Reformed Forum: The Clark/Van Til Controversy: Revisiting the Fake Spin on Dr. Gordon H. Clark

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16 KJV)

Sect. IX.—THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, “Free-will” is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert “Free-will,” must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. But, however, before I establish this point by any arguments of my own, and by the authority of Scripture, I will first set it forth in your words.

Dr. Martin Luther.  The Bondage of the Will.  "The Sovereignty of God".  Section 9.

Part 1.  (See:  Part 2).

The February 26th, 2011 edition of the Reformed Forum podcast featured Dr. K. Scott Oliphint and his take on the controversy between Dr. Gordon H. Clark and his followers and Dr. Cornelius Van Til and his followers.  For the sake of brevity I will refer you to Doug Douma's excellent biography of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark for a historical timeline of the events and the ministers on each side of the conflict.  Doug's book is available here:  The Presbyterian Philosopher:  The Authorized Biography of Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  I am recommending this Amazon link because the Kindle edition is only $9.99.  For the paperback edition go to Trinity Foundation:  The Presbyterian Philospher.  The paperback edition is $22.50 plus shipping charges.

At any rate, the controversy continues today.  Ironically, in this video Dr. Oliphint will deny that Dr. Clark was charged with heresy in 1944 and affirm that Dr. Clark was guilty of Nestorianism at the end of his life.  Both the denial that Clark was charged with heresy in 1944 and the charge that he was guilty of the heresy of  Nestorianism before his death are false.  

In regards to Oliphint's spin that Clark was not charged with heresy to prevent his ordination (see Reformed Forum minute mark 7:12).  This is completely false.  If the complainants were not trying to prevent Clark's ordination on the basis of heresy why does the The Complaint charge Clark with unconfessional views in regards to the creature/Creator distinction and other areas such as the doctrine of the free offer?  Also, Oliphint spins Dr. Edmund Clowney's take on the controversy as if Clowney were an opponent of Clark's views.  The fact of the matter is that Clowney was a student of Clark when Clark taught at Wheaton College and it was Clark who influenced Clowney to attend Westminster Theological Seminary in the first place.  (Douma, Presbyterian Philosopher, p. 136).  Douma also notes that Clowney delivered the exoneration of Clark on the charges:

At the Thirteenth General Assembly of the OPC in May of 1946, the committee of five, with the exception of John Murray, brought their conclusions in Clark’s favor. More precisely, they concluded that the presbytery had not erred in ordaining Clark. Edmund Clowney presented the report which concluded that Clark’s view on the incomprehensibility of God did not substantially differ from the view of the complainants.

Douma, Doug J.. The Presbyterian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark (p. 137). Wipf & Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. 

What is disturbing in the anecdotal account of Oliphint's walk with Dr. Clowney is that Oliphint implies that Clowney agreed with the Van Til faction and that the controversy needed to take place to clarify the OPC's position, namely that Clark was out of accord with the Westminster Standards and the doctrine of incomprehensibility as stated in WCF 2:1.  Doug Douma's historical and biographical study shows that Oliphint essentially misrepresented both Clark's views and Clowney's response to Oliphint's query about the controversy.  Clowney did not think Clark was out of accord with the Westminster Standards and neither did the rest of the committee that cleared Clark's ordination.  In short, Oliphint basically constructs a huge prevarication about Clark's views throughout this video because of Oliphint's own biases against logic, propositional revelation, and the theological and propositional system of truth summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith.

One of the problems with Van Til's views is that Van Til used the term analogy with a different definition than even the scholastic theologians used the term.  For most theologians and philosophers the term analogy means that there is a metaphorical or symbolic relationship between one term and another.  For example, in the communion service the bread and wine are not the literal body and blood of Christ either in a physical sense or in a spiritual sense as in real presence.  Instead the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ in a theological and spiritual sense.  We call the bread the body of Christ by way of analogy because the bread represents the sacrifice of the physical body of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary.  The same is true of the blood of Christ shed at Calvary.  The wine is not literally the blood of Christ but is only the blood of Christ by way of analogy.  When communion elements are administered properly the person receiving the elements visibly and tangibly partakes of the bread and wine in order to receive by faith the benefits of our Lord Jesus Christ's sacrifice for the sins of the elect.  Anyone who partakes unworthily, that is without true faith, does not actually partake of the benefits because without faith we cannot please God.  (Hebrews 11:6).

I will comment more on the Van Tilian view of analogy at a later point.  I have more to say about Oliphint's misrepresentation of Dr. Clark in this video.  But due to my limited time today I will end this first part.  Look for another post on this topic soon.