Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
we dare not maintain that his knowledge and our knowledge coincide at any single point
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.
Obviously. Okay, bias aside, yes, it is a great book.Is this a good book?
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.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.
(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)This is admittedly a difficult explanation, and I haven't included the full paragraph. But let me examine two things here.
No,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?
Care to enlighten the rest of us?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
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"?(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.
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.
The Gordon Clark reference. For some reason, many of his followers act like the 11th commandment is “thou shalt trash Cornelius van Til.”Care to enlighten the rest of us?
Van Til is just claiming man's knowing and God's knowing are different.
I'm so very confused. But it's hilarious. And I'm so sorry it's hilarious.
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.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.
No he definitely didn't JUST MEAN that the mode of knowing is differentThat'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."
In the event you are right I apologize.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.
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.In the event you are right I apologize.
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.Also I apologize if I have come off as needlessly belligerent
>*my face, still confused after 50+ replies in this thread...View attachment 8956
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.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.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.
Dovetailing off of Lane, the OP never mentions Clark, nor any context really.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.