kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
Having been introduced to Presuppositional Apologetics by Dr. Gordon Clark (thanks to Dr. Bob Morey) I have noticed (since being a member of the Puritan Board) quite a bias toward anything/anyone Clarkian. I know that Robbins could sometimes come on like sandpaper but Robbins aside... I want to know... How many of you (Van Tillian or Clarkian) have actually read anything from the "other side."
I have spent some time recently listening to old MP3's of Van Til and to be honest, I see where they (Clark and Van Til) were both really in battle with the liberals of their day. Before he died, Dr. Ronald Nash (a Clark leaning, yet not dogmatic theologian/philosopher) said that he could imagine both of them in heaven right now hugging and apologizing and making amends. Then he says, "But then Clark would smile and say, "But I was right!"
Rev. Bruce wrote:
I have to agree with Davidus in this respect:
It it pointless to just toss out an "I think Clark was unconfessional" blast, which ends up just sounding like a person bias instead of a reasoned and thoughtful reply to a perceived error.
I'm just left wondering, Ken, if you have read and studied Clark out on the topic, and come to this conclusion, or if that comment is simply fueled by reading some partisan on the VT side, whose opinion you value and respect?
I'm more more VT (I think), but I don't think that labeling helps anyone come to an informed opinion. So few of us can carry on discussion of the subject at that level anyway. Give people something to read, not a mere put-down.
I have spent some time recently listening to old MP3's of Van Til and to be honest, I see where they (Clark and Van Til) were both really in battle with the liberals of their day. Before he died, Dr. Ronald Nash (a Clark leaning, yet not dogmatic theologian/philosopher) said that he could imagine both of them in heaven right now hugging and apologizing and making amends. Then he says, "But then Clark would smile and say, "But I was right!"
Rev. Bruce wrote:
I have to agree with Davidus in this respect:
It it pointless to just toss out an "I think Clark was unconfessional" blast, which ends up just sounding like a person bias instead of a reasoned and thoughtful reply to a perceived error.
I'm just left wondering, Ken, if you have read and studied Clark out on the topic, and come to this conclusion, or if that comment is simply fueled by reading some partisan on the VT side, whose opinion you value and respect?
I'm more more VT (I think), but I don't think that labeling helps anyone come to an informed opinion. So few of us can carry on discussion of the subject at that level anyway. Give people something to read, not a mere put-down.
