I have been thinking lately about the state of Clarkian views now a days. For us Vantillians we had a breakthrough of sorts when Bahnsen, and Frame and Oliphint to a lesser degree, “translated” Van Til’s ideas from his Idealist vocabulary (it must be kept in mind that although he used these words he redefined them in a Christian context) to more contemporary categories of philosophical thought. This allowed us to interact apologetically with contemporary thinkers. Now in studying Clark on the other hand he seems “stuck” in previous categories that make his relevance not so strong. As late as Crampton’s book The Scripturalism of Gordon Clark he still uses the categories of epistemology that are no longer relevant to philosophy. I’ll explain. Clark sees any appeal to forming a belief (he didn’t use the belief centered vocabulary of contemporary philosophy, he used the generic term knowledge) through my sense presupposes Empiricism (the belief that the foundation for all my beliefs is my sense experience, which can be easily disproven). But in contemporary categories saying that I formed a belief through my senses does not imply Empiricism. So his critique is irrelevant because he uses outdated categories of thought. I respect, and disagree, with Clark very much. My question rather than be a criticism of him is this: is there any contemporary Clarkian who is rethinking his thought in contemporary philosophical categories? Is there anyone seeking to “translate” him into newer ways of thinking through these things? Who is the leading Clarkian today?