Before moving on to Van Til’s treatment of Scripture and Authority, I think it wise to briefly discuss his remarks pertaining to Catholicism’s understanding of the Creator-Creature distinction. I say briefly for a few reasons. First, his remarks are few in so far as they relate to how Catholics do or do not understand the concept. And secondly, his few remarks were nothing short of bare assertions, lacking any kind of substantiation, much less a single citation. For these two reasons this post should be much shorter than the others in this series.

I will only here deal with one remark. It sums up, in a beautifully simple fashion, his (mis)understanding of the Catholic position. He says this in Christian Apologetics:

“It [Catholicism] does not make the Creator-Creature distinction basic in its thought.”

There are very few things that could be further from the truth, and I am in no mood to seek them out. A familiarization of the Missal, the Liturgy, and the role of the Mass in Catholic thought would have done wonders here. The distinction is the underlying assumption of the Mass. It is, from the Judica Me to the Last Gospel, calling to mind the vast chasm between the Creator and the creature, as well as the Victim whose sacrifice brings these things together. Even the gestures we make towards the Altar and the Tabernacle display a deep-rooted understanding of this fundamental distinction. Once again, familiarization with the Mass would have done wonders.

Note that I said that Van Til would have benefited from familiarizing himself with the role the Mass plays in Catholic thought. This was quite intentional. The Mass is remarkably different from Protestant gatherings in that we see it as more than a retreat into the schoolroom or reservation, but a microcosm of Catholic piety and thought. It contains and dictates how we view God, man, reality, authority, knowledge, and ethics. In short, we may find in the Mass a great summation of the Catholic worldview. Consequently, it doesn’t permit of any way of thinking which contradicts or is not in harmony with the Mass. It is for this reason, as I have already noted that he would have done well to familiarize himself with both the Mass and the role it plays in Catholic thought.

Lastly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is quite clear about the distinction between the Creator and the Creature and the role it plays in Catholic thought. In #199 we are told that the affirmation “I believe in one God” is:

“… most fundamental. The whole Creed speaks of God, and when it also speaks of man and of the world it does so in relation to God.”

Here we have the Creator-Creature distinction as “most fundamental” when understanding God, man, and the world. In fact, this is of such great importance that there is an entire section, worth quoting at length, entitled “Catechesis on Creation.”

“[282] Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life; for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic questions that men of all times have asked themselves: ‘Where do we come from?’ ‘Where are we going?’ ‘What is our origin?’ ‘What is our end?’ ‘Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?’ These two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.”

In all fairness, Van Til may have had in mind the fact that Catholicism “blurs,” or so Protestants say, the functions of God with those of man and operations of God with those of the Church. But this should hardly be seen as problematic in light of our position of secondary causes. Certainly the Protestant should agree! God has dominion, and yet most all grant that we participate in that dominion. God is King of Kings, yet he anointed and appointed Kings. Christ is called the foundation of the Church in I Corinthians 3:11, yet the apostles are referenced as the foundation in Ephesians 2:20. The same could be said of Christ called Shepherd of the Flock in I Peter 2:25 while Acts 20:28 refers to the apostles as shepherds of the flock. Prophet, Priest, King, and everything in between, we see cooperation and incorporation of secondary causes. These things wrongfully diminish the Creator-Creature distinction only in so far as one holds to a heretical position concerning God and his use of secondary causes. For those who hold an orthodox position, such so-called “blurring” is a non-issue.

One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate how Van Til understood the religion he so viciously attacked. His writings show him to be as presumptuous in his pronouncements as he was harsh in his criticisms, and this is saying quite a bit. But when all is said and done, what is there to prove? That he was a heretic and an enemy of the Church? Is it to demonstrate how he, all hype aside, was rather shoddy in his scholarship when coming to the Catholic controversy? No, these aren’t ends in and of themselves. The point of this is to demonstrate that presuppositionalism is not only harmonious with Catholicism, but that Catholicism, and it alone, can provide the necessary preconditions wherein presuppositionalism is possible. This will, I hope, be demonstrated in my next post; for it is my position that the Protestant’s defense of the method stands or falls on the matters of Scripture and Authority, and that their positions fall on their own claims.