) at the Reformation 21 website. He notes that Van Tilians often exposit Van Til’s thought without really offering a critique or suggesting a place of development.
Your post would reinforce Helm’s thoughts. This would be an excellent place to develop Van Til’s thought and expand it. Might make someone a good doctoral thesis one day!
Thanks for stretching my mind.
I’m working on a paper and there is a section which I want to deal with this very issue. Is it possible to contact you either by Email or phone to talk about this. Here is my Email address. Thanks.
Regeneration, ontological born again change, re-structures the unconscious/conscious
from the personal original fault/conflict, re-constituting communion grace relationship
with God.
Sanctification of relational emotional negativity formed in substitute loss-need
relatedness with maternal and paternal, initiates healing and negation of noetic effects
of sin.
Toward a Christian Psychology!
David,
Even after reading it five times, I still cannot make the least bit of sense out of anything you’ve said here. If talking this way is what it means to work toward a Christian Psychology, then I’d suggest that Christian Psychology work toward clarity first. Aside from heaping random theological and psychological buzzwords into a pile, I don’t know what else you’ve done with this statement.
David K. Allen,
I agree with your response and apologize for the lack of clarity. My hope was
to connect with a psychoanalytically minded Christian researching and configuring
integration at this level. Secular psychoanalytic ontological and epistemological logic, formulated within noetic effects of sin, phenomenologically dominates research, education, and practice, in disregard of scripture.
David K. Allen,
I’m a little confused as to why you’re addressing yourself in your comment. Also, your last statement isn’t even a complete sentence. If you are a real person, I don’t mean to insult you, but at this point I can’t be sure I’m not conversing with an automated bullshit generator.
Perhaps Van Til is only reflecting the overwhelming reality around him. Look around you, what is happening in our country, even to the point of self destruction. No theory here, a president who takes a % of corn off the market to produce ethanol, and the poor of the world riot as they are faced with starvation, so we may drive about more cheaply, is not the example of health one would hope for! (“reasoning of believers”? ) The patient needs to become aware of how ill he/she has become to seek a cure! Our moral compasses are present, but we must choose to follow their guidence.