Thus Saith R. Scott Clark: Van Til Was Wrong on God Being One Person

R. Scott saith:

I’ve given up trying to be reasonable with Sean. I’ve begged and pleaded with him to speak in reasoned tones here and he refuses so he’s gone. I don’t have time to baby sit every comment.

I would be happy to have a reasoned, thoughtful discussion about these issues with reasoned, thoughtful people but he seems unwilling.

Speaking theologically, on the key issue between CVT and G. C. see my essay on the Free Offer. At stake is the distinction between the Creator and the creature, which is fundamental to Reformed theology. Do they have much in common on other points? Yes, but the Gordon Clarkian zealots seem unwilling to recognize that and thus they make genuine conversation all but impossible. In this respect they manifest the QIRC. They’re not interested in getting things right but in being right. Their identity rests in being Clarkians. In contrast, I’ve not hesitated to offer criticisms, even strongly worded criticisms of Van Til — so much so that some Van Tillians have accused me of departing from the true Van Tillian faith. I think CVT’s language about God being “one person” was a monumental mistake. It is utterly incompatible with the catholic faith confessed in the catholic creeds and Reformed confessions. CVT made other pedagogical mistakes. I’ve criticized his historical accounts as unreliable in important ways. See RRC where I criticized him in print for this very thing.

I’ve yet to see one of the G. Clarkian zealots criticize G. Clark for anything. Zip. Zero. Nada.  So, Slabbert, in this case I do not believe that I’m being unreasonable.

People should read the Muether bio. It’s very well done. It’s not hagiography, unlike some accounts, and it’s a excellent step forward toward genuine dialog with people who want to do more than to score partisan debating points.

…From die Heidelblog…

This was quoted in the comments at God's Hammer by Hugh McCann.  Unfortunately Clark deleted the Heidelblog for reasons we can only speculate about.  Too bad.  To see the original comment and article click here:  Scaring Sacred Cows

If R. Scott Clark were honest he would have to admit that he has not read Gordon H. Clark carefully.  Nowhere does GHC deny the creature/Creator distinction.  CVT's view of analogy in fact undermines the inspiration, authority and inerrancy of Scripture and the logical propositions divinely revealed in Scripture.  As I further study and read GHC I have concluded that Clark deserved none of the opprobrium directed at him by the neo-legalists who have descended from Cornelius Van Til's legacy.  The best the neo-legalists can do is accuse the Clarkians of antinomianism, a charge that does not stick.  On the other hand, the OPC and PCA have sold out to the Auburn Avenue heresy by and large.  The advocates of the Federal Vision have been found not guilty of heresy charges and so goes the whole rotten denomination.

As for not questioning Gordon H. Clark, that cannot be said about me since I am still thinking through GHC's view of the incarnation.  There are indeed some inconsistencies in GHC.  His view that God can change the moral law at will seems to be at odds with God's unchangeable nature.  (See Christian Philosophy, pages 236-237).  For the moral law to change would imply that God's nature or being is subject to change.  At any rate, no theologian is infallible, including Gordon H. Clark.

Charlie

--

Reasonable Christian Blog Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. 1662 Book of Common Prayer