# Gordon Clark & Cornelius van Til



## Mayflower (Nov 22, 2005)

Actually i never read anything yet from both authors. I only read somewhere (trinity foundation) that Clark went against van Til. How of you are familiar with one or with both of each authors ? I really like to read some thoughts.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 22, 2005)

See this thread. I think there have been some others as well.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 22, 2005)

It's shameless self-promotion...

R. Scott Clark, "Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology," in David VanDrunen, ed., _The Pattern of Sound Words: A Festschrift for Robert B. Strimple _(Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004).

rsc


----------



## SmokingFlax (Nov 22, 2005)

I've read aad enjoyed a couple of things from each of them but I'm afraid that I wouldn't be a real good source to make the finer distinctions between them. I wasn't aware of any rift between the two.


----------



## VanVos (Nov 23, 2005)

I recommend Greg Bahnsen teaching on Vantil and Gordon Clark 

Van Til's Presuppositional Apologetic: Van Til and Gordon Clark--5 of 9 mp3 

Van Til's Presuppositional Apologetic: Van Til and Gordon Clark-- 6 of 9 Mp3 

$1.99 each

http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=453


----------



## JWJ (Nov 23, 2005)

I have read both and found both are often misunderstood. in my opinion though VanTil is often misunderstood and misrepresented he is the least consistent and clear of the two. 

Jim


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> Actually i never read anything yet from both authors. I only read somewhere (trinity foundation) that Clark went against van Til. How of you are familiar with one or with both of each authors ? I really like to read some thoughts.



Wasn't it the other way around. Didn't Van Til oppose Clark's ordination in the OPC or something like that? Didn't Van Til try to block Clark's ordination which didn't work?

I read a book years ago by Hoeksema called The Van Til Clark Controversy. I don't remember it but it seems to have tried to justify Clark. I don't have it any more. Does anyone have any Yeas or Nays for it?


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> ...



I have it and have read it. While I don't agree with everything Hoeksema believes, he does a fair job in evaluating the contraversy.

I think it is pretty much admitted today that the contraversy between the two (with respect to Clark's ordination) should have been avoided, and to some degree there was some confusion on both sides.

While I am more Clarkian, I do recommend the audio lecture from Bahnsen above as a fair treatment of the issue. Also, see the thread Andrew linked to above for more.


----------



## Civbert (Dec 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> I recommend Greg Bahnsen teaching on Vantil and Gordon Clark
> 
> Van Til's Presuppositional Apologetic: Van Til and Gordon Clark--5 of 9 mp3
> ...



These were a was a major disappointment for me. Bahnsen seems to understand much of Clark philosophy, but then makes a major blunder when he criticizes Clark's assertion the Van Til has failed to prove God. Bahnsen then gives a simplistic proof in the form of a modus tollen [ x > y, and ~y, therefore ~x ] . What Bahnsen does is give a glaring demonstration of his ignorance of Clark's view of what a proof entails, and a conditional argument may be formally valid, but is not based on a priori true propositions. All "proofs" for God are either circular or beg the question. 

He also assaults Clark's epistemology, but his problem is not logical, it's psychological. He basically rejects Clark's view that the only justified true beliefs are those that may be are found in Scripture or may be deduced from Scripture. But Bahnsen does not give a viable alternative to Clark. He was upset because, based on Clark's epistemology, one can not technically know one is saved. And this is completely consistent with Clark's epistemology and definition of proof. This does not mean we can have no assurance of salvation, only that we can not give a valid deductive argument to justify from Scripture we are saved. 

So Bahnsen's major criticisms of Clark are strawmen. Bahnsen does an good job in showing where Clark and Van Til overlap, and he had some good insights into the "controversy" and how Clark's ordination into the OPC should never have been opposed in the first place, and Van Til's part in the confusion. And I've listened to Van Til rail against the "dangers" of Clark's philosophy, so it's no great wonder that the Vantillians were so opposed to Clark. It's sad the Bahnsen fell so short of giving a real criticism of Clark.

If any one does know of a truly insightful criticism of Clark's philosophy, please let me know. 

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by Civbert]


----------



## JWJ (Dec 23, 2005)

Jim


----------

