Originally Posted by Cotton Mather
I am a semi-clarkian for a few reasons:
1. van Til isn't as funny, or as easy to read
2. Clark was better at interacting with the text of Scripture as well as making intelligible assertions (see #1 for more on ease of reading)
3. van Til's incomprehensibility leads to things such as Norm Shepherds equivocation, and the FV equivocation (van Til defended Shepherd on the floor of the Philly presbytery during his never-concluded (begun?) trial).
To me, Clark's points about what we can and cannot know are derived from sound exegesis. van Til's reasons about what we can and cannon know are in some kind of Jedi Knight Yoda language that you're supposed to nod and so "whooooaaaa dude! that was cool!"
Clark would generally demonstrate that non-christian world views cannot account for anything: epistemology, botany, ethics, etc. In other words, all areas of knowledge are impossible without the image of God in man. Clark would argue that the image of God is basically rational, with a volitional capacity subject to the reason. He was a strong dichotomist and a traducianist, if I'm not mistaken.
If you ever read any of his books, I would recommend:
Any of his commentaries, A Christian View of Man, and Historiography Secular and Religious.
His writings are dated by the philosophers that he challenged, but his ideas are timeless. His writing style is engaging, and full of dry whit (my favorite kind). As I mentioned, his assertions are much more tightly derived from Scripture, as witness his numerous biblical commentaries. I am unaware of the exegetical works of van Til if there are any.
Adam B., Old Dominion, RPCNA
Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile
1 member(s) found this post helpful.