I have not read Cornelius Van Til's works probably, in large part, because I did not attend Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. I have also steered clear of the Clark-Van Til controversy because it really does look like they were talking past one another.
A biography of Van Til has just been released by Dr. John Muether (pronounced "Meether). It is entitled, "Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman." This book looks like a good introduction to the man and his thinking.
Here is one review by Dr. Gary Johnston, pastor of Church of the Redeemer in Mesa Arizona,
Van Til: A Review With Remembrance « Green Baggins
Dr. R. Scott Clark has also put up two posts on his blog:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/muether-on-van-til-a-review-pt-1/
and
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/muether-on-van-til-a-review-pt-2/
Reading the reviews makes me want to go out and buy this book.
Enjoy!
4 comments:
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the link. I hope you'll read the book. It's a gem.
As to whether Clark and CVT were talking past one another I must disagree sharply. I don't think that, after you've read both Clark and CVT you will come to that conclusion and you certainly can't come to that conclusion apart from reading the sources.
Second, it would be convenient if they were just talking past one another, but there some fundamental issues at stake in this discussion. If I may be so crass, I would like to point you also to an essay I wrote on this topic that I think might help. It's in this volume ed. by Dave Van Drunen. The title of the essay is, "Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel, and Westminster Theology."
Clark (and others) rejected a fundamental Reformed distinction. This distinction had led to some unhappy consequences, namely, a denial of the free offer of the gospel. So, this isn't just some theoretical question.
Dr. Clark,
Thanks for the note. I will get the book and investigate it for myself. I will also look at the other essay you've recommended.
My impressions about them talking past one another are the result of looking on from a distance. I wasn't aware of Clark's denial of the free offer of the Gospel.
At Covenant Theological Seminary we just didn't get into this stuff.
Thanks again for your advice.
Hi Dave,
I understand. It might seem like an intra-mural WTS debate, and to some degree it is, but is also over a fundamental point of Reformed theology: the Creator/creature distinction. That's pretty basic to Reformed theology where ever one is.
My interest in this issue is not in resurrecting old arguments but in using that one to illustrate a broader point, i.e., the loss of basic Reformed categories in the modern period.
Had Clark and his followers accepted the Creator/creature distinction as applied to the way God knows things and the way we know things, the debate would have been avoided but Clark rejected that distinction. He rejected the most basic element of the Reformed approach to Reformed theology. Indeed, as far as I know, Clark is in a short list of people in whole western tradition who have had the nerve to identify the Logos with "logic."
For his part, CVT is among few in the western tradition who've had the nerve to say that God is "one person." So, he is not beyond criticism.
So the point is that we can use the historic Reformed tradition and the Reformed confessions as a way to critique all modern Reformed theology.
Dr. Clark,
Thanks for following up. I'm a bit embarrassed -- my ignorance is showing.
The Creator/creature distinction about how God knows things and we know things is about all I know of this debate, and that was gained secondhand. I didn't realize the serious errors both men made.
Thanks again for your help.
Post a Comment