All Articles

Article

How David Powlison Taught His Students to Think Like Cornelius Van Til

  • Brandon Burks

“You want to see the application of Van Til’s apologetic method? You’ve gotta take this course!”

A fellow Westminster classmate made these remarks as we were perusing the class list for the upcoming semester. David Powlison’s course, Theology and Secular Psychology (PTC-243), was known around campus as a thoroughly Van Tillian application of engaging with secular theories. As someone who greatly appreciates the theology and apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, I was eager to see how Van Til’s method informed a biblical counselor’s engagement with secular psychology. In those years (2014-2017), Powlison was training some of the CCEF faculty to take over his courses, so we were also blessed by Todd Styrd, who delivered many excellent lectures that likewise reflected Van Til’s influence.

During the course, we read several books and articles.1 For example, we read Herman Bavinck on anthropology and made many counseling applications from his distinction between the broad and narrow image of God.2 We also worked through a number of journal articles, including Powlison’s “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair’,”3 as well as John Frame’s “Unregenerate Knowledge of God”4 and “Is Natural Revelation Sufficient to Govern Culture?”5 The readings for this course, along with the lecture material, taught us a central insight of Van Til’s system of thought: the necessity of balancing both the antithesis and common grace.

The official description for Theology and Secular Psychology anticipates the application of antithesis and common grace to secular thought.6 For example, the course catalog lists the first purpose of the class as: “To teach students how to understand psychologists’ observations, theories, and practices, and how to engage them critically, humbly, and lovingly.” The antithesis is applied during critical engagement with a secular theory. I remember Dr. Styrd drawing two columns on the board, one column for the secular theory and the other for the Bible. Side-by-side, we would compare the teaching of Scripture with the secular theory regarding their respective views on reality (metaphysics), anthropology, and their ultimate standard and goal. On the chalkboard, the antithesis would shine through for all to see.

According to Van Til, “In this world of sin no Christian individual and no Christian organization can be positive and constructive till after they have been negative and destructive.”7 Or, as William Dennison put it, antithesis precedes common grace.8 Since the believer and the unbeliever hold to antithetical worldviews, in principle, the points of antithesis or conflict must first be identified, lest the Christian imbibe “Trojan horses” of non-Christian structures, ideas, or methodologies. So acute is the antithesis between the believer and unbeliever that Van Til could say, “The fact that two times two are four does not mean the same thing to you as a believer and to someone else as an unbeliever.”9

Van Til, however, did not leave us with only the antithesis. He was eager to say, “I have not forgotten the doctrine of common grace.”10 Because of God’s common grace, unbelievers “can engage in science and in the general interpretation of the created universe and bring to light much truth.”11 In fact, “many non-Christians have been great scientists.”12 Moreover, Van Til was zealous to keep natural revelation and special revelation together at every point, arguing, “God’s revelation in nature, together with God’s revelation in Scripture, form God’s one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man.”13

Many unbelievers, even secular psychologists, have discovered much truth. That truth, however, must be scrubbed of antithetical elements. Yet the fact remains that all truth is God’s truth. With Tertullian, Van Til asked, “What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?” With St. Augustine, he knew that all truth is God’s truth, even as unbelievers have “unlawful possession of it.”14 For this reason, the syllabus for Theology and Secular Psychology gave the following purpose for the class: “To reinterpret through a redemptive gaze the things that psychologists see most clearly and care about most deeply.” The course catalog went on to say, “Topics covered include the skills of reinterpretation and redemptive interaction” (emphasis added). In other words, this course taught how to first apply the antithesis and then to mine secular theories for common grace insights that could be beneficial to the biblical counselor.

To the extent that unbelievers, inconsistent with their own worldview, have borrowed from Christianity and, by God’s common grace, have affirmed proximate similarities and brought truths to light, there is much (though with limits) for Christians and non-Christians to do in the way of cooperation and edification.15 Van Til argues that common grace, after all, “enables mankind positively to develop the latent forces of the universe and to do works of ‘civil righteousness.’”16 Simply put, biblical counselors—after applying the antithesis—can learn from non-Christians.17 “In principle,” wrote Van Til, the Christian and non-Christian “are diametrically opposed, but in practice the situation is never complete—and how we thank God for it!”18

As I think back upon this time of preparing for ministry, I thank God for this course. We saw firsthand how secular theories are antithetical to Christianity, as well as how God’s restraint of the unbeliever’s suppression of truth allows the unbeliever to “bring to light much truth.”19 Van Til’s presuppositional critique came into view as we saw that all the good the secular counselor longs to accomplish for his counselee can only be found in Christ, and without Christ, there is no hope.20 We should not marble Christianity with pagan thought, but we should also not underestimate God’s common grace. While there is no neutrality, the unbeliever often borrows from the Christian worldview. These truths shape how we approach secular psychology—indeed, it must be redemptively reinterpreted.

   

  1. For a similar syllabus to the one I received at WTS between 2015 and 2017, see: “Theology & Secular Psychology Course Syllabus – RTS 2016,” in StudyLib (accessed March 31, 2026), https://studylib.net/doc/15628003/theology-and-secular-psychology%E2%80%94-rts-intensive–winter-2016?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ↩︎
  2. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2 God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 2:548-562. ↩︎
  3. David Powlison, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair’,” in The Journal of Biblical Counseling (vol.13, no.2, Winter, 1995). ↩︎
  4. John Frame, “Unregenerate Knowledge of God” (May 30, 2012), https://frame-poythress.org/unregenerate-knowledge-of-god/. ↩︎
  5. John Frame, “Is Natural Revelation Sufficient to Govern Culture?” (May 21, 2012), https://frame-poythress.org/is-natural-revelation-sufficient-to-govern-culture/. ↩︎
  6. See Westminster Theological Seminary, “2016-2017 Academic Catalog,” https://info.wts.edu/article/293-academic-catalog. ↩︎
  7. Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1979), 187. ↩︎
  8. William D. Dennison, In Defense of the Eschaton: Essays in Reformed Apologetic, ed. James Douglas Baird (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015), 62. ↩︎
  9. Van Til, Essays on Christian Education, 189. Also see William D. Dennison, In Defense of the Eschaton: Essays in Reformed Apologetics, ed. James Douglas Baird (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015), 47; Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming Mathematics: A God-Centered Approach (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 15-28, 58-62; K. Scott Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 52-53. Van Til deployed a Reformed category of “false knowledge,” which is when an unbeliever affirms a true proposition, but surrounds that proposition in a false, unbelieving context. See J. Brandon Burks, Nesting Pedagogy in the Metanarrative: A Van Tillian Approach to Pedagogical Storytelling (Diss, SWBTS, 2025), 150-159. ↩︎
  10. Van Til, Essays On Christian Education, 203. It should also be remembered that the “idea of common grace may not become the basis for a ‘neutral territory’ between believer and unbeliever,” for even similarities are but “proximate similarities.” Van Til, Essays On Christian Education, 91, 189. Van Til maintained that there are no general principles “on which believers and non-believers can agree without distinction.” Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, 2nd edition, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2015), 78. Van Til also differed at points from Kuyper’s treatment of common grace. Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, 56. ↩︎
  11. Cornelius Van Til,The Defense of the Faith, 4th edition, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1955; 2008), 258, emphasis added. ↩︎
  12. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 282. ↩︎
  13. Cornelius Van Til, “Nature and Scripture,” in The Infallible Word: A Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, 2nd edition, ed. N.B. Stonehouse and Paul Woolley (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1967), 267. ↩︎
  14. Tertullian, “On Prescriptions Against Heretics,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 246; St. Augustine, “On Christian Doctrine” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994; reprint, 2004), 553-554; Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, ed. Scott Oliphint (1969; Glenside, PA: WSP, 2023), 115-140; Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of Christianity and My Credo (Phillipsburg, NJ: 1980), 84-85,92-93. ↩︎
  15. Van Til, Essays On Christian Education, 63, 91, 187, 189, 203; Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, 22, 24, 28, 67, 71, 78, 110, 137, 200, 208-209; Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God, 2nd edition, ed. William Edgar (1974; Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2007), 45, 380; Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 115, 124, 168, 196, 258, 282-283, 291, 293-294, 343; Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, ed. K. Scott Oliphint (1969; Glenside, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2023), 43-44; Cornelius Van Til, The God of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1978), 243-245; John R. Muether, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 153; Lane Tipton, Introduction to the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Libertyville, IL: Reformed Forum, 2025), 73-80; K. Scott Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 51-53, 130-136; James N. Anderson, “Presuppositional Apologetics,” in Understanding Christian Apologetics: 5 Methods for Defending the Faith, ed. Timothy Paul Jones (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2025), 80-82; Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, ed. Robert R. Booth (Nacogdoches, TX: CMP, 1996), 37-40; John M. Frame, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief, 2nd edition, ed. Joseph E. Torres (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2015), 64; Vern S. Poythress, The Lordship of Christ: Serving Our Savior All of the Time, in All of Life, with All of Our Hearts (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 49-60, 200. ↩︎
  16. Cornelius Van Til, “Common Grace,” in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1955), 272. ↩︎
  17. Christians are not restricted merely to the level of observation when it comes to learning from non-Christians. After all, observation and interpretation are linked. See Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, 56; Van Til, The God of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: 1978), 243-245. ↩︎
  18. Cornelius Van Til, “History and Nature of Apologetics: Common Grace: 3,” in iTunes, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/history-and-nature-of-apologetics/id430339495?i=1000411442375. ↩︎
  19. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 258; also see K. Scott Oliphint, “Van Til and the Sensus Divinitatis,” in The Future of Reformed Apologetics: Collected Essays on Applying Van Til’s Apologetic Method to a New Generation (Glenside, PA: WSP. 2024), 1-24. ↩︎
  20. See David Powlison, “Critiquing Modern Integrationists,” in The Journal of Biblical Counseling (vol. 9, no. 3, Spring, 1993), 32. ↩︎

Brandon Burks

Brandon Burks

Pastor of Christ Reformed Church (URCNA)

Brandon Burks is the pastor of Christ Reformed Church (URCNA) in Bellevue, Kentucky. He holds a BA in Christian Apologetics from Boyce College, an MAR in Theological Studies from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a PhD in Teaching and Learning from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, with a minor in Christian Apologetics. His doctoral research examined Cornelius Van Til’s theology of education, with particular attention to Van Til’s use of narrative in teaching and worldview formation. Brandon is the author of Thinking God’s Thoughts: An Introduction to a Pilgrim Worldview and has published in the Westminster Theological Journal and the Confessional Presbyterian Journal.

View Bio