First off I want to say that I do not want this to become a heated debate thread. I'm fairly new to the study of presuppositional apologetics and thus far have read Bahnsen's "Always Ready" as well as have listened to a few of his lectures and have read a few posts here regarding presuppositionalism.

With that said, I have two questions concerning both Van Til's and Clark's approach to presuppositional apologetics:

1) How/where do they both agree with one another?
2) How/where do they differ?

Sorry if this has already been asked before.

__________________
~Greg Carpenter~
Deerfield Beach, FL

"It is a throne of grace that God in Christ is represented to us upon; but yet it is a throne still whereon majesty and glory do reside, and God is always to be considered by us as on a throne." –John Owen

CVT believes our knowledge is qualitatively different from God.
Clark believes our knowledge is quantitatively different from God.

The overly simple question, "Do we know an apple in the same way that God does?"

CVT said no.
Clark said yes.

That's the simple explanation of them.