Cajun Huguenot said:
I'm With Reformedfan on this one. I love VanTil.
The generations long Clark-VanTil division continues in Reformed Circles until now. It is (for the most part) much more civil now, and that is a very good thing.
THe Clarkites and the VanTillites are Reformed Christians and need to agree to disagree with brotherly love for one another (which most seem to be able to do). John Robbins (Clarkite) and Gary North (VanTillite) have given us many wonderful examples of how
NOT to deal with our brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we disagree.
We can all learn by not following their examples and instead showing Christain charity when there is disagreement.
Ok - That is my soapbox blather for today.
In Christ,
Kenith
I'll agree that neither side in the controversy was at its best. Nevertheless, Clark was right. (I just had to get that in...
)
I also agree that Robbins can be quite brusque at times, but this has no bearing on the validity of his arguments. The same can be said of Vincent Cheung and his use of "biblical invectives." I disagree with the methods that each of them use, but they both make very good arguments.
I certainly do not see to fuel the Clark/Van Til fire. I simply desire to defeat what seems to be this "common sense" comprehension in Reformed circles that Van Til was right and that Clark was wrong. Van Til
wasn't right. He was at his most irrational in this controversy, actually, and many of his errors reek of the precursors of liberal and Arminian theology, especially the contention over the incomprehensibility of God.
Van Til himself says that contradictions in the Bible are no big deal. They are only "apparent contradictions," but that we should believe them anyway. If this is true, then why is the foundation of a sound biblical hermeneutic to resolve contradictions found in the Bible? Why do we try to resolve apparent contradictions between man's "free will" and predestination. Why not simply say that it is man's choice
and it is God's choice? How is the hermeneutical resolution of this problem valid, whereas the resolution that the Gospel is not extended by the Holy Spirit to every person invalid? On what basis does one say that a particular doctrine is contradictory? The Bible certainly provides no guidelines for what doctrines it reveals are really just mysteries. On what basis does the Van Tilian say that this doctrine is a mystery even though it is revealed in the Scriptures? Is God the Author of confusion that he was revealed things that are not understandable? How is the explanation that something is only apparently contradictory and that it should be accepted in its apparently contradictory status a superior view point to the argument that resolves the contradiction and does not do violence against God's character or against the Scriptures?
I do not accept Van Til's irrationalism or that of any of his followers. I find his position to be liberal and vaguely Arminian even though, by the grace of God, he staunchly rejected the implications of what he taught. But that does not absolve him of wrongly teaching irreconcilable doctrine. Moreover, his opposition to the ordination of Clark is itself an example of how little respect he held for Presbyterian government. The controversy arose over Clark's ordination based on his view of the incomprehensibility of God, something that Van Til had no right to question in such a setting. The concepts being argued are highly theological in nature and should have been discussed at a theological conference, not sustained as the grounds for ordaining or not ordaining a minister. I would hypothesize that
most ministers are completely ignorant of the topic of the incomprehensibility of God. Even more, I would guess that Van Til would be gunning for many many more ministers if the question were to be asked of them all.
For the incomprehensibility of God to be raised as a make or break point for the ordination of Clark is absolutely absurd. I am even more disappointed in how the Philadelphia Prebystery handled it. They should have simply dismissed the complaintants altogether since Clark's ordination was certainly within their right, and especially since the Compaint was spurious in its foundation.
Needless to say, I find this issue to be very critical to the heart of Reformed theology. I view Van Til as either the father or the godfather of the modern liberal movement within the major Presbyterian denominations today, which is a key reason why I have completely rejected the idea of attending Westminsterit is full of Van Tilians. His theology opens the door wide to the acceptance of the sincere offer of the Gospel, which in turn draws a clear necessary inference to the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement, at which point, the digression into outright Arminianism is only short behind. I see in the Reformed churches a small, but dangerous leak beginning to form in the doctrinal standards of her congregations. My hope and prayer is that the Lord will preserve a remnant from what seems to be a looming apostasy. In large part, the same causes of the PCUSA/OPC split of 1934-1936 (also the CRC/PRC split of 1924) are again rearing their ugly heads.
Honestly, I am both excited and worried at the possible outcome. Excited for the pending split which will bring the faithful out of the liberalism brewing in the churches, and worried for the souls of those who will not come out with them. Prayers are most certainly in order.
Soli Deo Gloria
Jon
