Gordon H. Clark books ?

[Mayflower]

Who likes the writtings of Gordon H. Clark ?
Thoughts ?
Any recommends from him ?
Is he difficult to read ?

 

[greenbaggins]

I have most of Clark's writings. I find him always entertaining to read, as he has a great sense of humor. He is clear and helpful on many many things. I don't always agree with him (his take on textual criticism, for instance). I don't find him difficult to read at all.

 

[Davidius]

He's very easy to read, quite witty, and although some of his writings are controversial, he's definitely worth a look. Even if one rejects his own constructs, his critiques of non-Christian philosophy are very helpful.

 

[Mayflower]

Thanks for the comments guys!

What about the differences between Clark and Van Til ?
What was that controversy about ? Is there a big differences between them or is it only concerning some minor differences ?

 

[RamistThomist]

Clark is easy to read. He does have a few novelties like the recent thread on saving faith. His Scripturalism is self-refuting, I think, but I do have respect for the man. He was used by God at a crucial time.

Van Til and Clark ended up with appreciation for each other at the end of their lives. It is sad that modern Clarkian/Van Tillians have to go heretic-hunting at each other.

 

[Theogenes]

I've read all of Clark's works and some many times. I find him engaging, clear, witty and an absolute delight. You can also listen to him at the Trinity Foundation's web site. He sounds like he reads, if you catch my drift.

 

[greenbaggins]

Their main difference had to do with epistemology. How do we know things? Clark argued that humans can know a fact in the same way in which God knows that fact, since God knows how we know it. In other words, in terms of facts that humans know, there is univocity in God's knowing and our knowing. Van Til argued that this violated the Creator/creature distinction. Van Til argued that our knowledge is analogous only to God's knowledge, since God knows every fact as Creator, whereas we know such facts only as creatures. Clark argued that this destroyed the foundation of knowledge, since we cannot know anything "truly." Van Til would respond that the fact that it is analogous preserves true knowledge. And around and around it goes...

 

[Jim Johnston]

I have many of his works.

Don't like his views on the trinity (basically social trinitarianism).

Don't like his views on the incarnation (basically neo-nestorianism).

Don't like his view on saving faith, or his conflating faith with mere positive cognitive attitude toward a proposition.

Think his system, as defended by his followers, is either self-refuting or, if you avoid the self-refutation, it merrits zero positive epistemic status in its favor.

Think his critiques of non-believing philosophies/ers are, in the main, pretty poor in that he assumes internalist and infallibilist constraints, and also doesn't think we can know anything via our senses and so repeatedly thinks it is enough to "defeat" his opponent by saying, "But this view rests on empiricism, so its false" (note, Clarkians are odd in that they think that resorting to empiriCAL evidence is the same as empiriCISM).

I don't like his view on moral responsibility and sovereignty.

He's not half as hard on his own arguments as he is on others.

Many of his arguments are stuck in a time warp and the essentials of his philosophy are too weak to apply to new apologetic challenegs the church meets.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Ouch!

 

[CDM]

I have many of his works.

Don't like his views on the trinity (basically social trinitarianism).

Don't like his views on the incarnation (basically neo-nestorianism).

Don't like his view on saving faith, or his conflating faith with mere positive cognitive attitude toward a proposition.

Think his system, as defended by his followers, is either self-refuting or, if you avoid the self-refutation, it merrits zero positive epistemic status in its favor.

This his critiques of non-believing philosophies/ers are, in the main, pretty poor in that he assumes internalist and infallibilist constraints, and also doesn't think we can know anything via our senses and so repeatedly thinks it is enough to "defeat" his opponent by saying, "But this view rests on empiricism, so its false" (note, Clarkians are odd in that they think that resorting to empiriCAL evidence is the same as empiriCISM).

I don't like his view on moral responsibility and sovereignty.

He's not half as hard on his own arguments as he is on others.

Many of his arguments are stuck in a time warp and the essentials of his philosophy are too weak to apply to new apologetic challenegs the church meets.

Well, then, Paul, since you aren't in need of them mail me Clark's books so I don't have to shell out a small fortune to the Trinity Foundation.

Favor, give a quick snippit on Van Til like you just did with Clark. It will go along way with the OP.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have many of his works.

Don't like his views on the trinity (basically social trinitarianism).

Don't like his views on the incarnation (basically neo-nestorianism).

Don't like his view on saving faith, or his conflating faith with mere positive cognitive attitude toward a proposition.

Think his system, as defended by his followers, is either self-refuting or, if you avoid the self-refutation, it merrits zero positive epistemic status in its favor.

This his critiques of non-believing philosophies/ers are, in the main, pretty poor in that he assumes internalist and infallibilist constraints, and also doesn't think we can know anything via our senses and so repeatedly thinks it is enough to "defeat" his opponent by saying, "But this view rests on empiricism, so its false" (note, Clarkians are odd in that they think that resorting to empiriCAL evidence is the same as empiriCISM).

I don't like his view on moral responsibility and sovereignty.

He's not half as hard on his own arguments as he is on others.

Many of his arguments are stuck in a time warp and the essentials of his philosophy are too weak to apply to new apologetic challenegs the church meets.

Well, then, Paul, since you aren't in need of them mail me Clark's books so I don't have to shell out a small fortune to the Trinity Foundation.

Favor, give a quick snippit on Van Til like you just did with Clark. It will go along way with the OP.

There is no quick synopsis of Van Til, but I will try:

Clark said we begin our thinking solely with Scripture. CVT with the revelation of the Triune God. But that is painting too broadly on both sides.

 

[DMcFadden]

I have many of his works.

Don't like his views on the trinity (basically social trinitarianism).

Don't like his views on the incarnation (basically neo-nestorianism).

Don't like his view on saving faith, or his conflating faith with mere positive cognitive attitude toward a proposition.

Think his system, as defended by his followers, is either self-refuting or, if you avoid the self-refutation, it merrits zero positive epistemic status in its favor.

This his critiques of non-believing philosophies/ers are, in the main, pretty poor in that he assumes internalist and infallibilist constraints, and also doesn't think we can know anything via our senses and so repeatedly thinks it is enough to "defeat" his opponent by saying, "But this view rests on empiricism, so its false" (note, Clarkians are odd in that they think that resorting to empiriCAL evidence is the same as empiriCISM).

I don't like his view on moral responsibility and sovereignty.

He's not half as hard on his own arguments as he is on others.

Many of his arguments are stuck in a time warp and the essentials of his philosophy are too weak to apply to new apologetic challenegs the church meets.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

 

[Davidius]

Van Til and Clark ended up with appreciation for each other at the end of their lives.

Do you have a source for this?

*****

Also, Mayflower, Clark received his PhD in philosophy from one of the best universities in our country, and was even on the faculty there until he was thrown out for helping the conservatives at Princeton. He knew ungodly philosophy well, having specialized in Ancient Philosophy (he wrote his dissertation on Aristotle), and certainly was able to critique it better than any other Christian intellectual of the 20th century of whom I know. Many today like to write about "relativism." It doesn't take much time in philosophy class to do that. Clark took on specific schools of philosophy (from the Pre-Socratics to the 20th century behavioralists) and systematically deconstructed them.

 

[RamistThomist]

Van Til and Clark ended up with appreciation for each other at the end of their lives.

Do you have a source for this?

*****

Also, Mayflower, Clark received his PhD in philosophy from one of the best universities in our country, and was even on the faculty there until he was thrown out for helping the conservatives at Princeton. He knew ungodly philosophy well, having specialized in Ancient Philosophy (he wrote his dissertation on Aristotle), and certainly was able to critique it better than any other Christian intellectual of the 20th century of whom I know. Many today like to write about "relativism." It doesn't take much time in philosophy class to do that. Clark took on specific schools of philosophy (from the Pre-Socratics to the 20th century behavioralists) and systematically deconstructed them.

I read that years ago when I did study on Van Til. I came across literally hundreds of correspondence between all types of Van Tillians, and a few from CVT himself---and most of this in a short time. So no, I can't remember. But CVT and Clark didn't have this enmity that characterizes much of both's followers.