I must confess that I have not finished Herman Hoeksema’s book The Clark-Van Til Controversy, because it was giving me a headache. Part of the problem with this Trinity Foundation book is that it is a compilation of editorials HH did in The Standard Bearer. HH sees much of the Christian Reformed Church controversy of 1924 in this 1940’s issue in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I fear his baggage blinds him.
A disclaimer: at RTS Orlando I studied under a number of men who went to Westminster and could be called Van-Tillian (Pratt, Kidd, & Glodo). It was a unique time there since R.C. Sproul, a classical apologist was on the faculty, as we also had the late Dr. Nash teaching us philosophy and apologetics. Dr. Nash was a rationalist (unapologetically) and greatly influenced by Clark. Let’s just say it was interesting. But Nash’s big Clark-Van Til story indicated to me that Nash either didn’t read, didn’t understand or refused to accept what Van Til wrote on these matters. The apocryphal story was his complete refutation of Van Til. But I digress.
The issue revolved primarily around the continuity and distinctions between God’s knowledge and our knowledge. Hoeksema seeks to defend Clark and seems to overlook some very important pieces of the puzzle.
1. Quantity of knowledge. Both are agreed that as creatures, our knowledge of the Creator is limited. Whatever knowledge we have is a result of His revelation to us. Both would agree that God knows every fact in relation to every other fact. Where they disagree is in the idea that our knowledge of, say, 2+2=4 is the same as God’s knowledge of the same. Clark says it is. Van Til, in light of the fact that God sees this in relation to every other fact, says no. The apocryphal story as told by Nash has Clark asking Van Til over a meal if God knows 2+2=4, and Van Til shook his head. This, Clark took as a denial. But based on Van Til’s Introduction to Systematic Theology would be more of a “oh, you poor, misguided fellow.” Van Til affirms that God knows math!
2. Qualitative Knowledge. Here is where they really disagree. Not only are we creatures, but we are sinners. Clark seemingly ignores the noetic effect of sin. Our knowledge of God (and all of our knowledge) is tainted because sin has affected our minds. We are unable to accurately understand God’s revelation apart from the work of the Spirit. But even then… the effects of sin will not be completely removed from our minds until we get to heaven. Van Til’s apologetic is essentially based on this idea. Sproul has repeatedly stated that Calvin wrote that even the best theologians were only 75% correct (he never gives the reference, and I’ve yet to come across it in my own reading, but I have not come close to reading all of Calvin’s numerous works).
This is a huge problem for Clark, and those who follow him. These guys continually throw accusations at Westminster, the OPC, the PCA, the ARP and other Reformed bodies claiming that due to the influence of Van Til, and then Shepherd, they have rejected the WCF’s doctrine of justification. Unfortunately, they fell victim to the Cav-Theory of Theological Debate: the more you argue the more extreme you get. John Robbins’ book on this matter (A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy) essentially rejects the WCF On Saving Faith and On Good Works. Oh, I digressed again.
Lastly, Clark is a rationalist and argues for the “primacy of the intellect”. He and HH argue that the emotions are functions of either the intellect or the will, and not a separate faculty. But the mind is first and foremost. Again, he seemingly refuses to admit that the mind, like the will and emotions has been affected by sin. One would think that a Christian philosopher would be more likely to fall in step with the greatest American mind Jonathan Edwards, who was a Christian, than Plato. Edwards places a great emphasis on Religious Affections (A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections). I could not ponder Edwards, or Jesus, talking about the primacy of the intellect. God made us as a whole (heart, mind and will). We are not to place one above the other. Instead, we see them interacting with one another for either blessing or cursing. We see this downward spiral in Romans 1- people suppress truth in unrighteousness, and God gives them more and more over to their evil desires. They grasp less and less truth, love sin more and more and choose it more and more. And so on.
So, though HH is firmly behind Gordon Clark, I see some huge problems with Clark’s theology. Clark thought we could perfectly understand God’s revelation and resolve any of the matters God reveals. I believe that God is sovereign and I am responsible since Scripture teaches this. But I don’t understand it. Clark would call me an irrationalist. But just because I can’t understand all that God reveals does not mean I’m irrational- it means I’m a sinful and finite creature. Where I in that Presbytery, I too would have had trouble with Clark’s formulations (which reveal he was trained in philosophy, not theology).
Update: in his review of my former professor John Muether’s book, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Church Man, Richard Mouw adds this historical context:
For one thing, the polemics for which Van Til is well known were not simply arguments that are “contained” within the academy. Michael Hakkenberg made this point nicely in an essay he once published about Van Til’s rather acrimonious dispute with the philosopher Gordon Clark. [1] The subject at issue was the doctrine of “divine incomprehensibility.” But as Hakkenberg observes, there was more going on here than a simple theological argument. The struggle had something to do with who would control the theological direction of the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination. Clark’s position had affinities with certain non-Calvinist elements in the broader evangelical movement, while Van Til insisted on the kind of stark contrast between divine and human knowledge that would reinforce a uniquely Calvinst piety and ecclesiology. Van Til was victorious in the ecclesiastical struggle, with Clark departing for other environs.
I’m hoping to read Dr. Muether’s book (John, why no review copy???), as well as Dr. Frame’s.
Some additional posts of mine on these issues:
Cavman Considers 
Yes, three cheers for the emotions. And speaking about the emotions, here’s a question about God’s knowledge versus our own: Does God know what it is like to be me? Does God’s knowledge of me include a knowledge of my own point of view, my own immediate experience of the world? This is one of the more interesting theological questions I’ve heard in a while; it was asked by William Mander (Oxford) via an academic journal in 2002: “Does God Know What It Is Like To Be Me?” HeyJ XLIII (2002), pp 430-443.
Hopefully this is relevant enough to the post above; at least we could say that the post above made me think of this : -)
Oh, and by the way: I got snagged by the reformed tradition in 1993 by wandering into the RTS bookstore in Orlando too many times; so perhaps we’ve seen one another…
Michael Metzler
http://www.poohsthink.com
We probably did. I worked in the bookstore in 93-94. I really enjoyed the bunch of guys we had in there at that time. Most of us loved books, theology in particular. As Archie & Edith sang, “those were the days…”
Ps. 139- I would think God knows us exhaustively. Since Jesus was fully human as well as fully God, I have no initial objections to God knowing what it is like to be me. However, I can still have great relationship with others who really don’t know what it is like to be me (they don’t share my particular wounds nor sins).
Visited your blog, btw. Sounds like your experience in Moscow was similar to what others from St. Peter’s describe. Sorry. There are times I can climb on board with Doug, but times when I clearly jump ship.
While working at the bookstore did you use to push John MacAruther’s ‘Gospel According to Jesus’ and ‘Faith Works’?
By the way, a clarification to the knowledge question: The question is not that of ’empathy.’ Jesus can imagine what it is like to be me the way another person can; he can ‘feel my pain’ for example. However, another person cannot take on my own ‘point of view’ and truly know what it is like to be me right now in real time. You cannot, for example, remember what it was like for me to drink coffee at Bucer’s coffee house an hour ago, since only the ‘me’ can. In one respect, as some philosopher’s claim, knowing what it is like to be me just is to be me. This is why Mander, a Christian, actually answers this question in the negative: God cannot know what it is like to be me, to take on my own point of view (which includes taking on my emotions, not emotions like mine), since to do so would be to make me God. Anyhow, just a clarification (hope I don’t loose whatever crowd I sent here!)
Michael Metzler
http://www.poohsthink.com
No, I didn’t push “Faith Works”. John M. is SOOO close to the truth (on this matter- I don’t mean to imply he’s not a Christian). The issue, as Jerry Bridges pointed out in a great summer class, is regeneration. John does not address this amazing work of grace, and ends up sounding very works oriented. Faith does work, as we see in James 2. But in Eph. 2:10 we see our works as a result of being made alive with Christ, recreated in Him. Without this the ground of our works, it is a short trip to legalism (which is not where John wanted to go, mind you).
Mander’s question is interesting, but I hesitate to offer much of an answer since it would be quite speculative. That may be the easy way out, but I’m taking it 🙂
Ok, so that wasn’t you at the book store : -) Your other fellow students working at the store at that time pushed MacArthur, who then started talking about Luther and Calvin; ironically, MacArthur was my first real exposure to reformed systematic thinking in Faith Works….
Not sure if you ever managed to finish that book by Herman Hoeksema. But if you want a “fair representation and courteous criticism” (Roger Nicole), try reading Chapter 4, The Nature of Biblical Truth, A New Systematic Theology of Christian Faith by Robert L Reymond.
Just a thought:
the mere beginning of true knowledge is to fear the Lord. It is hard to image that the same Lord does not fully know us. It would then be left to conclude he is therefore not full of knowledge.
Malachi 2:7For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
Seeking instruction from the priest’s mouth because he’s the messenger of the fountain of all knowledge perhaps?
If you find this blog post interesting, and want to delve more deeply into a biblical application of presuppositionalism, watch for the publication of my new book, Arsy Varsy — Reclaiming the Gospel in First Corinthians.
Phil
It seems to me that the question ‘Does God know what it is like to be me?’ asumes implicitly that experience give knowledge of any kind.
If Im right, therefore the one who make that question must prove how can experience gives knowledge (by knowledge we talk about true propositions). Until that objection is answered, he’s begging the question.
The thing is that God knows perfectly what’s to be you because He’s the one Who cause you to be who you are.
I think this is the way Clark will answer the question.
On the first paragraph of your ‘Qualitative Knowledge’ you will be right if by the noetic effect of sin we always think wrong, all the time, without eception. But if that’s the case, therefore it will be impossible to have any knowledge of any kind, ending finally in total agnosticism, without know even who is God.
But thats wrong. Due to the noetical effects of sin our course of thinking isn’t always right, but that doesn’t mean that it is always wrong. Even a non-christian can know that 2 plus 2 is 4, and that it cannot be 5 or 3 (even if there are some irracionalist who affirm that it can be 3 or 5) and in that he isn’t wrong.
The thing is that logic in itself (been the way the Logos think and the way our humand mind ougth to think and fail sometimes) wasn’t affected by sin and, therefore, when we think logicaly we think the way God thinks, and reflect His image in us.
Having said this, the work of the Spirit isn’t only to make us acept the Scripture as true, but to fix our way of thinking in orden to make us ‘Biblicaly reasoners’, trough feed our minds with the Word of God. This is, due to logical thinking, we may deduce from true and logical consequence from Scripture statements, practice calling in the Scripture as meditation.
This is something that Clark and his followers acept, and I think, again, that this will be esentialy the way Clar will respond.
By the way, sorry for my english, I’m chilean.
God bless…
K,
There is also experiential knowledge. I can understand rationally what pain is, but like a leper have no experience of pain. God, due to the incarnation, not only has a rational knowledge of pain, but also has an experiential knowledge of pain.
We are to have not just a rational knowledge of the gospel, but also an experiential knowledge of the gospel, from assent => trust.
Yes, the noetic effect of sin does not mean all we think it wrong all the time. Our problem is that we don’t always know when our thinking is wrong and when it is right. In justification we do receive the “mind of Christ” imputed to us, and our minds are progressively sanctified. We are transformed, in part, by the renewing of our minds. But to think that I perfectly understand & apply logic at all times is fallacious. Nor can I understand all that God does and how it all fits together. Our logic is limited, finite. Or rather, the laws of logic we know, reflective of God’s mind, are limited due to our finite-ness. They are true, but not comprehensive. There are things we cannot grasp, and should be humble before our Creator & Redeemer.
Hi Cavman, God bless you.
I don’t know if you notice it, but your first paragraph contradicts God’s Omnisciense. If God lacks the until now assumed ‘experiencial knowledge’, then God isn’t Omniscient and, therefore, God isn’t God.
But we know that God is Omniscient. Now, think about it: If God is Omniscience, and if God is inmaterial, then all possible knowledge by definition is inmaterial. Because we were created at His image, then all knowledge we have by nessecity is inmaterial, incorporeal. Because of this, talk about experiential knowledge or that the senses gives us any knowledge is talk about something that isn’t true.
In that sense, I prefer Vincent Cheung Ocassionalism: God conveys information directly to our minds in the ocassion of sense perception but apart of senses. Any information we have doesn’t pass trough the senses.
I don’t share your vision of faith that way, because I don’t believe that faith is composed by a fiducia element. But I will not comment on this for now.
I believe that Clark will say to your words on the noetic effects of sin that logic itself was not affected by sin. Maybe the way we think isn’t always perfect, but we can know when our thinking is rigth or wrong trough logical analisis. Logic is the way the Logos think, and we can use it as a parameter of judgment to our minds. Is our minds, not logic, that are limited.
God bless…
I agree with Gordon to some extent. Here is a better way of putting it. The nautral man can percieve truth but clearly his damaged in his capacity to conclude from it. Buddhism in the four noble truths discerns that much suffering is caused by man’s desire but the conclusion of the matter is not correct.
The truth is clear, but mankind suffers from a sin problem. We suppress truth. We misinterpret truth. It is not merely our capacity to make conclusions from data, we also misunderstand much of the data. We are seeking autonomy, and refuse to submit our minds to God. Our problem is far more profound than Clark admitted.
Good summary. I have been reading about this issue lately. Clark has some good points and some bad points but I wonder if what Clark believed was bad enough to do to him what they did.
The gist of the argument against him would have made a great discussion over some frosty brews by theological students but probably was not serious enough to try to defrock him.
Just my opinion.
With respect the the propositional CONTENT of belief, there must be coincidence between God’s mind and man’s mind, or else we cannot know any truth at all. Since God knows ALL truth, then any true-belief we possess must be in the mind of God as well. If we do not grant this, we are left (perhaps) with plenty of ANALOGIES of truth, but the truth itself forever evades us. Thus, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” and “Jesus Christ died to save sinners” are not literal truths, but analogies. And what are the literal truths that they are analogous of? We cannot know, for these literal truths are sealed up in the mind of God, and our mind never grasps them…and this is a disasterous conclusion! Perhaps for God the statement, “Jesus Christ died to save sinners,” means “nobody will ever be saved.” If we do not know the literal truths that God thinks, upon what grounds can we say that this is not so? For all we know about God’s mind (apparantly nothing, if Van Til is to be believed), this is precisely how He thinks. We cannot know the literal truths that God thinks by reading the Bible, for all we have in there are analogies literal truths which we can never know. Strictly speaking, how can we even know they are analogies if we have no idea what they are analogous of??
As to the primacy of the intellect: it is granted that God created “a whole man” with all of his faculties. It does not follow from this, however, that no one “faculty” is more important than another. God created our toe nails as well, but they are not more important than our minds or souls. What faculty do you imagine it is which understands, trusts, and believes unto justification and life? With our intellects we understand things, and with our intellects we believe things. Belief affects our conduct (i.e. what a person truly believes will show in the way he lives his life). Since the whole of the Christian life ultimatly depends (psychologically speaking) upon what a person believes, and since belief is a function of the intellect, how is it that the intellects not primary?
I’m thinking you read a different Van Til.
Doesn’t Van Til hold that our knowledge and God’s knowledge do not coincide at any single point, at that all of our knowledge is analagous–analagous to the literal truths thought by God? I know that Bahnsen and others have tried to improve upon Van Til’s thought, and I think they have succeeded. But, if we are to take Van Til at his word(s) it really does seem to me that he denied any identity of content between God’s mind and our own. I mean, when you announce that God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge do not coincide “at any single point”, that’s a serious problem. If Van Til meant that there ARE certain points at which God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge coincide, then why deny it in toto? I find it hard to believe that an intelligent man, as Van Til is reputed to be, could be so unclear. We should all thank God that He has chosen to reveal to us His own truth, otherwise we would never be able to think His thoughts after Him. There must be coincidence.
give me a reference, because I don’t recall reading that from him.
“We dare not maintain that His [God’s] knowledge and our knowledge coincide at any single point” (A Complaint, p. 5, col. 3, italics his or theirs).
a bit more context would be nice- statements like that are best put in a context.
but van til can be wrong about things too. won’t destroy my faith.
It’s from the text of a complaint issued during the Clark-Van Til controversy. One of the major points of disagreement centered around the incomprehensibility of God. In what sense do we say that God is incomprehensible? According to Clark, it meant that God knows a lot more than we do, and we naturally cannot comprehend that which He has chosen not to disclose to us. However, we can comprehend God insofar as God has chosen to reveal Himself to us in His Word. The truths He communicated are the contents of His own mind, and He gave them to us to be understood and believed. According to Van Til, however, this view of Clark’s did not go far enough, and it compromised the Creator-creature distinction. God and man are so very different that there knowlege does not coincide at any single point. Man’s thoughts about God are analogous only. Clark thought that this logically led to skepticism and/or agosticism. I think he was right.
I suggest reading his Intro to Systematic Theology on The Incomprehensibility of God. He sees the primacy of the intellect as the source of skepticism (think Descarte). I will go back through that chapter at some point soon and blog on it. Check back if you have time.
I think Descarte’s problem was that he was a rationalist (i.e. one who believed that all knowledge was to be obtained by logic alone), not that he believed the intellect to be primary. Would you say that the emotions we experience are dependant upon what we believe about things? (you believe yourself to be in danger, and so experience fear; or you believe you have eternal life in Christ, and so experience peace and joy). Would you also say that in order to will something, we must first know something (in order for us to be willing to obey God’s commands, we must first know what they are)? If you would grant both of these things, I do not see how you could not grant the primacy of the intellect… unless I am misunderstanding what is meant by that term?
I would not grant those things. We can experience emotions out of touch with what we think. We see people choosing based on emotion rather than reason all the time. I think the influence goes both ways, not primarily one way.
I see all three working together rather than trying to chop up the human personality. We are a fairly mysterious lot and I don’t pretend to understand all the connections between thinking, feeling and choosing.
If we are to distinguish between the intellect, the will, and the emotions, how are we not to “chop up” the human personality (conceptually speaking)? Also, to say that one of these mental functions is primary is not to say that all such functions do not work together. I agree that they work together, but not in a haphazard way. It is true that sometimes–no, often–people act on an emotional basis. That is a chief cause of people getting themselves into trouble. If people THOUGHT more and emoted less, much trouble could be avoided (provided that their thought is grounded in truth). ..And I’m not sure that emotions are ever out of touch with what we think. Judging from my own experience, whenever I am experiencing a given emotion, I can find some thought-process which proceeded and gave rise to it. Maybe other people have random emotional upheavels for no reason at all–or at least for no reason that has anything to do with thinking/beliving. If they do, I deny that that’s the way things are supposed to be (how things would be in a still perfect world).
I’m not really interested in going round and round on this.
The primacy of the intellect is something that goes beyond Scripture. It is not explicit in Scripture, not the result of good and necessary consequence.
This discussion really isn’t helping us to love God and one another with all we are. It seems to be more arguing about words.
Jesus, praying to the Father in John 17. 17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
Jesus said, John 8.31-32 “If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed;
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Psalm 119.160 “Thy word is true from the beginning: and everyone of thy righteous judgments endures forever.”
If I read the Word of God, and am able to understand it by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the ”Spirit of Truth”, “who, when He comes, He will guide you into all truth:” Jn 16.13
The reliance on the ministry of the Holy Ghost for the attainment and understanding of the truth can not be over stated. We are motivated by His grace to hunger and seek after God through the Word. Also, we are given the “mind of Christ”. 1 Cor 2.16
God foreknew the condition of fallen man before we fell and has given us His truth to be understood, even so.
[…] of God and the overall difficulty of language (a creation, after all) to convey divine truth. The debate ‘twixt Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark is not an isolated one; that discussion (in one way or another) had been going on for centuries. […]
[…] an aside, but it achingly reminds me all too much of an old unresolved Clark – Van Til Controversy (see also here, and here, and here), which I still find is at the heart of the ‘modern’ […]
[…] are Debating Calvinism {five points, two views} with Dave Hunt and James White, and that whole Clark – Van Til Controversy, both of which topics remain with us to this day, even age-in and age-out, dating back to Augustine […]
I see. You don’t believe that Norman Shepherd confused justification with sanctification or that Shepherd should have been removed from ministry at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia?
Really, you should do a bit more reading before you dismiss the controversy so lightly. First of all, Van Til affirmed that 2 + 2 = 4. What Van Til did not affirm is that 2 + 2 = 4 in God’s mind in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 in our minds. In other words, for Van Til truth is not logical content but mere analogy. Van Til confuses the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility with the doctrine of divine revelation. If Van Til’s thesis is taken at face value, then I see no reason to doubt that Van Til’s theology of paradox is anything other than an Evangelical version of neo-orthodoxy. Either God’s word is propositional truths that are perfectly reasonable and logical OR God’s word is merely an analogy and is therefore not God’s word at all. It’s very similar to the neo-orthodox idea that radically separates revelation from what we can know from below. In other words, God’s Word is unknowable except through an existential encounter in the neo-orthodox view. Van Til’s view is similar. God’s Word cannot be directly revealed in propositional truths like 2 + 2 = 4. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mere analogy to the divine truth behind 2 + 2 = 4 and is not really what God knows at all but merely an analogy of it. This emphasis on the incomprehensibility of God as negating divine revelation except as a mere analogy rather than the literal and direct revelation of God in propositional form sets up Christianity for the very liberalism that Van Til “claimed” to be refuting.
In fact, we can historically connect the theology of Van Til to the theonomists, i.e. Bahnsen and Rushdoony, to Norman Shepherd and the entire Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue/New Perspectives on Paul school of thought.
Richard Mouw, for all practical purposes, is a theological liberal. He can at best be described as a “neo-evangelical” or a broad evangelical. He is most certainly not representative of a truly reformed theology. Neo-Calvinism and its theology of Kuyper/Bavinck and the three points of common grace/the free offer are nothing more than Arminianism disguised as reformed theology.
Combine neo-calvinism with Van Til’s theology of paradox and you the perfect formula for legalism, liberalism and apostasy.
You can read the full text of the complaint by Van Til against Clark and the answer given by Clark here: The Clark/Van Til Controversy: The Text of a Complaint
Charlie
I’m not very familiar with Shepherd’s theology. I’ve only read one book of his, which clearly articulates justification by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone. This is the historical understanding.
Van Til’s understanding of Scripture was VERY different than Barth’s. While some people take his views to places I wouldn’t (they are influenced by others as well, including Calvin so I guess we should demonize him too) doesn’t mean Van Til is to blame for all their ills. That is merely guilty by association unless you prove causation. Seeing as how many orthodox (to my mind) teachers found Van Til influential in their thinking, such causation is not present.
I sense you’re just trying to keep as few people on the orthodoxy bus as you possibly can.
http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/thin-skinned/#comments
Comments?
LJ
I don’t want a part of your argument with the Greensbaggins boys.
I address some of these matters in a more recent post.
Not my argument. I only referenced it. But having thought it through and considering it carefully it appears that a great deal of mythology accompanies the legend of Van Til.
Well, it is a well known fact that Norman Shepherd was NOT confessional. In fact, he was dismissed from Westminster Seminary because he confused faith with works. Shepherd found a home with more liberal Christian Reformed Church because that denomination does not discipline ministers who differ with the Three Forms of Unity.
Norman Shepherd is one of the forerunners of the Federal Vision controversy.
This has nothing to do with any dispute at Green Baggins’ place. It has to do with blindly following any theology whether it be Gordon H. Clark or Cornelius Van Til.
The standards are the Reformed Confessions, not your favorite theologian. At best theologians get things only 75% correct.
Charlie
Banner of Truth Trust: Justification by Faith in the Theology of Norman Shepherd
LJ- lots of mythology can emerge about anyone. That’s why you read them, not merely what some guy says about them.
Charlie- I’d agree that we don’t blindly follow any theologian. We check each by Scripture. But the God’s Hammer post linked to was about one guy’s fight with another blog on the particular subject of Van Til-Clark. Or am I just missing something?
As one of my other posts on the subjects notes, John Frame’s analysis is that both of them were wrong on points. They failed to understand each other, feeding the conflict. Not the best day for either of them.
There is a good lesson there. Sometimes theological discussion can bring clarity. But often our sinfulness impedes that process so that there is more heat than light, and this neither edifies one another, nor please Christ. Note what I said- the problem is us and how we go about these disputes (and I’ve been guilty of such sins far too often). Our lack of love (as we seek to speak truth) lamentable.
John Frame???
Have you not heard that even R. Scott Clark at the Heidelblog is critical of John Frame and Vern Poythress and their theory of “tri-perspectivalism”?
John Frame is one of those who has supported Norman Shepherd and defended him.
It is no accident that Shepherd was dismissed from Westminster PA.
The Federal Vision error is perpetuated by folks like John Frame.
Charlie
For the record, Sean Gerety at the God’s Hammer blog is himself doctrinally off. He advocates a Nestorian view of the incarnation of Christ based on Gordon H. Clark’s final book, The Incarnation. From what I understand the late John Robbins also held to that view. It’s clearly against the Westminster Confession and the Larger Catechism.
Basically, Gordon H. Clark said that Jesus Christ was one God-man but two persons. If that’s not Nestorianism, I don’t know what is.
Charlie
Charlie,
The debate over Shepherd at WTS was not clear cut. Many professors supported him. Keep in mind this was many years ago.
But the guilt by association thing is a lousy game to play. Because then all those associated with Frame, RTS Orlando, Erskine etc. all implicitly support the Federal Vision (which is precisely where the new denomination started by the Trinity Foundation takes it).
In my limited reading of Shepherd, I’ve seen nothing beyond “We are justified by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.” In my far more extensive reading of Frame I have found nothing that leans toward the Federal Vision movement.
If the advocation of obedience as an aspect of sanctification is supportive of the FV, then the WCF supports the FV.
We’re getting to the point that everyone is heterodox.
Cavman, you obviously did not read Dr. Van Drunen’s article.
The point is not “guilt by association” but guilt by what Norman Shepherd himself said out of his own mouth. It is a well known fact that the Federal Visionists support Norman Shepherd’s view.
If, as you say, it is merely a question of saying that sanctification necessarily follows justification, then you would be correct and there is nothing wrong with Shepherd’s view. The fact is, however, that Shepherd went way beyond that. He stated that faith and works go together in one’s justification. He deliberately made his words ambiguous so that he could “appear” to be orthodox. But you can twist around all you like. Fact is Norman Shepherd was condemned as a false teacher and removed from his office at Westminster Seminary PA. If that is not clear cut, I don’t know what is.
As for Frame, he himself is borderline on the same issues, which is why he supported Shepherd’s view. It is also telling that Van Til and John Armstrong supported Shepherd’s view.
It’s not guilt by association. It is evident that these men wish to mix faith with works.
Charlie
The Westminster Standards outright contradict FV and Norman Shepherd. Your slippery slope theory is somewhat accurate but from the other perspective. It is Norman Shepherd and the FV folks who are out to revise the teaching of the WCF to fit their neo-nomian theology.
The guilt by association was regarding all those who supported Shepherd in the controversy. While he was removed from his post at WTS, there was no church discipline. And his removal from WTS was by no means a unanimous, clear cut matter.
Yes, I did not read the article. I’ve got many other responsibilities to attend to. Blogging is an extra-curricular activity. I’ve read some of the documents about the controversy (I think in a Robbins book), and Shepherd was not clear on some matters.
Yes, the FV is not in line with the WCF. Shepherd is no longer Presbyterian, so I don’t think he’s trying to revise the WCF.
But what I find is that many who want to protect the WCF on Justification often end up denying the WCF on Good Works. We must uphold both or we lapse into either works righteousness or antinomianism.
I fear there are too many witch hunts these days as Reformed people try to skewer one another.
Good works? Do you mean good works as in “evidence” of true faith? Or do you mean that faith plus good works justifies us?
CHAP. XVI. – Of Good Works.
1. Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.
2. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.
3. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.
4. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.
5. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.
6. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreproveable in God’s sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.
7. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner,according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.
Sorry, but Clark is not a rationalist. If by rationalist you mean someone who adheres to Rationalism. Clark goes through great pains to dispute Rationalism. (Christian View of Men and Things and his “Triple R” books for example) This counts him out as a rationalist, unless you have another definition of that. He does hold a high view of logic where as Van Til denied it. The difference is that Clark rested logic in the foundation of Scripture. So, when you say “In his pride Clark thought we could perfectly understand God’s revelation and resolve any of the matters God reveals.” I would like you to source this. It is only fair when you insult someone (prideful) that you justify such a claim. I have heard lectures where Clark says the exact opposite. (Cannot remember which ones) He might be prideful but it is only good form to demonstrate why you think he is. Due to Van Til’s actions against Clark at Westminster, Clark showed some class (humility) by stepping aside. Also, Robbins should not be used as demonstrating anything about Clark. Robbins was much more dogmatic then Clark and more insulting. However, I will say Clark was not completely gracious towards Van Til’s opposition to him, and I think he had a hard time forgiving Van Til, which is of course a sin.
Here is a quote as a rebuttal to the charge against Clark (in which Van Til was a part) in which people who sided with Clark (which Clark agreed to) wrote.
On the other hand Dr. Clark contends that the doctrine of the incomprehensibilty of God as set forth in Scripture and in the Confession of Faith includes the following points: 1. The essence of God’s being is incomprehensible to man except as God reveals truths concerning his own nature; 2. The manner of God’s knowing an eternal intuition, is impossible for man; 3. Man can never know exhaustively and completely God’s knowledge of any truth in all its relationships and implications; because every truth has an infinite number of relationships and implications and since each of these implications in turn has other infinite implications, these must ever, even in heaven, remain inexhaustible for man; 4. But, Dr. Clark maintains, the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God does not mean that a proposition, e. g., two times two are four, has one meaning for man and a qualitatively different meaning for God, or that some truth is conceptual and other truth is non-conceptual in nature.
Even though the people charged Clark with something like “we could perfectly understand God’s revelation and resolve any of the matters God reveals”, Clark goes through great pains to point out that this is not what he believes. And the 4 books of Clark`s that I have read has not shown me any type of haughty pride that he can know everything.
Right, Justin. Clark believed the Bible IS the Word of God, not simply an analogy of it. So as we properly understand the words of Scripture in their grammatical forms and their propositional truths, we are thinking univocally the same thoughts as God. Van Til denied this and called the Word of God an “analogy” of God’s thoughts, which is not that far removed from Neo-Orthodoxy.
I should point out that recent presentations on the ordo salutis by Richard Gaffin and Lane Tipton is just a rehash of Norman Shepherd’s mixing of faith and works. Tipton claims that the primary sine qua non doctrine of the Reformed faith is the “mystical union” of the believer with Christ. Justification by faith alone becomes adiaphora and nonessential to salvation. Justification is relegated to preceding sanctification by an arm twisting concession. But for Tipton justification and sanctification together save. That’s basically the same view taught by Osiander, whom Calvin refuted openly in the Institutes.
Dissimulation abounds when the out of paradox and “apparent contradiction” can trump the clear teaching of the doctrinal standards in the WCF and the LC and SC.
If Scripture is not univocally God’s very words in written form, then we may as well all become atheists because revelation is rendered irrational and meaningless for all practical purposes.
Charlie
The late Ron Nash, no friend of Van Til, but advocate of Clark would repeatedly call Clark (and himself) a Christian Rationalist. If you want to argue he can’t be a rationalist because he argued against atheistic rationalism, then clearly Van Til can’t be a Barthian since he argued against Barthianism.
Both men were sinners, and sinned in the process. Part of that was misunderstanding one another’s formulations. And that still continues in this discussion.
cavman, the distinction between Scripturalism and the secular philosophy of rationalism or exalting reason above revelation is one that continually escapes Van Tilians. The fact that Van Til rejects Barthianism as a total system does not remove the fact that Van Til’s theology is irrational and paradoxical. The appeal to “apparent paradox” is a way of denying that God’s Word is univocally THE words of God in propositional, rational, and logical form. It is Van Til’s theology that leads to theonomy and theonomy in turn leads to the Federal Vision error.
If you would read Clark’s book, Christian Philosophy, you would see that there is no way that Clark can be accused of “rationalism”. Clark spends over half of the book if not 3/4s of the book refuting the idea that reason can lead to any sort of true knowledge or legitimate epistemology. Clark also rejects Christian Rationalism. He identified Anselm, Augustine, and Aquinas as all in the category of Christian rationalism, which assumes that natural theology can point to special revelation. Clark demolishes that view and shows that Anselm’s ontological argument is a complete failure. Clark’s assumption is that without special revelation from God we should all become atheists.
Empiricism, Kant, Kierkegaard and Neo-Orthodoxy are all ultimately irrational. Rationalism, according to Clark, leads to the dead end of irrationalism. How Clark could be called a “rationalist” is beyond me.
As you yourself just admitted, Ron Nash is a secondary source and identifies himself as a Christian Rationalist. Clark would never agree to that label since he believed that unaided reason leads to irrationalism and cannot be a basis for a consistent worldview.
Charlie
You might also want to read the original documents where Clark was accused of Rationalism and his answer to those charges:
The Complaint
The Answer
Can we move beyond the “irrationalism” thing? Seriously, I’ve seen irrational and one cannot in good conscience claim that a cogent argument can be the result of irrationalism.
cavman, if God reveals Himself in “apparent contradictions” then it follows that God must not be rational. On the other hand, if the alleged “contradictions” are not contradictions at all but have logical solutions, then it follows that God does not speak through apparent paradoxes or apparent contradictions.
Scripture claims to be true. As Clark said, either David was the king of Israel or he was not the king of Israel. The law of contradiction is plainly true of God’s revelation in the words of Scripture. Either Jesus is God and man or He is not. There are no contradictions in the propositional truth claims in the words of Scripture. A charley horse between the ears can be cured with rational massage.
The distinction between an apparent paradox and an actual paradox would be a meaningless distinction if there is no solution to be had.
Is the distinction between Arminianism and Calvinism a real one or only an “apparent” distinction? Maybe the Protestant Reformation was simply a huge misunderstanding of the “apparent” contradiction between imputed righteousness and infused sanctification?
Charlie
Apparent contradiction is not a contradiction, nor a violation of the law of non-contradiction. To claim they are in unreasonable.
Please … this wearies me because it goes no where.
Well, it stands to reason that if you have solved an “apparent” contradiction, it is no longer a contradiction of any sort whatsoever. So what is the difference between an “apparent contradiction” and an outright contradiction?
The “apparent contradiction” has a solution. Once it is solved it is no longer in that category. There are no contradictions in God’s mind since God cannot contradict Himself. It follows then that Scripture, being God’s inspired Word in verbal form, does not contain contradictions. If so, it would imply that God is irrational. Any “apparent” contradictions in the Bible have rational solutions.
The Trinity is not a contradiction since God’s nature/being/Godhead is one with three distinct persons within that one divine nature.
Properly defining a person’s position is extremely important. When you use a term like “rationalist” you are saying something very specific to a philosopher, which Clark was. It’s a technical term. As such, if the term does not fit, then using the term will not lead to understanding. As Charlie mentions, read ‘Christian Philosophy’ (I think you can get it at Trinity Foundation) if you want to know Clark’s position on this. He writes clear and puts a very high premium on terms so there is minimal ambiguity. Easily the best Christian philosopher of last century, particularly when it comes to epistemology.
I’ve already said what I have to say, it much of it is borne out in this recent discussion.
https://cavman.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/still-considering-the-clark-van-til-controversy/
and
https://cavman.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/considering-the-incomprehensibility-of-god/
What you have to say is essentially a straw man since apparently you’re getting your information about Clark from second hand sources.
[…] The Clark-Van Til Controversy […]
Original source quotes, from GHC:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=93
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=68
The above is from a writing by GHC directly discussing the topic of how theologians err. There is much more on this topic in this writing.
The archives are online and can be easily searched: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/archive.php
Pardon the length of this quote; but I think it necessary to preserve the immediate context: