Mathison’s argument doesn’t seem very persuasive to me. Mathison’s use of “compromising” in the first instance pertains to Van Til’s belief that theologians compromise the truth of RT by employing CA. In other words, Van Til believed that CA was inconsistent with the theology it is intended to defend (when employed by Reformed theologians). In that sense, CA “compromises” (i.e., weakens, undermines, runs contrary to) the reasons for accepting RT as containing the true system of doctrine set-forth in Scripture. 

On the Puritan Board, Keith Mathison had this to say.

1. Van Til claimed that’s those among the Reformed who used traditional methods were compromising Reformed theology.
2. And since the traditional method was used by all of the Reformed theologians (with the possible exception of Calvin) for the 400 years prior to Van Til, they were all unwittingly compromising every major element of the Christian faith.
3. That is a serious claim because it means that all of the 16th and 17th century Reformed theologians had a compromised theology. That’s not good because those were the men who wrote our public confessions. The implication is that those confessions are also compromised to some degree.

(I’ve edited the original for ease of following the flow of reasoning.)

Keith Mathison argues thusly:

Premise 1: Van Til believed that classical apologetics (CA) compromises Reformed theology (RT).

Premise 2: All Reformed theologians (with the possible exception of Calvin) employed CA methodology.

Conclusion: Reformed confessions, because they were written by classical apologists, are compromised.

Mathison’s argument doesn’t seem very persuasive to me.

Mathison’s use of “compromising” in the first instance pertains to Van Til’s belief that theologians compromise the truth of RT by employing CA. In other words, Van Til believed that CA was inconsistent with the theology it is intended to defend (when employed by Reformed theologians). In that sense, CA “compromises” (i.e., weakens, undermines, runs contrary to) the reasons for accepting RT as containing the true system of doctrine set-forth in Scripture. In other words, compromise in this sense is analogous to professing Christians, by not readily forgiving, compromising the gospel of forgiveness.

Read More