Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
Van Til and Clark ended up with appreciation for each other at the end of their lives.
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.