|Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Robert K. Rudolf|
While it is certainly true that Dr. Gordon H. Clark was not infallible, it is nevertheless true that Dr. Clark never wavered on his objections to neo-orthodox theology and his objections to Dr. Cornelius Van Til's compromise position, which attempted to mediate between the old line Princeton Theology, and the neo-orthodox position, which advocated irrationalism and contradiction as the modus operandi for solving the modernist controversy. This is how Mike Horton could embrace a known advocate for Open Theism, namely the heresiarch Roger Olson, as a "brother" in Christ. (See: For/Against Calvinism). Basically, irrationalism and paradox can be used as an excuse to justify many departures from the five solas of the Reformation and the confessional nature of traditional and classical Protestant and Calvinist theology.
Dr. Clark was a known supporter of Dr. J. Gresham Machen and helped Dr. Machen form the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Unfortunately, after Dr. Machen's death the neo-liberals, who sneaked into the new seminary at Philadelphia, sought to prevent Dr. Clark's ordination with the OPC as a teaching elder. That attempt failed and Clark was exonerated and ordained. (See: Clark/Van Til Controversy). Regrettably, this was a temporary victory as Clark was forced to leave when most of his supporters were under theological and doctrinal attack by the irrationalists under the leadership of Dr. Van Til. That departure can be directly linked to the rise of neo-liberalism at Westminster Seminary, PA, the Norman Shepherd fiasco, and the more recent victory of the Federal Vision heresy within the Presbyterian Church in America. (See: PCA Endorses Federal Vision).
The legacy of Dr. Gordon H. Clark continues today through the Trinity Foundation and those who support presuppositionalist apologetics and biblical inerrancy. The controversy revolves around the issue of the univocal nature of Scripture as propositional revelation. Van Til contended that any idea of Scripture as univocal revelation and propositional revelation is to violate the creature/Creator distinction. Van Til's response to Clark was to adopt Thomas Aquinas' theology of Scripture as analogy rather than propositional. The neo-orthodox theologians adopted Aquinas' theology as a way of advocating their theology of mystery, paradox, and irrationalism. The neo-Calvinists, who evolved out of the 19th century adoption of Abraham Kuyper's semi-arminian doctrines of common grace and the free offer of the gospel, decided to accommodate neo-orthodoxy into the clothing of Evangelicalism and its anti-intellectual mindset. It can legitmately be argued that the beginning of the liberal bent at Princeton Seminary in the 19th century can be directly traced to the adoption of Kuyper's compromises with Arminianism and to the Stone Lectures:
In the same year, at the invitation of B.B. Warfield, Kuyper delivered the Stone Lectures at Princeton Seminary, which was his first widespread exposure to a North American audience. These lectures were given 10–11 October 14 and 19–21 in 1898. He also received an honorary doctorate in law there. During his time in the United States, he also traveled to address several Dutch reformed congregations in Michigan and Iowa and presbyterian gatherings in Ohio and New Jersey. (Kuyper: Member of Parliment).
In closing, I cannot say where Robert K. Rudolf's theology ended. I do know that for a brief time that Dr. Gordon H. Clark taught at the Reformed Theological Seminary. How much his influence was able to counter the irrationalism of Cornelius Van Til I do not know. But judging from the current state of the Reformed Episcopal Church the answer has to be not much.
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. (WCF 1:6 WCS)