Van Til and Singer: A Theological Interpretation of History

By William Van Doodewaard

How should history be written? The history of history writing shows a wide range of answers to the question. Every age, whether Old Testament and ancient paganism, New Testament and Greco-Roman, patristic, medieval, Reformation, post-Reformation, or secular modern to post-modern, presents a multitude of attempts. Some historians feel they are simply tracing the record of the past, yet undoubtedly the record presented by each bears witness to their conviction and belief. Most Christian philosophers, or theologians, of history have argued there ought to be something distinctively Christian about the best of history writing. Two notable, twentieth-century Reformed thinkers who pursued this conviction were Cornelius Van Til and C. Gregg Singer.

Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987)

Among varied attempts towards a Christian historiography, an intriguing effort is found in an approach rooted in Cornelius Van Til’s thought. Perhaps best known as a Christian apologist and theologian, he was instrumental in developing and promoting presuppositional, or covenant, apologetics and worldview thinking. [1] These areas of his thought continue to exert substantial influence in North America among confessional evangelicals, particularly of Presbyterian, Reformed, and Baptist backgrounds. Van Til’s theological roots lay in the American (Christian Reformed Church) Dutch Reformed pietism of the Dutch Secession Churches. His theological training started at Calvin Theological Seminary, blended with continued study at Princeton Theological Seminary, and matured in his association with Westminster Theological Seminary. Though his main calling in life was not developing a philosophy of history, his apologetic, especially his view of revelation and “concept of analogy,” created the foundation for what became a theological approach to history, dealing with “most if not all of the issues which are generally included within the scope of the usual work on the philosophy of history.” [2]

The Doctrine of Revelation

In order to understand Van Til’s stance on apologetics, philosophy, and history, it is crucial to understand his view of the doctrine of revelation. Van Til saw that the basic, underlying, universal truth is that the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. “Man...is working on God’s estate. He is not himself the owner of anything, least of all himself.” [3] “Those who still think of themselves as owners of themselves and think of the world as a grab-bag cannot properly evaluate the situation as it really is. Unbeknown to them they too are working on God’s estate. As they construct their temples to themselves God looks down from heaven and watches them.” [4] Everything and everyone belongs to God.

Moving from the doctrine of God’s ownership of and sovereignty over His creation, Van Til sought to describe the connection of this to God’s self-revelation:

...the same God reveals himself both in nature and in Scripture. It is this God and only he who is “infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection, all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness and truth.” It is to be sure, from Scripture rather than from nature that this description is drawn. Yet it is this same God, to the extent he is revealed at all, that is revealed in nature…. God is “eternal, incomprehensible, most free, most absolute.” Any revelation God gives of himself is therefore absolutely voluntary...here lies the union of the various forms of God’s revelation with one another. 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. [5]

Man’s knowledge of God’s creation and God Himself is only possible because man is created and sustained by the Creator and His “covenant-revelation of himself.” [6] Van Til believed that both of these realities bring man a clear, covenantal obligation: his living, thinking, and communicating must be rooted in and in harmony with the Triune Creator and His covenant-revelation. In his rebellion, however, man violated and rejected this, plunging himself into a condition of sin and misery, losing the coherent thought that can only exist in harmony with the reality of God’s covenant-revelation. A return to “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” requires spiritual regeneration, which is worked by the Word and Spirit. Due to man’s rebellion, including his sinful obscuring and ignoring God’s covenant-revelation, part of the “Christian’s task [is] to point out to the scientist that science needs to stand on Christ and his redeeming work if it is not to fall to pieces….” [7] Van Til argues that there is an essential relation between Scripture and the pursuit of knowledge in any field. As all of creation is part of God’s covenant-revelation, which man is called to know by thinking God’s thoughts after Him, the only way to carry out this mandate is to use the great interpretation of the facts which God has revealed in His Word. Only in this way is man graciously enabled to take up the “knowing” aspect of his covenant calling

to gather up in his consciousness all the meaning that God had deposited in the universe and be the reflector of it all. The revelation of God was deposited in the whole creation, but it was in the mind of man alone that this revelation was to come to self-conscious re-interpretation. Man was to be God’s reinterpreter, that is, God’s prophet on earth…. [8]

How does this apply to Van Til’s understanding of the relationship of the doctrine of revelation to understanding history? A student in any field must realize that truth and meaning can only stand on the foundation of the truth of God’s Word. As accurate historical understanding can only exist in correspondence with the reality of a God-created, sustained, and governed universe, it requires a philosophy of history founded on and directed by divine revelation, Christ, and His redeeming work.

The Concept of Analogy

God’s sovereignty and self-revelation in nature and Scripture lead to the necessity of what Van Til called “analogical thinking”— the Christian thinking God’s thoughts after Him, through the redemptive work of Christ, proclaimed in the Word. Scripture is the great interpreter, necessary for the correct interpretation of every fact of God’s covenant-revelation. Van Til says,

Since the Redeemer speaks to him, not through individual mystical insight but by the word that his Saviour has given to his church in the form of Scripture, the believer will go to that record of redemptive work which Christ has accomplished for the world. That record will shed light on every fact in every relation in the world. The record of the redemptive work of Christ is the record given by the Holy Spirit through the ministry of the prophets and apostles. God has not left man alone with the event of the redemption, leaving it to man’s own sinful heart to interpret it. On the contrary, God has with the facts given the interpretation of the facts…. The one without the other is meaningless…. The final aspect of this redemption is that, by the regenerating power of the Spirit, sinful man learns to submit his own interpretation...to the interpretation which the God of grace has provided for him in the Word through the inspiration of Scripture. This is a truly biblical and therefore a truly analogical methodology. [9]

Van Til often speaks of “analogical thinking” or “analogical methodology.” In doing so, he refers to “the relation of God to man” in the area of knowledge. [10] Greg Bahnsen helpfully clarifies Van Til’s description of human knowledge as being “analogical” to God’s knowledge. He posits that Van Til’s use of the term “analogical” stresses the “agreement, correspondence, resemblance, or similarity” (the analogous relation) between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge, while simultaneously recognizing the elements of discontinuity or difference between God’s knowing and man’s knowing. Van Til, Bahnsen argues, called the relationship between God’s and man’s knowledge “analogical” to express and guard the truthfulness and reliability of what man knows. Bahnsen states:

...in knowing anything man thinks what God Himself thinks: there is a continuity between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge, and thus a theoretical basis for the certainty of human knowledge…. [At the same time there is] a discontinuity between the two acts of knowing [God’s and man’s] that is greater and more profound than the discontinuity between one person’s act of knowing and another person’s act of knowing...(Isa. 55:9)…. Not only is there a difference between God’s manner of knowing and man’s manner of knowing, but God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge coincide at no point in the sense that in the awareness of the meaning of anything, in his mental grasp or understanding of anything, man is at each point dependent upon a prior act of unchangeable understanding and revelation on the part of God…. Man could not have the same thinking activity in his mind that God has...unless he himself were divine…. Man cannot do what God does, except by way of finite imitation or reflection. [11]

Van Til argues that God calls man to think His thoughts after Him when man receives the information that God reveals in creation and Scripture. By creation and Scripture, God calls man to rightly pursue and steward knowledge. Man is created with an innate desire to grow in knowledge using “the rational and empirical abilities with which God has equipped him.” [12] What man learns through empirical research and logical reasoning must stand in harmony with what he receives as “preinterpreted information” through the Scriptures in order to be true, accurate, and understood in its God-ordained relations. Due to this, pursuit of “analogical thinking” can only occur where God by grace works spiritual transformation. When this happens, man begins “to think thoughts on a creaturely level which God originally thought (or thinks) as Creator and providential Governor of the world,” reaching them by use of the mind God has given to him as His image-bearer. [13]

The Theology of History

The fact that all of creation is a part of God’s covenant-revelation, combined with the call to think analogically, makes Van Til’s approach to history theological. Starting in exegetical theology, it develops within the parameters of the confessional statements of the church, propelled by the desire to have a fully biblical world and life view. [14] Historian C. Gregg Singer notes that “Van Til rejects every attempt to formulate an explanation of human history derived from a philosophical approach and methodology.” [15]

This theological approach did not mean that Van Til ignored writings on history. He had a keen interest in Augustine’s work, seeing him as a role model who “seeks for a Christian view of himself and of history.” [16] Van Til saw a distinct transition from a reliance on philosophy to reliance on biblical revelation in Augustine’s thought:

As Augustine gradually began to fathom the depth of the grace of God in his heart he saw that his freedom did not consist in metaphysical slenderness of being but in ethical restoration to his Creator God through Jesus Christ his Redeemer God. 

Augustine learned that he must take his principle of continuity and his principle of discontinuity from Scripture, rather than from Plato or Plotinus…. Augustine now knows that he is not a compound between abstract impersonal being and equally abstract non-being. He is part of God’s created world. He believes what Moses says about the creation of the world. Time is no longer a moving image of eternity. It is created by God. Time is no longer an aspect of pure, self-existent contingency. When he seeks to understand the nature of time he no longer tries to do so by a timeless principle of rationality. He merely seeks better to understand himself and his world in terms of God’s revelation in Christ in Scripture. He has been rescued by Christ his Savior…. There are now clearly two distinct classes of people for Augustine, those who are redeemed by Christ and those who are not redeemed. The two kinds of people now have mutually exclusive principles for the interpretation of God’s relation to man and his world. [17]

Like Augustine, Van Til believed that Scripture “exhibit[s] to us the development of the struggle between the two cities, the city of God and the city of the world.” [18] In Scripture, this struggle speaks “of things done, yet done prophetically; on the earth, yet celestially; by men, yet divinely!” [19] Received by grace, through faith, God’s Word lays out the template for understanding history:

The history of the patriarchs, the history of Israel, it all exhibits the conflict between the two cities. “The enemies of the city of God, who prefer their gods to Christ its founder, and fiercely hate Christians with the most deadly malice,” have been operative throughout the whole of the Old Testament period. It is in this way that Augustine interprets the Old Testament Christologically…. 

Only those who by grace have received true faith...in their hearts will enter eternal blessedness. “But on the other hand, they who do not belong to this city of God shall inherit eternal misery, which is also called the second death, because the soul shall be separated from God its life, and therefore cannot be said to live, and the body shall be subjected to eternal pains.” 

Here then is Augustine’s total philosophy of history. By faith alone can we accept the existence of the triune God. By faith alone do we and can we accept the redemptive work of Christ and his Spirit in history. By faith alone can we accept the fact that we are creatures and sinners before God. By faith alone can we understand the progress of history to be that of the conflict of Christ against Satan. By faith alone can we accept the fact that the issue of each man’s life and of history as a whole is that of eternal life and eternal woe with victory for Christ over his foes…. [Augustine has] set forth this truly biblical philosophy of history, and [has] challenged the skeptics to produce something intelligible in its place. [He] now sees that there are no abstract principles of truth, goodness and beauty above God but that God, as self-sufficient, and as revealed through Christ in Scripture, is for him the source and criterion of truth, goodness, and beauty. [20]

For Van Til, as Augustine, history must be interpreted on the basis of the presuppositions and framework of the Word of God. It is Christ-centered, God-ordained, and God-moved. It is the struggle of the seed of the woman against the seed of the serpent, the city of God versus the city of man. This view of history is one part of the coherent unity of the Christian worldview.

The record of Van Til’s thought on understanding history ends with his commentary on Augustine. He gave the basic contours of a distinctively covenantal, neo-Augustinian approach to theology of history, but did not give the philosophy of history consistent attention. His only other direct references to the subject were passing critiques of other philosophers of history. [21] Nonetheless, Van Til’s thought contributes to Christian understanding of history by relating philosophy of history to divine revelation: formulating a scripturally grounded approach to human knowledge connected with Augustine’s theology of history. His approach, however, did not end with this theological beginning; an academic historian would continue to develop and refine the historical application of Van Til’s first principles.

C. Gregg Singer (1910-1999)

C. Gregg Singer was a Christian historian with a teaching career spanning more than half of the twentieth century. A graduate of Haverford College and the University of Pennsylvania, he served as chair of history at Wheaton College (1944 –1948), Salem College (1948 –1954), Belhaven College (1954 –1958), and Catawba College (1958 –1977), prior to becoming professor of church history and theology at Atlanta School of Biblical Studies (1977-1987). He finished his career at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (1987-1995). Despite spending the early part of his life in Pennsylvania, Singer’s life work led him to become theologically rooted in Southern Presbyterianism, serving many years as a ruling elder in the Southern Presbyterian Church. In the mid-1970s, he joined the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, a decade later joining the Presbyterian Church of America by ordination as a minister. [22]

Singer’s writings reveal a dedication to systematizing and advancing Van Til’s thought in application to the theology of history, much in the way that Bahnsen systematized and clarified Van Til’s apologetic approach. Singer’s first work on the topic of theology of history is his essay “Cornelius Van Til: His Theology of History.” [23] As a summary and analysis, the essay provides an initial constructive advancement of Van Tillian thought on the theology of history. Another early Singer contribution relating a covenantal approach to the philosophy of history is the book Arnold Toynbee: A Critical Study (1965). [24] Singer’s other published works, including A Theological Interpretation of American History (1964), The Unholy Alliance: A History of the National Council of Churches (1975), and From Rationalism to Irrationality (1979), [25] were limited and indirect in their commentary on the theology of history. They stood as applications, not descriptions, of Van Til’s historical approach. From Rationalism to Irrationality applied a Van Tillian approach to the history of ideas, arguing that the irrationalism of the twentieth century was a necessary consequence of the influence of classical Greek and Roman thought via the humanism of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Rational thought in the West, Singer argued, was rooted in Christian theism.

While his early writings laid the foundation for a theology of history and his published works pursued a theological approach to history, it is Singer’s unpublished book, The Relationship of Philosophy and History to the Historic Christian Faith (1973), that fully describes and develops a Van Tillian approach to history. [26] It appears that Singer initially used his notes on this topic as a series of lectures at the opening of the Christian Studies Center at Warren-Wilson College. [27] His dedication states appreciation for the formative influences of William Childs Robinson, Cornelius Jaarsma, and Cornelius Van Til. [28] The manuscript first deals with philosophy; the second part, entitled “The Relationship of History to the Historic Christian Faith,” is devoted to the Christian understanding of history.

Singer introduces the second part of the manuscript by tracing the general move among academic historians from the liberal optimism of Condorcet and other nineteenth-century thinkers, through the crucible of the twentieth century into an increasing, pessimistic relativism. His frank observation that “many historians have...given up the quest for the meaning of their own discipline...coming to this conclusion without too much of a struggle because they are already convinced that their own lives are devoid of any real significance,” clears the stage for his promotion of a distinctly Christian approach to the study and writing of history. [29]

Theology and History

In order to understand Singer’s theological approach to history, we need to begin by examining his understanding of and commitment to theology. Singer is candid about his theological commitments. He approvingly notes of Van Til:

For the answer to all the questions which must inevitably arise as we survey the human past and present, Van Til turns to theology and even more specifically does he look to Calvinism as that one theology which provides the necessary ingredients for a world and life view capable of supplying answers to the most profound questions of human existence. [30]

To Singer, the honest approach of a distinctly Reformed theology was necessary and commendable, not narrow and sectarian. He appreciated Van Til for bringing “his solid foundation in Reformed theology” to “bear upon the great problems of history. [31] Singer followed the same line, unabashedly stating that “basic to a biblical view of history is the doctrine of revelation...the doctrine found in scripture concerning itself, and the statement of this doctrine found in the Westminster Confession of Faith.” [32] Like Van Til, Singer was concerned not only with a general Christian foundation, but also with interpretation according to the guiding parameters of the creeds and confessions of the historic Presbyterian church. He believed that the church and its members in the academy could and should operate harmoniously. This was not rooted in a narrow perspective of the historic and global church, but rather in the conviction that these creeds and confessions are faithful, exegetically founded summaries of Scriptural truths. [33] For Singer, Reformed theology was not simply a perspective, but the best, most biblical perspective.

Not surprisingly, like Van Til, Singer also found kinship in what he saw as “the approach developed by Augustine...and brought to its fruition in the works of John Calvin.” [34] Augustine “provided the church with a theology which could be used as the firm basis for the biblical approach to the problem of classical culture and at the same time would enable Christians to fulfill their cultural mandate in their covenantal relationship with the sovereign God…. [T]his approach...we may call subjugation or reinterpretation.” [35] Singer continues:

Augustine began to draw the very important distinction between redemptive and common grace and very properly placed the achievements of the classical scholars in the area of the operations of common grace. He therefore saw the classical mind as being guilty of covenant-breaking and of holding the truth which it had achieved in error, because it failed to recognize the sovereign God of creation and redemption as the source of that truth. 

Augustine brought it forcefully to the attention of the Christian church that the Christian approach to the understanding of philosophy must emerge from a sound biblical theology rather than from the presuppositions of unregenerate thought. It is for this reason that only reformed theology which looks to Augustine for its beginnings and to Calvin for its fulfillment has been able to provide the church with a Weltanschauung sufficient to meet the demands of pagan scholarship in any age. [36]

Working from and with these Augustinian and Reformed presuppositions, Singer began the task of seeking to elucidate the elements forming a Christian approach to history. In describing his approach, Singer stated that his intention was not to reteach systematic theology, but to apply specific, interconnected areas of theology to fundamental issues in the philosophy of history. The specificity and interconnectedness of Singer’s approach to history reflects a holistic theology which is comprehensively applicable to historical study.

Scripture and Epistemology

Singer, agreeing with Van Til and Gordon Clark, points out that a crucial aspect to understanding history is “the basic issue in modern thought...the epistemological question.” [37] “How does man know? How does man know God? How does he know himself? How does he know anything?” [38] Singer asserts “nothing less than [the] view of scripture as the infallible rule of faith and practice provides the necessary epistemological foundation for a biblical view of history”; [39] Scripture functions at a presuppositional level, undergirding the theology of history. Scripture does more than lay a foundation, however, as “[the] necessary knowledge of the will of God lies at the very heart of the Christian or biblical view of history.” [40] Not only does Scripture undergird, but it is also essential to development and formulation of a theology of history.

Singer believes the necessary preconditions for intelligibility are found in God and His Word; this, he argues, means that “unless man has a sure and certain knowledge of the God of scripture and hence of himself, he most assuredly cannot know anything about history...this knowledge is found in the scriptures alone.” [41] The statement that “man cannot know anything about history” apart from having a sure and certain knowledge of the God of the Scriptures is a point of Van Tillian thought which has drawn criticism. Of this Singer was undoubtedly aware, but he makes no clarification. [42]

Having Scripture function as it should in human knowing requires spiritual transformation. Singer states that it is only in Christ “the believer is again restored to newness of life and regains potentially the ability which was lost in the fall.” [43] Quoting James Orr, Singer states that believing with one’s whole heart in Jesus Christ as the Son of God entails much more than a personal, experiential piety — it entails the biblical worldview, committing the heart and mind to a biblical approach to all areas of life. [44] No area of man’s activity can be withdrawn from the message of the Scriptures. Singer notes that this “does not mean that the Bible is to be regarded as a textbook of philosophy any more than it should be for any other science...but serious attention must be paid as the Word of God contains those basic principles which must guide all sound scientific activity.” [45]

While Scripture acts as the authoritative foundation and guide to philosophy, “we are not to infer that any system of Christian philosophy is infallible...as by its very nature philosophy must not confine itself to Scripture alone...it must build on the foundations...but then move...to the totality of created reality.” [46] Singer argues that the philosopher and historian are to consciously and humbly act as reinterpreters, being directed and transformed by the infallible Spirit-illuminated Word, working to think God’s thoughts after Him for His glory. “The task of Christian philosophy is nothing less than to interpret the whole of created reality in the light of God’s revelation to man in the Bible.” [47] The simple reality, Singer argues, is that one can only achieve such an interpretation of created reality if he proceeds in the light of the Word of God.

Having said this, it is natural that Singer next moves to set out the theological foundations of a biblical approach to history. Following traditional loci of systematic theology in forming his theological foundation, Singer plainly accepts the challenges that this approach brings: “not only are we as Christians called upon to carry out our mandate in a world which bears the marks of sin, but we are also called to carry it out in the midst of an unbelieving and frequently hostile secular scholarship which consciously rejects the biblical Weltanschauung at every point.” [48] Singer’s approach is one which applies the Word of God openly and directly in scholarship — to every heart and mind, whether Christian or non-Christian.

God’s Sovereignty and Creation

Singer viewed both the doctrine of God and the doctrine of creation as crucial to the Christian understanding of history. Creation is an act of the sovereign God who reveals Himself in the Scriptures. This God, who is God alone, is sovereign; “[He] did not abandon His creation to the whims of chance nor the dictates of fate, but He continues to exercise over it that sovereign power for His own glorious purposes….” [49] “It is the sovereign God who makes history meaningful and reveals its meaning to man.” [50] It is also this sovereign God who has entered “into covenant relationship with man whom He made in His own image.” [51]

Both Van Til and Singer believed the denial of either doctrine would ultimately lead to philosophical irrationality. This is because “God gave to both the physical world and man their meaning at creation. The subsequent history of man on earth derives its meaning and purpose from this creation.” [52] Closely related to this is the fact that “God created man and bestowed on him a knowing mind and placed him in a world that was made to be known by him.” [53]

Singer argued that creation, and the ensuing created purpose of man to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, protect the individuality of men and give their collective experiences historical meaning and purpose. The fact of God’s creation gives the historical process its reason for being and prohibits man from placing his own interpretation on his life and history. [54] For this reason,

...no theory of evolution, no matter how theistic in character its backers may claim to be, can possibly provide a satisfactory foundation for a biblical interpretation of history. Not only are all theories of evolution inherently false because they deny the Genesis account of the beginnings of the world and man...they utterly fail to offer any basis or key to the meaning of history because they replace the biblical doctrine with a theory which must rely on either chance or fate...concepts [which] by their very nature deny that there is either meaning or purpose in history. [55]

Man, Sin, and God’s Covenant

Singer follows his exposition of the doctrine of God and creation with the application of the doctrine of man and sin to the study of history. Properly understood, man’s story begins before the fall into sin, at the point of his creation in God’s image. Here man was “endowed with the ability to discover the meaning which God has conferred upon human life.” [56] For the historian, this divine endowment of ability brings responsibility to seek to understand the patterns and events of history. For humanity in general, and for Singer’s application to the historian specifically, God has revealed, in creation and through His Word the necessary parameters of personal and historical meaning —origin and destiny. “The whole doctrine of the covenant presupposes that God has revealed Himself to man sufficiently clearly for man to know of his position within the relationship...[without] such revelation man would know nothing of his origin or destiny...the history of the race would be unknowable to him.” [57] The acceptance of the doctrine of God’s covenant and revelation to man “is integral to the proper understanding of history” and in Singer’s eyes is what “separates Van Til from most of the contemporary philosophers of history.” [58] The implications of this, Singer states, are profound:

[T]he fall of man in no way destroyed or lessened [the] covenantal responsibility which man owes to his sovereign creator even though it rendered [him] incapable of fulfilling the conditions of his stewardship…. Man is therefore a steward under God, a vice-regent...fully responsible for his understanding and use of the world in which he lives...equally responsible for his understanding of his own role in that world…. An essential part of the mandate placed upon man at creation is thinking God’s thoughts after Him...[in order to rationally do His will].” [59]

The effects of the fall into sin are such, Singer notes, that “for fallen man a special or Biblical revelation is necessary.” [60] For those who refuse to turn to the gracious and necessary illumination of God’s special revelation, the study of history will ultimately be an exercise in futility: “History must forever remain a closed book and an impenetrable mystery to the unregenerate human mind.” [61]

God’s Sovereignty and Common Grace

Having discussed Van Til’s and his own approach to the doctrines of man and sin in conjunction with the doctrines of covenant and revelation, Singer turns to develop and clarify Van Til’s statements on common grace in relation to the theology of history:

Common grace for Van Til is the sovereign power of God made manifest in the whole stream of human events and not merely as these events relate to the life and work of the church on earth…. [T]he unbelieving world is subject to this grace of God, even though its leaders are sublimely unconscious that they are fulfilling the plans of a sovereign God…. [T]he reality of common grace in world history makes life livable for both the elect and unregenerate on this earth…. [C]ommon grace surrounds the ungodly with the restraining force of God’s sovereignty…. If common grace does not bring the sinner to redemption, neither does it allow them to make a hell out of this world. But for Van Til common grace is not merely a restraining force; it is the fulfilling of the will of God in history...and undergirds the whole of the human process from creation until the Second Coming of Christ. [62]

After commenting on the relation between common grace and history, Singer notes that Van Til “strongly insists that history is not only the result of the operations of God’s common grace in human affairs, but is at the same time a revelation of God Himself.” [63] History is the outworking of God’s will in and through His creation, by His acts of common and special grace. Singer avers “the process in history is the product of the exercise of divine sovereignty.” [64] He reaffirms and expands on this thought elsewhere, stating that “history is not a static process and does not stand still.” [65] It is constantly moving forward toward the final culmination, the second coming of Christ and the last judgment. History is a dynamic, moving process — a complex stream of human events, ultimately developed, controlled, shaped and sustained by the almighty power of God, according to His thoughts. As such, history is a revelation of God. However, as Singer has pointed out, sinful humanity cannot and will not see these truths about history but rather “constantly calls for itself and its glorifications the accomplishments and achievements.” [66]

This leads Singer to discuss the importance of the doctrine of Christ and salvation.

Christ and Salvation

The person and work of Christ, understood and applied in Spirit-worked transformation, are essential to Christian understanding of history. Singer states that “the unbeliever is as unaware of the benevolent and beneficial results of the operation of common grace...as he is of the necessity of special grace in redemption.” [67] Because of this “the revelation of God in nature and history must remain a closed book to the unbeliever until he reads them right through the Scriptures. Only when the sinner receives the new birth does he come to understand the meaning of nature and history.” [68] When transformed by grace, the believer comes to see that history is Christ-centered:

[T]he birth of Jesus Christ is the pivotal point in the whole flow of history...the coming of Christ is literally the fullness of time...the whole of ancient history looked forward to the incarnation even as the whole of history since the birth of Christ derives its meaning from that great event. It lies at the very heart of the historical process and becomes its focal point. Not only was Christ the Redeemer made manifest in the flesh but Christ as Lord of history was also clearly revealed. Christ as Lord is now in sovereign control of His church...the movements of history obey His commands even as did the winds and the waves become still at His command two thousand years ago. [69]

The importance of the redemptive and regenerating work of Christ and the Holy Spirit, confirms for Singer a profound qualitative difference between the ability of the Christian versus the unregenerate historian. [70] In light of his earlier comments on man’s covenant obligations to God, Singer places a particular onus on the Christian historian to write history in a manner illuminated by, and in harmony with, God’s special revelation to him. The implications of God’s covenant-revelation, and the renewed God-given awareness of it, and its perfect fullness in Jesus Christ, should be inescapable for the believer:

I include all Christians as heirs of the cultural mandate. No Christian is exempt from the implications of his belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and of the trusteeship which he holds over the world as God’s vice-regent on this earth. True enough, not all Christians are called to the ministry or to those disciplines which place a great emphasis on such knowledge, but both ministers and teachers of all kinds have it a very real part of their divine calling to challenge all Christians to an earnest investigation of this part of their commitment to Christ. [71]

The Church and the Last Things

Singer, in applying the doctrine of Christ and redemption to the theology of history, also examined its relationship to understanding the position and role of the church in history. He states that “the Incarnation must be regarded as the fullness of time,” and must be taken seriously as such by the Christian historian whose concept of the meaning of time must be directed by God’s interpretation of the meaning of time. [72] Since the incarnation of Jesus Christ marks the fullness of time, this means that the church is the focal point of human events. [73] According to Singer, this means that the events and life of the church in history are to be central to rather than isolated from the grand sweep of “God’s revelation of himself in the historical process through common grace.” [74] Singer states, “[T]he church is in the world and affects the world, even though it is not of the world.” [75] The world must not affect the church, yet often it does.

In line with Philip Schaff’s axiom that “secular history, far from controlling sacred history, is controlled by it, [and] must directly or indirectly subserve its ends,” [76] Singer argues that “many Christians...have failed to grasp the profound meaning of the role of the church in the historical process.” [77] Later in his work he returns to this theme stating that “because the covenant of grace still lies at the very heart of the flow of historical events...all events are in some way related to the church.” [78] While providing an intriguing beginning on the central theme of the church in history, Singer fails to elucidate further on how the historian is to discern the role of the church in the historical process. [79]

Singer also briefly notes the impact of eschatology “as one of the most vexing and divisive, of the doctrines of evangelical Christianity” in the study of history. He avoids further discussion of the topic aside from two pithy insights: (1) “that we can at no time allow the eschatological tail to wag the theological dog” and (2) “we must hold to a cataclysmic second coming of Jesus Christ…. The Scriptures clearly teach that history has a beginning and they are equally emphatic it has a cataclysmic ending.” [80]

The Historian’s Task

Singer’s work, while substantially concerned with the application of theology to the understanding of history, also sought to interact with contemporary discussions and examination of the philosophy of history. To Singer, this was an important part of the task of the Christian historian. His critical comments are insightful and span historical thought from Augustine to Carl Becker and R.G. Colling­wood. [81] Singer gave three applications of his approach in seeking to deal with the thorny issues that vex historians, particularly those seeking Christian understanding: historical interpretation and truth, causation, and the tracing of God’s judgments.

According to Singer, in interpreting history the historian is endeavoring “to find God’s preinterpretation of those real facts of history which he finds through a strict observance of the demands of the discipline.” [82] “He does not handle the dead facts of the past, but rather those living facts which a sovereign God has brought to pass.” [83] Thus the historian is “in the pursuit of historical truth.” [84] This means a “zeal for the evaluation of the trustworthiness of the documents he is using” and “the covenantal duty of interpreting history in terms of that meaning which God has already given to the whole stream of human history with its myriads of facts and movements.” [85]

While cautioning that “in this life we always look through the historical glass darkly,” [86] Singer goes on to argue that the Christian historian has a greater ability of insight due to the theology of history. This is true not only in grasping the large picture of history, but is also particularly evidenced in dealing with the problem of causation, which is to be seen not only in terms of past and present but also of the future — and all of this within the doctrine of Christ and the sovereignty of God. Singer argues that a Christian historian should not assume that precursors to an event are the only cause of an event:

Most textbooks give five or six reasons for the fall of Rome...all great movements in history are treated this way. May the Christian scholar who seeks God’s interpretation of history, even if he sees through a glass darkly, simply assume that because one event or a group of events which take place in history before another important event are actually the cause of that event?... When we give serious consideration to this question and compare the causes and the results of the fall of Rome...or any other great movement in history, we see that they do not really add up. The results...almost always seem far more important than their causes. The answer to this vexing question can only be found in the biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Historical causation is eschatological in nature: God guides historical events to their final conclusion. Thus the future is as much a causal factor in the historical process as is the past. Previous events do...play an important role in...those which follow them...[but] they bring about only those events which God has foreordained. This doctrine of causation...gives to history its ultimate meaning and purpose, for all events look forward to the final revelation of the majesty and glory of Jesus Christ. [87]

Another occasion where Singer argues that the Christian historian has greater ability of particular insight is in the realization that God uses history to bring judgment upon nations and peoples. [88] This is also part of the calling of the Christian historian — to seek to humbly and carefully trace the judgments and mercies of God, with particular reference to the life of the church. Singer states,

The momentous events of history, the revolutions, the destructive wars, the fall of nations and civilizations, the frightening dictatorships past and present which have arisen to haunt both the church and society at large, have all in some way had reference to the church for its temporal judgment and its correction, as well as for purification and vindication. The forces of evil do not operate apart from the will of God…. Throughout history God has made and continues to make the wrath of sinful men to praise him…. He shows unbelieving nations and men that disobedience to his will will bring disaster…. God used Napoleon to bring partial judgment on Europe, even as he used the barbarians to bring judgment upon a debauched Rome. He used Hitler to bring judgment on the Germany of that era, even as he has used the communists to bring judgment on the church in Russia. And we can be equally sure that the events which are stirring the world today are manifestations of God’s judgments upon the nations to recall them to himself before it is too late…. All events in some way or other have reference to the church. God deals with his people in mercy, but also in judgment. [89]

For Singer, the fact that the Christian historian sees all of this through the glass darkly at the present time, with a partially sanctified vision, is not reason to abandon striving after a distinctively scriptural theology of history. Nor is it reason to abandon or ignore the application of theology of history, with all its implications, to the writing and teaching of history.

Conclusion

It is clear that Singer, building on Van Til’s work, offers further contributions towards the development of a theological approach to history. These include: (1) relating key aspects (God, creation, man and sin, covenant, common grace, Christ and salvation, etc.) of the traditional loci of Reformed theology to the philosophy of history, thus further developing a Reformed theology of history; (2) grappling with select issues (causation, judgment, etc.) in the writing and teaching of history; (3) providing an example of a theology of history applied in his Theological Interpretation of American History; and (4) challenging Christian historians to take a boldy biblical approach to their discipline. Despite the undeveloped areas in Singer’s work, his effort and insight towards a Christian understanding of history yield enduring, valuable considerations for the Christian historian and the thoughtful student of history.

Notes

1. K. Scott Oliphint, Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, argues that “[t]he label ‘presuppositionalism’ as an approach to apologetics needs, once and for all, to be laid to rest. It has served its purpose well, but it is no longer descriptively useful and it offers, now, more confusion than clarity when the subject of apologetics arises.... For one, there are a variety of ways to understand the notion of presupposition, as well as a variety of ‘presuppositionalists’ whose approaches differ radically — Schaefferians, Carnellians, and Clarkians, just to mention three. Moreover, there is also the post-Kuhnian predicament in which we find ourselves such that paradigms and presuppositions have come to be equated, and have come into their own, in a way that is destructive of Christianity in general, and of Christian apologetics in particular. [The term] presuppositionalism has...died the death of a thousand qualifications. It is time, therefore, to change the terminology, at least for those who consider the approach of Cornelius Van Til to be consistent with Reformed theology and its creeds. I propose, in light of the above, that the word ‘covenant,’ properly understood, is a better, more accurate, term to use for a biblical, Reformed apologetic.” K. Scott Oliphint, “Presuppositionalism,” in Writings, http://mysite.verizon.net/oliphint/Writings/A%20Covenantal%20Apologetic.htm (accessed 10-14-10).
2. C. Gregg Singer, Papers, Folder 36: “Cornelius Van Til: His Theology of History” (St. Louis, Mo.: PCA Historical Center, 2004), 2.
3. Cornelius Van Til, The Doctrine of Scripture (Ripon, Calif.: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1967), 1-2.
4. Ibid., 2.
5. Ibid., 4.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 2.
8. Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 69.
9. Van Til, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 15.
10. Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1998), 250. Bahnsen provides helpful clarification on this often misunderstood area of Van Til’s approach to epistemology, which provides the foundation for his theology of history: “Because we are created as the image (reflection) of God, we not only come into this world cognitively “conditioned” or prepared to recognize the indications of our Creator in nature and Scripture, but all of our knowing, whether about God, ourselves, or the world, is a matter of “imaging” (reflecting) God’s thinking about the same things. God knows Himself, of course, perfectly and comprehensively, He knows His holy character. He knows all propositional truths and possibilities, as well as their conceptual or logical relations. He knows His plan for every detail of creation and history, as well as the relation between all events and objects. His understanding is infinite and without flaw. Moreover, it is in terms of His creative and providential activity that all things and events are what they are. God’s thinking is what gives unity, meaning, coherence, and intelligibility to nature, history, reasoning and morality. In terms of this picture of the knowing process, man can search for causal relationships and laws (thinking God’s thoughts after Him about His providential plan). He can think in terms of shared properties, similarities or classes (thinking God’s thoughts after Him about patterns, classifications, or kinds of things he creates and providentially controls). He can draw logical inferences (thinking God’s thoughts after Him about conceptual and truth-functional relations). He can make meaningful normative judgements (thinking God’s thoughts after Him about the demands of His righteousness)....” Ibid., 250-51.
11. Ibid., 223-24. In his work, Bahnsen provides helpful clarification of Van Til’s often rambling and scattered thoughts, providing both a concise formulation of Van Til’s argument of analogy, and response to various critics. Bahnsen further notes that “knowing is an activity relating a mind to truths known by it...in Van Til’s perspective, all cases of knowledge are concrete acts of knowing, either by God or man.” Ibid., 227.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. In Van Til’s case, this would have meant the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Three Forms of Unity.
15. Singer, “Cornelius Van Til: His Theology of History,” 4.
16. Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), 136.
17. Ibid., 135 –36.
18. Ibid., 136.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., 137.
21. A prime example is his scathing critique of R.G. Collingwood in Christianity in Conflict, arguing compellingly that when man is ultimately his own interpreter the possibility of meaning in history is destroyed. Cornelius Van Til, Christianity in Conflict (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1962), 10.
22. “C. Gregg Singer, 1910-1999,” in Presbyterian and Reformed News 5 (1999), 2. http://www.presbyteriannews.org/volumes/v5/2/Singer.html (accessed 1-18-07).
23. C. Gregg Singer, Papers, Folder 36: “Cornelius Van Til: His Theology of History” (St. Louis, Mo.: PCA Historical Center, 2004), 1-19. Singer published an abbreviated form of this essay with a revised ending as “A Philosophy of History” in E.R. Geehan, ed., Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 328-38.
24. C. Gregg Singer, Arnold Toynbee: A Critical Study (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 1-76.
25. C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History. 3rd ed. (Greenville, S.C.: A Press, 1994), 1-354; The Unholy Alliance: A History of the National Council of Churches (New York: Arlington House, 1975), 1-384; From Rationalism to Irrationality (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), 1-479.
26. C. Gregg Singer, Papers, Folder 26: “The Relationship of Philosophy and History to the Historic Christian Faith” (St. Louis, Mo.: PCA Historical Center, 2004), 1-114.
27. Given in June 1973.
28. Singer, dedication in “The Relationship of Philosophy and History.”
29. Singer, “The Relationship of Philosophy and History,” 55-56.
30. Singer, “Cornelius Van Til: His Theology of History,” 5.
31. Ibid., 15.
32. Singer, “The Relationship of Philosophy and History,” 57.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid., 5.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid., 6.
37. Singer, “The Relationship of Philosophy and History,” 57.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. This has been one of the weaknesses of Van Til and some followers who seek to be consistently Van Tillian. Forthright statements are declared, while nuances and implications are not addressed clearly. What Singer likely intends here is that the unregenerate scholar (or the Christian scholar who does not work from biblical presuppositions) who seeks to “know history” is living in rebellion against the only coherent and accurate foundation for knowledge. As such he is in denial of the necessary pre-conditions for intelligibility, lacking both foundation and the necessary interpretive schema. Where the unregenerate mind does grasp certain aspects of truth and reality, it is because and to the degree that his thought coheres to Christian theism — God’s covenant-revelation; yet even these aspects of truth and reality that may be grasped will be contextually distorted and held in rebellion against God.
43. Singer, “The Relationship of Philosophy and History,” 7.
44. Ibid., 7-8.
45. Ibid., 9.
46. Ibid., 10.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid., 24.
49. Singer, “Cornelius Van Til: His Theology of History,” 8.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., 5.
52. Ibid.
53. Singer, “The Relationship of Philosophy and History,” 59.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., 60.
56. Singer, “Cornelius Van Til: His Theology of History,” 5.
57. Ibid., 7.
58. Ibid., 6.
59. Ibid., 8-9.
60. Ibid., 8.
61. Ibid. It would be better stated that history will remain a closed book to the continued unregenerate mind not forever, but until the return of Christ in glory and judgment (cf. Rom. 14:10 –11; Phil. 2:9-11).
62. Ibid., 9.
63. Ibid., 10.
64. Ibid., 16.
65. C. Gregg Singer, “A Philosophy of History,” in E.R. Geehan, ed., Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 337.
66. Singer, “Cornelius Van Til: His Theology of History,” 10.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid., 11.
70. Singer refers to this directly in his work “The Relationship of Philosophy and History to the Historic Christian Faith.”
71. Singer, “The Relationship of Philosophy and History to the Historic Christian Faith,” 58.
72. Ibid., 61.
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid., 62.
75. Ibid.
76. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 3.
77. Singer, “The Relationship of Philosophy and History to the Historic Christian Faith,” 62. Singer also argues here that “severing the church of the Old Covenant from the church of the New Covenant [i.e., Dispensational theology] fractures history and ultimately makes it virtually unintelligible.”
78. Ibid, 110 –11.
79. Singer does however provide a thorough example of seeking to practically apply these principles in his published works A Theological Interpretation of American History and From Rationalism to Irrationality.
80. Singer, “The Relationship of Philosophy and History to the Historic Christian Faith,” 63.
81. Ibid., 66 –100.
82. Ibid., 101-102.
83. Ibid., 102.
84. Ibid.
85. Ibid., 103.
86. Ibid. Singer further states, “The Christian historian must always be mindful of these ever present limitations” for “often the partially sanctified vision of Christian scholarship can only faintly trace the sovereign hand of God as he is dealing with his people” (ibid., 103, 112).
87. Ibid., 104 –11.
88. Ibid., 113.
89. Ibid., 113-14.