# Clarkians and Vantillians



## Founded on the Rock (May 19, 2006)

I have read much on the board with the disagreements between the Clarkians and VanTillians. I was wondering if there is any common ground philosophically or epistemologically. Hopefully I am not opening a can of


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 19, 2006)

This thread might be helpful.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 19, 2006)

They both put their shirts on one leg at a time and presuppositionalism is the first page of their systematic.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (May 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> They both put their shirts on one leg at a time and presuppositionalism is the first page of their systematic.





That starts me off!!!


----------



## Civbert (May 19, 2006)

I think they were in much agreement in general - but differed on some details. Maybe they were 95% in agreement. It surprises me how vigorously Van Til fought against some of Clark's positions, since those points were almost always the weakest points in his philosophy. Instead of building on the common ground, he seemed to fight for the flawed details in his presuppositionalism.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 19, 2006)

Here's an illuminating article by one of our OPC historians, John Muether.

http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH04/10a.html


----------



## Arch2k (May 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Here's an illuminating article by one of our OPC historians, John Muether.
> 
> http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH04/10a.html



From the article:



> The complaint against Clark originated in the Presbytery of Philadelphia over irregularities in the manner in which Clark was ordained (and Van Til was one of several complainants). When seen in light of these other debates in the early history of the church, this controversy was part of a larger battle over the church's Reformed identity. Clark was a pawn in the agenda of a faction of the church that was discontent with its Reformed identity. Ultimately, what was at stake was the question of whether the church's ecclesiology would be evangelical or Reformed. In the end, Clark's ordination was affirmed (and the complaint denied). But when the church rejected the agenda of a broader evangelicalism, Clark and his supporters left the church.



I would like to know if there is anything to support this statement. As far as I know, Clark was not headed toward a "broader evangelicalism", but contended for the reformed faith as found in the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Civbert (May 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> ...



It seems to be a strange spin on the Clark/Van Til Controversy. You'd think if the Clark had an evangelism agenda, it would have been clearer in his writings. 

"Kuyper stressed that there is a fundamental antagonism between believers and unbelievers in the world, and Van Til placed this antithesis at the forefront of his apologetic method." 

I think this is very interesting regarding Van Til's apologetics. And it's one of those weaker points of his system that, had he been willing to concede, or even admit some uncertainty about, might have gone a long way in removing the divide with Clark. It's a shame that he made it the "forefront of his apologetic" method. Sure, there is some antagonism, but to make it into a wall of separation seems unwarranted.

[Edited on 5-19-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 19, 2006)

This is supposed to be a thread about common ground...


----------



## Magma2 (May 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Here's an illuminating article by one of our OPC historians, John Muether.
> 
> http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH04/10a.html



Here is Dr. Robbins' response to Muether's "illuminating" historic revisionism:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=204

I can assure you the divisions will only grow deeper thanks to the duplicity of men like Muether.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Founded on the Rock_
> I have read much on the board with the disagreements between the Clarkians and VanTillians. *I was wondering if there is any common ground philosophically or epistemologically...*


Well I can tell you that one thing they don't have in common is that Clarkians have a hard time, philosophically, understanding what a discussion of "common ground" entails.


----------



## Magma2 (May 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> I think they were in much agreement in general - but differed on some details. Maybe they were 95% in agreement. It surprises me how vigorously Van Til fought against some of Clark's positions, since those points were almost always the weakest points in his philosophy. Instead of building on the common ground, he seemed to fight for the flawed details in his presuppositionalism.



I couldn't disagree more and I'm generally in agreement with most of what Anthony writes. I don't agree that VT fought against the "weakest" points in Clar's philosophy, but his attack was at the heart. Clark and Van Til's view of epistemology and Scripture are mutually exclusive. Their controversy, which is ongoing, should have made that clear. Van Til's view of biblical paradox and his analogous view of Scripture ends in complete skepticism and raise confusion and ignorance to the height of Christian piety. 

Van Tilianism encourages laziness in Bible study, commends ignorance, and elevates clerics and academics, especially those of the Vantilian stripe, into a new priestly class who alone can peer into the Biblical stew of apparent contradictions, antinomies, tensions, analogies, and insoluble paradoxes and demand assent to their contradictory view of truth on the basis of nothing more than their own authority. 

If you want a revealing picture of the maneuvering and authoritarian tactics of men schooled in Van Til´s apologetics -- the real fruit of Van Tilianism as practiced by his heirs - read Paul Elliot´s book; _Christianity and Neo-Liberalism_, particularly his account of the John Kinnaird case. Elliot's section on Frame and Poythress is more evidence of the rotten fruit of Van Tilianism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 20, 2006)

MODS - Save the Clarkians from their obsessive naval-gazing. This thread is supposed to be about common ground...


----------



## Magma2 (May 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> MODS - Save the Clarkians from their obsessive naval-gazing. This thread is supposed to be about common ground...



Rich, you really need to pay closer attention. The opening question - what this thread is about - was; if there is any common ground philosophically or epistemologically?

The answer is no. The only common ground there has been, up until recently, was the gospel and given the FV controversy there doesn't seem to be much common ground there either.


----------



## Magma2 (May 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Also, it is very unhelpful to use some problematic positions of some Van Tillians to claim that Van Til's system is to blame. Maybe, Van Til's system, taken too far, can lead to problems. Just like Clark's, taken to far, can lead to problems. Almost every hero of the faith has people that have taken their system too far (hyper-calvinists et al).



Let´s see, what problems can you cite if one holds that the Scripture alone have a monopoly on truth and knowledge? Seems to me Clark´s view finds its epistemic parallel in Paul´s (not Manta´s) admonition to Timothy; "œAll scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

OTOH, Van Til´s system reduces Scripture to analogy and the propositions of Scripture to paradox (not to mention denying that all truth is, by definition and necessity, propositional) and leaves men impotent to confront the contradictory teachings of the Federal Visionists as should be evident by recent links on these boards by John Frame defending Norm Shepherd "“ even though he admit that Shepherd DENIES the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ by belief alone! 

Seems to me there is a real choice that some evidently don´t want to make "“ even though the writing has on the wall for a very long time.



> Lastly, the problem is that when you call Van Tillians "lazy" and "irrational" while the public has access to their works (especially Bahnsen's), this just seems like sore-looser speak to people. It actually *helps,* not hinders, our position.



You need to read more carefully Paul, while I agree that Van Tilians are irrational and attack anyone who won´t play their game as "œrationalists," I never said they were lazy. What I said was; "œVan Tilianism encourages laziness _in Bible study_, commends ignorance, and elevates clerics and academics, especially those of the Vantilian stripe, into a new priestly class . . . ."


----------



## Pergamum (May 20, 2006)

Just a note here:

In the lives of some of these men and how they go about dealing with other brothers and defending their positions, I am not sure whether some of our "Christian Heroes" are very heroic at all. I am not naming names, but making a general observation....

It would appear that to truly know grace would be to display grace in all the dealings of life. 

Many of the men we rally around are known for their "no holds barred" approach to dealing with dissenters (i.e. other Christian brothers with whom they disagree on mostly minor points). I am not sure that this is always an admirable quality when dealing with adiaphora.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 20, 2006)

Brethren, 
The thread is about COMMON GROUND. If you can't post on that topic then don't post.


----------



## Archlute (May 20, 2006)

Paul,

Whether or not you believe your position is justified over and against Sean's your response to him is a shame on the Christian faith. I'd ask you to remove your taunting and make amends with your brother if there is not a moderator who otherwise will do so.

Adam


----------



## Founded on the Rock (May 20, 2006)

Maybe I need to read the posts again but basically, Vantillians define Clark as: Clark=Rationalsim. On the other hand, Clarkians define Van Til: Van Til=Fideism.

It has been said there is much in common but one of two things is happening. Either, there is not much common ground and that statement is invalid. Or, it is difficult to talk about neutral ground because advocates of either view can't stand to be in agreement long enough.

Is it true that 95% of the time (as Mr. Coletti said) Vantillians and Clarkians agree? {95%= a considerable amount of similarities}


----------



## Magma2 (May 20, 2006)

> So, I was talking about the laziness you were. What did you think I meant that Bahnsen encourages laziness in gardening, or something?



Fair enough. You don´t need to read more carefully. You need to frame your responses more carefully. You said I called Van Tilians "lazy" and that´s not what I said. OTOH, Van Tilianism does indeed inculcate laziness in bible study since you accept as a matter of principle the idea that the Scriptures contain insoluble contradictions which you call "œparadoxes" and which are impervious to harmonization. Consequently, there is no need to recheck your assumptions - or the assumptions of a Van Til, a Bahnsen, a Frame or even a John Murray (after all, see Murray on the so-called "œwell meant offer" if you want to see a contradiction embraced). You have been told on good authority that a particular biblical problem defies harmonization and you have made it clear (while lifting an argument from David Byron) that the Scriptures themselves are insufficient because even God Himself did not reveal the necessary information needed to resolve any number of these biblical "œparadoxes." Therefore, you must bow your head in pious submission to your elders who have told you there is no solution to any number of particularly sticky biblical problems. You have been told to embrace "“ and even embrace with _passion_ "“ these apparent contradictions which defy harmonization at the bar of human reason. 

Consequently, who needs bible study when you have VT, Frame, Bahnsen, Poythress, Shepherd, Wilson and the rest to tell you what to believe? You have been told that the Scriptures do not cohere, that ALL Scripture is apparently contradictory, and that the use of logic when applied to Scripture will eventually, per Van Tilian Doug Jones, "œforce us to deny other Biblical teachings." 



> "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
> 
> Does not prove that "the only things that can be known are Scriptural propositions or propositions that can be deduced from Scripture."




Well, I think it is implied and necessarily so. The passage teaches us that Scripture, plus nothing, is all that is needed so that the man of God may be "œprefect" - fully equipt, lacking nothing - unto *all* - and not just some - good works. Now isn´t this ironic, how often have I (and I´m sure many others here have as well) cited this very passage when debating Roman Catholics in defense of sola Scriptura. Now we have a Van Tilian arguing that Scripture alone is not taught or implied in 2 Tim 3:16,17. So, what passage would you cite Paul when confronting an enemy of the Reformation who is attacking the principle of sola Scriptura? Or do you join him in his attack and affirm other sources of knowledge? 

What then is another source by which we may come to a knowledge of the truth? Certainly this additional source (or sources) of knowledge will provide a basis for even more good works. Would that be the Van Tilian Magisterium you eluded to? Or is it something else? If something else, would you care to share what that might be? More importantly, how you know? Does this source of truth come with a method by which we can differentiate truth from error? Or, is this another situation like the one where we´re told that the "œapparent contradictions" of Scripture aren´t real, yet no method is provided by which we can tell the one from the other? Is this another case where we are commanded to just have faith that there are other sources or methods by which the truth might be known but you just won´t tell us?




> Furthermore, you can't know that the only thing that can be known is Scriptural propositions or those deduced from Scriptural propositions.



I think you can know the very thing you deny and Scripture asserts as much according to 2 Tim already cited and other verses including Isa 8:20; "œTo the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Further, the Confession states that the "œwhole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men . . . ." Interestingly, the Confession cites 2 Tim already mentioned along with Gal. 1:8-9 and 2 Thes. 2:2. Yet, if truth can be known apart from Scripture and its necessary inferences, and if truth is properly defined as Calvin defined it as whatever God thinks, then why does the Confession assert that _nothing_ can be added to Scripture at any time? Given what you´ve asserted I have to think this is rather presumptuous don´t you think? Certainly, there cannot be any disharmony between truth and truth wherever it may be found. I think a fair inference from your remarks is that the Confession has erred too on this point. 



> Lastly, you can't *know* that Van Til taught any of the stuff you accuse him of teaching. If you don't mknow it, then it's your unjustified opinion.
> 
> So, how 'bout 'dem apples?
> 
> And, you shouldn't be debating men like you are. Maybe you're a woman, and thus should show some respect. How do you know you're a man? Maybe you're a woman, Sean. Is "Sean Gerety is a man" deducible from Scripture? Nope, 'fraid not. Actually, whenever someone gets ordained, we're ordaining people on unjustified opinions. Maybe 99% of American pulpets are pastored by women. How would you know otherwise?



Dem apples say you just assert the very things which you need to prove. Prove you´re a man. Show me the proof? From where will you deduce it? Or, is this an induction of yours? How do you arrive at this conclusion? You say it´s not deducible from Scripture and I quite agree. So is it deducible from one of these other yet unnamed sources of truth you only allude to? If so, let´s see your argument. Also, don´t hedge and don´t assert self-evidence or another series of petitio principii pretending to be a valid argument. Just asserting something doesn´t make it true even if you think so. Clark was too good a logician to just be content with begging the question. The only thing you seem to be saying is that Scripture doesn´t provide as much knowledge as you like, therefore Clark´s biblical epistemology is not adequate, or, more accurately, false. However, it should be obvious to all that this conclusion doesn´t follow. Clark wrote in his Intro to Christian Philosophy:



> What account shall be given of everyday "œknowledge" that common sense thinks it silly to doubt? Don´t I know when I am hungry? . . . Indeed, how can I know what the Bible says without reading its pages with my own eyes? . . . But all such criticisms miss the point. The status of common opinion is not fixed until a theory has been accepted. One may admit that a number of propositions commonly believed are true; but no one can deny that many such are false. The problem is to elaborate a method by which the two classes can be distinguished. Plato too granted a place to opinion as distinct from knowledge; he even admitted that in some circumstances opinion was as useful as knowledge with a capital K . . . It is incorrect therefore to complain that the axiom of revelation deprives us of knowledge otherwise obtainable. There is no knowledge otherwise obtainable. [90-91]



Knowledge is contingent upon the self-revelation of the Lord God of Truth. God´s self-revelation is found in the propositions of Scripture alone. For what it's worth Paul, I think you´re picking the wrong fight.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 21, 2006)

Sean, if you can't post on the right topic then don't post. If you wish to squabble more with Paul then start another thread or contact Paul via U2U. 

I'm just going to start deleting and editting posts if ya'll can't stick to the topic. 

COMMON GROUND please!


[Edited on 5-21-2006 by puritansailor]


----------



## Magma2 (May 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Sean, if you can't post on the right topic then don't post. If you wish to squabble more with Paul then start another thread or contact Paul via U2U.
> 
> I'm just going to start deleting and editting posts if ya'll can't stick to the topic.
> ...



I thought I was commenting on the opening question that was asked, but it seems the mods have changed what that question is. The original question was; "œI was wondering if there is any common ground philosophically or epistemologically?" and not; "œI was wondering what IS THE common ground between Clark and VT?

I´ve answered the question as stated in both forms. The answer to the first question is no and I have provided reasons why. The second I´ve answered that the common ground *was* the gospel, but that has eroded considerably given the current justification controversy since most prominent Van Tilians, like John Frame, can´t even agree on what the gospel entails. So I´m a little confused why I´m being read the riot act?


----------



## Civbert (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



I wasn't clear. I should have said that "in his _own_ position". It seems that Van Til fought for the weakest tenants in his own position - his view of paradox in Scripture for instance. It seems that Van Til, and some Vantillians will fight tooth-and-nail for the weakest (and sometimes most uncertain) positions of Van Til. And I think that's partially Van Til's fault. Van Til even joked about that some. 

I think where Van Til and Clark agreed were in the positions that had the most strength. Where they disagreed, was usually at weak points in Van Til's views. It's a shame that Van Til was so set in his views that he would consider Clark's disagreements some points as an attack against Van Til's whole system.

I'm sure the disagreements may have been deeper than I think they were, but I try to give Van Til the benefit of the doubt on some things. After all, Vantillians have been apologizing for Van Til since the beginning. For every quote were Van Til seems to say that Christianity is completely paradoxical, there's another where he stresses the need for a systematic theology and adherence to the "law of non-contradiction". Long papers have been written explaining that people did not understand Van Til, and that was Van Til's fault to boot. So with all the confusion, there's plenty of room for giving Van Til much benefit of the doubt. And doing so, I find that Van Til was right on target 90% of the time, and only 5% of the time was he really off.

Again, I could be wrong. Certainly some VanTillians fight for the worst of Van Til's views, which makes me think Van Til really was irrational, but others seems to say that a "correct" understanding of Van Til will show that he really was more rational (usually these arguments make Van Til seem much more in agreement with Clark). So there's still hope.


----------



## Civbert (May 22, 2006)

This is just a loose stab at where they might have common ground.

Reformed Doctrine. They both espoused the importances and rightness of reformed doctrine, especially as found in the Westminster Confession. And if you were to list all the basic doctrines of the reformed faith, then this list would be greater in quantity and importance than the additional positions both men had on apologetics. In this, one might argue, is the meat of their agreement. I've heard Van Til say that the reformed faith was essential, and he said few were as reformed as Dr. Clark. (He still considered Clark's philosophy as fatally flawed, but to give Van Til the benefit of the doubt, VT's reasons given showed VT did not really understand Clark. Maybe if he understood Clark, he'd have felt differently).

Both seemed to stress that Scripture was the ultimate foundation of true Christian (Reformed) Faith. (Van Til regretted not having supported his view with more scripture - Clark never had that problem).

Both believed that the only way knowledge was possible, was through God's revelation. This agreement was weaker because they differed greatly on how this would work.

They both agreed that it was impossible for the natural man to come to faith in the truth of Scripture apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit to believe the truth of the Gospel. That natural man's mind was resistant to belief in Scripture, and he (natural man) quite frankly found Christianity to be foolishness.

Both found the atheist position to be ultimately useless, unable to account for the possibility of knowledge or moral standards.

...

That's all off the top of my head, so some details may need correcting. There were certain critical difference between Clark and Van Til, but not necessarily systematic differences (if one give VT the benefit of the doubt). If I assume VT did not mean some things as he seemed to mean them, then what I find is a few points of irrationalism with VT that can be overlooked, as long as one does not make them essential to VT's overall perspective.

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert (May 22, 2006)

For a quick comparision of Clark and Van Til, Dr. Phil Fernandes has an article on both, and contrasts them. I don't agree with all the Dr. writes, but it gives you a fair picture.

Gordon Clark

Cornelius Van Til


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 22, 2006)

Thanks for that Anthony.


----------



## Magma2 (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> just a note.
> 
> Much of what Anothy said is false.
> ...




I agree with Paul. Fernandes is a bad source, regardless of which side of the epistemic fence you're sitting.



> Too bad we can't defednd Van Til here.




Who are "we"? Seems like a lonely club. 



> I guess having common ground, at the expense of truth, is more important.



Rodney King theology. You can't get away from it.


----------

