# Cornelius Van Till's worldview is consistent with atheism



## jubalsqaud (Feb 17, 2022)

Here is the problem. 

Atheism is the assertion that there are no gods. 

Atheists use the word "god" to designate entities that have the same properties we have 

A atheist understands the argument 

P1 if God knows X and I know X then we both know X 

P2 God and I know X

C therefore we both know X

to be using the word "know(s)" consistently with the same meaning, that is "justified true belief" 

This means the word "know(s)" is univocally used throughout 

However:

Van till's usage of anthropomorphic terms are not univocal. 

So God "God knows X" should actually be taken as "God quasi-knows X" 

But...

"God quasi-knows X" and "God knows X" do not express the same proposition 



This leads to the problem of actually finding a difference in what Van Till believes and what atheists believe. 


Atheists, if logically consistent with there own claim, are ok with the idea that a non-mind might be given anthropomorphic properties. 

"The sea was angry, but the western winds soothed it" 

Is fine for a atheist. 

Likewise they are fine with "God knows X (analogical)" as long as "God knows X (univocal)" is false

This is because analogical knowledge is not knowledge 


With atheism a omni God has the same property of knowledge we have, he just has more justified true beliefs. 

For Van Till God doesn't have any justified true beliefs, he has some mystery property also called knowledge.

In fact there cannot be any way to make a univocal omni God to a non-univocal omni God both fit under theism. 

This is because a non-univocal omni God is so utterly alien to creation that he can't have its properties.

Univocal omni Gods are entirely creaturely in property set but non-univocal are entirely non-creaturely.

They are not kinds of the same thing, as right triangles and equilateral triangles are.

Rather they are like Bat the mammal vs bat the stick you place baseball with.

If Theism includes univocal omni Gods then theism excludes non-univocal omni Gods. 

Conversations between believers in non-univocal omni Gods and atheists play out like this 

Person 1 "Im a abatist, I don't believe in mammals of the order chiroptera" 

Person 2 "Well your wrong because I hit a homerun at a baseball game with a Louisville Slugger yesterday, which is a bat" 

It doesn't matter if person 1 and 2 are using the same word "bat" , those words are don't mean the same thing.


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 17, 2022)

*grabs popcorn

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 18, 2022)

Van Til believed in God. Atheists pretend that they don't. Problem solved.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Feb 18, 2022)

Analogy of terms between God and man was not just the standard, but the only view of the reformed Orthodox on the matter, and of course of Aquinas. A critique of Van Til which implies there is something atheistic about Francis Turretin is not a very good critique.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## jubalsqaud (Feb 18, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Analogy of terms between God and man was not just the standard, but the only view of the reformed Orthodox on the matter, and of course of Aquinas. A critique of Van Til which implies there is something atheistic about Francis Turretin is not a very good critique.


This objection is of no consequence

From the very moment that these radical analogy theologies developed they have been followed by my complaint 

Charles Berkeley (christian) 1685-1753 , while writing a atheistic character to oppose his own mouth piece character in the book "Alciphron" wrote 

*"We will, therefore, acknowledge that all those natural effects which are vulgarly ascribed to knowledge and wisdom, proceed from a being in which there is, properly speaking, no knowledge or wisdom at all, but only something else, which in reality is the cause of those things which men, for want of knowing better, ascribe to what they call knowledge and wisdom and understanding... And, now we have granted to you that there is a God in this indefinite sense, I would fain see what use you can make of this concession. You cannot argue from unknown attributes, or, which is the same thing, from attributes in an unknown sense. You cannot prove that God is to be loved for His goodness, or feared for His justice, or respected for His knowledge: all which consequences, we own, would follow from those attributes admitted in an intelligible sense. But we deny that those or any other consequences can be drawn from attributes admitted in no particular sense, or in a sense which none of us understand. Since, therefore, nothing can be inferred from such an account of God, about conscience, or worship, or religion, you may even make the best of it. And, not to be singular, we will use the name too, and so at once there is an end of atheism."*

David Hume(Deist) about the same time wrote 

*"I ask the theist if he does not allow that there is a great and immeasurable, because incomprehensible, difference between the human and the divine mind: The more pious he is, the more readily will he assent to the affirmative, and the more will he be disposed to magnify the difference: He will even assert that, that the difference is of a nature which cannot be too much magnified. I next turn to the Atheist... and ask him whether, from the coherence and apparent sympathy in all parts of the world, there cannot be a certain degree of analogy among all the operations of Nature, in every situation and in every age; whether the rotting of a turnip, the generation of an animal, and the structure of human thought, be not energies that probably bear some remote analogy to each other: It is impossible he can deny it: He will readily acknowledge it. Having obtained this concession, I push him still further in his retreat; and I ask him, if it be not probable, that the principle which first arranged, and still maintains order in this universe, bears not also some remote inconceivable analogy to the other operations of nature, and, among the rest, to the economy of human mind and thought. However reluctant, he must give his assent. Where then, cry I to both these antagonists, is the subject of your dispute?" *

Anthony Collins (deist) in 1670ish wrote concerning the defense of divine foreknowledge as being analogical 

*“But if that be all that is meant by the term ['God'], I see not why Atheists should not come into the Belief of such a Deity; for they, equally with Theists, allow some general Cause of all Effects to have eternally existed; but, as far as I take it, differ from them in the Attributes of that general Cause”.*


Collins is most clear in stating what should be stated. 

Theists need a way to distinguish there own position from Atheists who believe in a ultimate reality. 

The problem is mystery attributes like "analogical beliefs, analogical personhood, analogical goodness" don't allow you to draw principled distinctions between those two positions. 

Ultimate Atheists seem to have there position well defined:


P1 The ultimate gets to count as a God if its personal being in a univocal sense

P2 The ultimate is not personal in a univocal sense 

C the ultimate is not a God


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 18, 2022)

Oh boy

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 4


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2022)

jubalsqaud said:


> Here is the problem.
> 
> Atheism is the assertion that there are no gods.
> 
> ...


Ok, a couple of things here. Van Til always said if you make anything the "ultimate" other than God the whole knowledge, ethics, ontological scheme breaks down. In your two posts you assumed creation and/or mankind is ultimate and God is some "thing" relative to us (which is why given your assumptions you're right). But if your assumptions are wrong that only proves Van Til's point. So I don't see anything there that is problematic for Vantillians. 
Two, all personal knowledge between personal beings is analogical. If you say "my right hand hurts" and I say "my right hand hurts too". There is no way for you to prove that we have a univocal knowledge (1 to 1 relationship, inderdcernability of indenticals) of what the other one means. The fact that your talking about your right hand and not mine proves univocal knowledge is impossible.Those are just the two biggest problems.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 18, 2022)

I’m sure you will understand why I ascribe little weight to a critic who cannot even correctly spell the name of the one he is criticizing.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Charles Johnson (Feb 18, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I’m sure you will understand why I ascribe little weight to a critic who cannot even correctly spell the name of the one he is criticizing.


What do you get when a large home schooling family buys a farm?

Van Till.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Ethan (Feb 18, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Oh boy


BY WHAT STANDARD?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 18, 2022)

Ethan said:


> BY WHAT STANDARD?



How do you even know anything?

I remember the last time this identical thread came up. Indeed, you can see it on the "similar threads" at the bottom. I never got an a reply to my last post.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JH (Feb 18, 2022)

@jubalsqaud looking through your relatively short post history here, all of your threads seem to be about critique of Van Til. It appears you have an axe to grind.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 18, 2022)

There are legitimate critiques of Van Til. I've offered many of them. But to take the doctrine of analogy and make Francis Turretin an atheist means we've missed the mark somewhere.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 18, 2022)

To reject analogy is to either claim equality with God or to reject faith altogether because God is entirely unknowable by man in any sense whatsoever. 

God and I can both know the same thing. But He knows it intrinsically, I only know it by revelation. 

Might I suggest you give it a rest? You have this very odd fascination with “Van Till”. I think your spiritual health would be better served by exploring other things, especially given the wealth of knowledge here on the PB. 

Furthermore, I don’t think you understand these things as well as you think you do. IF you want to continue in philosophical critiques of various positions (again I think you should put the philosophy to bed for a while), I suggest you remove yourself from your podium of instructing and take a seat of learning.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 18, 2022)

Start with Van Asselt's _Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (_Reformation Heritage Books).





Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Van Asselt)


Van Asselt. Willem. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Reformation Heritage Books. This book changed my life. It should be required reading in at least one seminary course, preferably the first systematic theology class. Imagine someone taking Richard Muller's four volume...




www.puritanboard.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 18, 2022)

No idea why these kind of thread titles are allowed where something gentler would suffice your point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 18, 2022)

I don't recognize Van Til or any of his students (and I count myself among them) in the OP. In Van Til's thought, it is God who has direct, intuitive knowledge of all things, and it is creatures who have analogous knowledge. The OP has this precisely reversed. This is a fatal flaw. To say that Van Til's thought is consistent with atheism is absolutely, positively, analogously, directly, and in all other conceivable ways, ludicrous.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 2


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Start with Van Asselt's _Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (_Reformation Heritage Books).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is this a good book?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 18, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Is this a good book?


According to the review he did, it appears so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I don't recognize Van Til or any of his students (and I count myself among them) in the OP. In Van Til's thought, it is God who has direct, intuitive knowledge of all things, and it is creatures who have analogous knowledge. The OP has this precisely reversed. This is a fatal flaw. To say that Van Til's thought is consistent with atheism is absolutely, positively, analogously, directly, and in all other conceivable ways, ludicrous.


Yeah thats what I noticed too. You said it better than I did.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> According to the review he did, it appears so.


I'll have to find it. Thanks.


----------



## Ethan (Feb 18, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> How do you even know anything?
> 
> I remember the last time this identical thread came up. Indeed, you can see it on the "similar threads" at the bottom. I never got an a reply to my last post.


Per your JP Moreland recommendation I now answer as a particularist and appeal to knowledge by acquaintance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 18, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Is this a good book?



Yes. It's glorious. It changed my life. Everything Van Asselt does is great.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## jw (Feb 18, 2022)

Where’s the coffee? Oops! Wrong room.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2022)

Ethan said:


> Per your JP Moreland recommendation I now answer as a particularist and appeal to knowledge by acquaintance.


Good point. I believe "knowledge by acquaintance" comes from the work of Bertrand Russell. And if I remember correctly he was very close to his pragmatic "friends" he hated so much. Read "The Meaning of Truth" to see the misunderstanding.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jubalsqaud (Feb 18, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> God and I can both know the same thing. But He knows it intrinsically, I only know it by revelation.


Not if you Van Til 

Now, take a look at the selection from "the complaint " from Van Til and his friends and try with a straight face to tell me the authors of this document believe you and God "know" the same thing. 

The far-reaching significance of Dr. Clark's starting point, as observed under 1. above, is evident when we note that Dr. Clark holds that man's knowledge of any proposition, if it is really knowledge, is identical with God's knowledge of the same proposition. If knowledge is a matter of propositions divorced from the knowing subject, that is, of self-contained, independent statements, a proposition would have to have the same meaning for man as for God."

and later

"While we appreciate the effort to arrive at certainty with reference to man's knowledge of God, in our judgment this is done at too great a cost. It is done at the sacrifice of the transcendence of God's knowledge. His thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are past finding out. The secret things belong unto the Lord our God. If we are not to bring the divine knowledge of his thoughts and ways down to human knowledge, or our human knowledge up to his divine knowledge, we dare not maintain that his knowledge and our knowledge _coincide at any single point_. Our knowledge of any proposition must always remain the knowledge of the creature. As true knowledge, that knowledge must be analogical to the knowledge which God possesses, but it can never be identified with the knowledge which the infinite and absolute Creator possesses of the same proposition."


Knowledge entails assent to a proposition so if the meaning of "Cain killed able" isn't the same for God as me. God doesn't believe what I believe and therefore know what i know


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2022)

jubalsqaud said:


> Not if you Van Til
> 
> Now, take a look at the selection from "the complaint " from Van Til and his friends and try with a straight face to tell me the authors of this document believe you and God "know" the same thing.
> 
> ...


You still haven't answered my right arm problem, how can you show/prove you mean exactly the same thing by "my right hand hurts" as I do in a propersitional format? Univocal or non analogical?


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 18, 2022)

jubalsqaud said:


> Not if you Van Til
> 
> Now, take a look at the selection from "the complaint " from Van Til and his friends and try with a straight face to tell me the authors of this document believe you and God "know" the same thing.
> 
> ...


Wow again so much. "Unless knowledge is propositional, it isn't knowledge" how do you account for tacit knowledge (women's intuition, and/or a carpenter knowing roughly how long to cut a board)? I was once a carpenter and know that situation. 
Also If a proposition must mean the same thing to God, as creator, as it does to man, as creature, than that implies that the univocal standard for "knowledge" (which is untenable) is a standard God must submit to? But we both don't believe that. So the only way around is analogical knowledge in all our personal knowledge of other persons and practical things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 18, 2022)

jubalsqaud said:


> Not if you Van Til
> 
> Now, take a look at the selection from "the complaint " from Van Til and his friends and try with a straight face to tell me the authors of this document believe you and God "know" the same thing.
> 
> ...


Are you familiar with the concepts of "accommodation" or the "Creator-creature" distinction? Or the difference between archetype and ectype? I would encourage you to do a thorough study of a Reformed understanding of revelation. There are places to critique Van Til, but on this point about the difference between divine and human knowledge, Van Til is simply repeating the concepts confessed by the whole Reformed tradition. Jacob's recommendation of Van Asselt is a great place to start. If you want a deeper dive in this specific issue, check out Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1 ch. 5.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 18, 2022)

This answered my question...... "The far-reaching significance of Dr. Clark's starting point, as observed under"... Now I know what this is about. LOL

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## LilyG (Feb 18, 2022)

I'm so very confused. But it's hilarious. And I'm so sorry it's hilarious.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## 83r17h (Feb 18, 2022)

jubalsqaud said:


> we dare not maintain that his knowledge and our knowledge _coincide at any single point_



So, the fact that you quote this and emphasis this bit by italics demonstrates your refusal to actually hear what both Van Til, and everyone here, has been saying about the concept of analogy. Note also that I'm not exactly a huge defender of Van Til or his apologetics. But you seem to think that he only says one thing, so here's a direct quote from Van Til himself which shows that you are understanding him incorrectly. 



> In the first place, it is possible in this way to see that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man coincide at every point in the sense that always and everywhere man confronts that which is already fully known or interpreted by God. The point of reference cannot but be the same for man as for God. There is no fact that man meets in any of his investigation where the face of God does not confront him. On the other hand, in this way it is possible to see that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man coincide at no point in the sense that, in his awareness of meaning of anything, in his mental grasp or understanding of anything, man is at each point dependent upon a prior act of unchangeable understand and revelation on the part of God. The form of the revelation of God to man must come to man in accordance with his creaturely limitations.
> 
> Van Til, _Introduction to Systematic Theology_, 270.



This is admittedly a difficult explanation, and I haven't included the full paragraph. But let me examine two things here. 

First: coincidence. According to Van Til: "the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man *coincide at every point*." Also, "the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man *coincide at no point*." My point? That when you pay attention exclusively to one of these statements, neglecting the fact that the other exists, you misrepresent Van Til and make a pointless argument. Not only that, but it leads you to misconstrue what analogy means, because you only take a partial understanding of it. What you are claiming analogy is, is an incomplete concept. You can't legitimately attack analogy if you have understood it falsely. Analogy has both truths. Van Til, for the innovation of his expression, is not innovating the substance here. As others have pointed out, Turretin believes the same thing, as does Aquinas. 

Second: contradiction. People want to say "well, VT just contradicted himself and this is what he really meant." Let's review the law of noncontradiction for a second. We'll take the quote from Wikipedia under the Aristotle section, just for fun, since Clark liked Aristotle: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." Let me do that again, with emphasis added: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time *and in the same respect*." Now, this means that it is impossible that the knowledge of man possesses coincidence with the knowledge of God, as well as lacks coincidence with the knowledge of God - only if the possession and the lack are in the same respect. What does Van Til say? "coincide at every point *in the sense...*" and coincide at no point *in the sense...*" So Van Til sees two different senses in view, and thus does not actually fall into contradiction here. 

Like Jacob said, there are good arguments against some things Van Til said, and there are bad arguments...and there are nonsense arguments. To say that Van Til and the concept of analogy makes him an atheist is in the nonsense category. 

If you want a response to the hypothetical atheist who says that atheism defines "god" in a univocal sense, then point out that the "a" is a prefix to the "theism," and theism is not deism. Theism demands God who is not the same as creation, nor on the same level as creation. Theism demands a God who is uncreated, and thus _by necessity_ of being uncreated, not of univocal being. Webster has some good thoughts on this in the first volume of _God Without Measure_ if you're interested in trying to learn more. And Webster is definitely not a Van Tilliian. But the whole thing is a silly semantic "gotcha" argument which is just childish, and honestly doesn't even sound worth interacting with. "I defined my terms so that you can't be right, and I refuse to admit any other possible definitions and explanations for discussion." Okay, good for you.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 18, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Is this a good book?


Obviously. Okay, bias aside, yes, it is a great book.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TryingToLearn (Feb 18, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Analogy of terms between God and man was not just the standard, but the only view of the reformed Orthodox on the matter, and of course of Aquinas. A critique of Van Til which implies there is something atheistic about Francis Turretin is not a very good critique.


Exactly my first thought here. God's knowledge is qualitatively different from man's. Man's knowledge is only analogical to God's knowledge. It's the difference between archetypal and ectypal knowledge. This is far more than just a critique of Van Til. It's a critique of the entire Christian tradition other than Clarkianism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jubalsqaud (Feb 18, 2022)

83r17h said:


> This is admittedly a difficult explanation, and I haven't included the full paragraph. But let me examine two things here.


(Your post was long, I cut your quote down so this wouldn't be a great wall of text, but you still would know im addressing you)

With regards to point one and two.
I am aware of everything you just posted.

Van Til is just claiming man's knowing and God's knowing are different.

However you must remember in "the complaint" he challenged Clark's view that propositions have the same content and meaning for God as they do man. Thus propositional like "Cain killed Able" can not mean "Cain killed Able" to God or else God believes the same thing we believe.

You also tried to bolster your claim with Aquinas, good.

Aquinas actually explicitly states what he means by analogy and shows the words "knowledge" has a different but related meaning for God

Summa Theologica Article 6

"*I answer that,* In names predicated of many in an analogical sense, all are predicated because they have reference to some one thing; and this one thing must be placed in the definition of them all. And since that expressed by the name is the definition, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. iv), such a name must be applied primarily to that which is put in the definition of such other things, and secondarily to these others according as they approach more or less to that first. Thus, for instance, "healthy" applied to animals comes into the definition of "healthy" applied to medicine, which is called healthy as being the cause of health in the animal; and also into the definition of "healthy" which is applied to urine, which is called healthy in so far as it is the sign of the animal's health."

Aquinas thinks terms that we have like "Good" reference God's Goodness

Just like how "Healthy(1) is the property of causing things to be healthy(2)"

Healthy(1) is not the same property as healthy(2) but they are not types of the same thing, THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE MERELY RELATED

P1 Anything that is healthy(2) shares that property with non-toxic plants

P2 Mineral vitamins are healthy(1)

C Mineral vitamins share the property of healthy(2) with plants

So for Aquinas out knowledge works the same way

Knowledge(1) is our knowledge and Knowledge(2) is Gods knowledge

"X has knowledge(1)" and "X has knowledge(2)" are not types of the same thing THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE MERELY RELATED.


jwright82 said:


> You still haven't answered my right arm problem, how can you show/prove you mean exactly the same thing by "my right hand hurts" as I do in a propersitional format? Univocal or non analogical?


No, 

The subjects of "My right hand hurts " uttered by me and "My right hand hurts " are different and sentences with different subjects do not express the same proposition.

However the predicates can attribute the same fact to the two different subjects.

So "hurts" the predicate of 1 would mean the same thing as "hurts" in 2. 

My proof is God revealed to me that other men share the same qualitative experiences as me. 

Its the only reason I can understand why somebody wouldn't want to be crucified or why somebody might want to run from King Saul.


----------



## jubalsqaud (Feb 19, 2022)

Also I apologize if I have come off as needlessly belligerent


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Feb 19, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This answered my question...... "The far-reaching significance of Dr. Clark's starting point, as observed under"... Now I know what this is about. LOL


Care to enlighten the rest of us?


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 19, 2022)

jubalsqaud said:


> (Your post was long, I cut your quote down so this wouldn't be a great wall of text, but you still would know im addressing you)
> 
> With regards to point one and two.
> I am aware of everything you just posted.
> ...


Okay, where did God reveal to you the proposition "your right hand pain is a one to one equivalent (univocal meaning) between you and others"? 
If you're going to push it back to the Bible, than ok "how does a word that was culturally conditioned (hence social use) and picked up by God to reveal something prove univocal meaning"? Its seems no matter where you go you're still left with admitting analogical use. 
Unless you're trying to make a transcendental argument about the nature of language that defies common sense and the use of ordinary language, good luck. I just don't see logically your point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 19, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Care to enlighten the rest of us?


The Gordon Clark reference. For some reason, many of his followers act like the 11th commandment is “thou shalt trash Cornelius van Til.”

While there are folks who still attack the thinking of Clark, it seems to me that most van Tilians today are just as happy to let the old controversy die, but Clarkians have a near-psychotic obsession with assuring that it lives on.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2022)

jubalsqaud said:


> Van Til is just claiming man's knowing and God's knowing are different.



That's called the archetypal/ectypal distinction. It is historic Protestantism. What Van Til actually meant was that God's _mode of knowing_ is different than ours. God knows all things in one single non-temporal act of knowing his essence. We do not. It's literally that simple (pun intended).

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2022)

LilyG said:


> I'm so very confused. But it's hilarious. And I'm so sorry it's hilarious.



If you think this is funny, try to find some of the threads from last summer dealing with Gordon Clark's view of Nestorianism and how it infiltrated the PRC. Those are really funny.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2022)

To be fair, I think there are tensions in Aquinas's concept of analogy. I think guys like Franciscus Junius and others realized that Scotus's view of theologia nostra and theologia in se do a better job of capturing what Aquinas was getting at. Of course, none of that is in play in this critique.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 19, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> The Gordon Clark reference. For some reason, many of his followers act like the 11th commandment is “thou shalt trash Cornelius van Til.”
> 
> While there are folks who still attack the thinking of Clark, it seems to me that most van Tilians today are just as happy to let the old controversy die, but Clarkians have a near-psychotic obsession with assuring that it lives on.


You say this is your "two cents," but it rings absolutely true with me. I rarely ever hear a Van Tilian bring up Clark, yet there is an entire publication, still being produced and maintained, in which it seems like your "eleventh commandment" is virtually a part of the style guide. Every article, even those that have little or nothing to do with Van Til, simply must find a way to squeeze in a stab at him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2022)

Taylor said:


> You say this is your "two cents," but it rings absolutely true with me. I rarely ever hear a Van Tilian bring up Clark, yet there is an entire publication, still being produced and maintained, in which it seems like your "eleventh commandment" is virtually a part of the style guide. Every article, even those that have little or nothing to do with Van Til, simply must find a way to squeeze in a stab at him.



And what's even sadder is that Gordon Clark had some good things to offer the church. He was a superb writer and great lecturer. His epistemology is bizarre, I grant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jubalsqaud (Feb 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> That's called the archetypal/ectypal distinction. It is historic Protestantism. What Van Til actually meant was that God's _mode of knowing_ is different than ours. God knows all things in one single non-temporal act of knowing his essence. We do not. It's literally that simple (pun intended).


No he definitely didn't JUST MEAN that the mode of knowing is different

If that's all he meant he wouldn't have signed a document that literally said mode of knowing being different is not good enough the contents are also different


"Man is dependent upon God for his knowledge. We gladly concede this point, and have reckoned with it in what has been said above. However, this admission does not affect the whole point at issue here since the doctrine of the mode of the divine knowledge is not a part of the doctrine of the imcomprehensibility of his knowledge. The latter is concerned only with the contents of the divine knowledge. Dr. Clark distinguishes between the knowledge of God and of man so far as mode of knowledge is concerned, but it is a tragic fact that his dialectic has led him to obliterate the qualitative distinction between the contents of the divine mind and the knowledge which is possible to the creature, and thus to impinge in a most serious fashion upon the transcendence of the divine knowledge which is expressed by the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God."

and also

"This knowing of propositions cannot, in the nature of the case, reflect or inspire any recognition by man of his relation to God, for the simple reason that the propositions have the same content, mean the same, to God and man."


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2022)

jubalsqaud said:


> No he definitely didn't JUST MEAN that the mode of knowing is different
> 
> If that's all he meant he wouldn't have signed a document that literally said mode of knowing being different is not good enough the contents are also different
> 
> ...



If you are talking about the Gordon Clark controversy, all of CVT's students admit he overstated his case and pulled back later in life. While I'm no fan of John Frame, Frame's bio is good on this point.


----------



## jubalsqaud (Feb 19, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> If you are talking about the Gordon Clark controversy, all of CVT's students admit he overstated his case and pulled back later in life. While I'm no fan of John Frame, Frame's bio is good on this point.


In the event you are right I apologize.

The works of/approved by Van Til that I am familiar with imply the what I described before.

However as seen with my earlier Aquinas post, the problem is persistent throughout analogical philosophy, not just Van Til


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 19, 2022)

jubalsqaud said:


> In the event you are right I apologize.


Are you disputing the correctness of Jacob's comment? Jacob plainly stated, "If you are talking about the Gordon Clark controversy, all of CVT's students admit he overstated his case and pulled back later in life." Your apology is empty at this point.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2022)

Some references by Frame.
See Frame, _Knowledge of God, _21-40. "Neither Van Til nor Clark was at his best in the debate, and the controversy (on rather technical philosophical matters which few actually understood) detracted much from the work of the gospel in the little denomination and at Westminster Seminary."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 20, 2022)

Thank you Jacob. Great post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 20, 2022)

jubalsqaud said:


> Also I apologize if I have come off as needlessly belligerent


So, let me get this straight: the title of your OP is a scorched earth assault on Van Til, and you apologize _if _(which is not a real apology, since you are implying that what you said was not belligerent, only the interpretation of it on my part, or others, made it that way) you have come off as needlessly belligerent, all the while not changing or asking to have changed the title of your OP. I have answered the substance of your OP, showing where the fatal flaw is, to which you have not responded. Forgive me for thinking that the "apology" is not coming across as ingenuous.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678 (Feb 20, 2022)

>*my face, still confused after 50+ replies in this thread...

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 6


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 20, 2022)

Romans678 said:


> >*my face, still confused after 50+ replies in this thread...View attachment 8956



I think what the OP might have meant (or I might literally have no clue) is that in the Clark controversy, Van Til co-authored a paper where he said "God's knowledge and man's knowledge never overlap." Clark drew the immediate inference: since God knows everything, then man can know nothing.

Van Til more or less backed off of that claim, and I think Frame shows that CVT didn't intend for it to be read that way. Yes, it is a bad take by Van Til but it's not his final word.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Feb 20, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I think what the OP might have meant (or I might literally have no clue) is that in the Clark controversy, Van Til co-authored a paper where he said "God's knowledge and man's knowledge never overlap." Clark drew the immediate inference: since God knows everything, then man can know nothing.
> 
> Van Til more or less backed off of that claim, and I think Frame shows that CVT didn't intend for it to be read that way. Yes, it is a bad take by Van Til but it's not his final word.


Much like his God is one person/three persons statement. Poor choice of words given not only established language but high propensity for being misconstrued. However, when reading him in wider context, it is clear(er) what he meant, and in line with historic orthodoxy and reformed thought.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 20, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I think what the OP might have meant (or I might literally have no clue) is that in the Clark controversy, Van Til co-authored a paper where he said "God's knowledge and man's knowledge never overlap." Clark drew the immediate inference: since God knows everything, then man can know nothing.
> 
> Van Til more or less backed off of that claim, and I think Frame shows that CVT didn't intend for it to be read that way. Yes, it is a bad take by Van Til but it's not his final word.


Yes and from what I read Murray authored the complaint.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 21, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I think what the OP might have meant (or I might literally have no clue) is that in the Clark controversy, Van Til co-authored a paper where he said "God's knowledge and man's knowledge never overlap." Clark drew the immediate inference: since God knows everything, then man can know nothing.


Dovetailing off of Lane, the OP never mentions Clark, nor any context really.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 21, 2022)

ZackF said:


> Dovetailing off of Lane, the OP never mentions Clark, nor any context really.



True. It's the standard Clarkian criticism of CVT, so I assumed as much. And Clarkians don't like analogical reasoning, which the OP has attacked in other threads.

And I'll point out that I really don't like defending CVT as I fundamentally disagree with him on epistemology and apologetics, but I feel like I have to here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------

