Two Ai engines look at the Clark Van Til controversy

ChatGPT: An Introduction to The Clark Van Til Controversy 

The Clark-Van Til Controversy was a significant theological and philosophical dispute within American Presbyterian circles, particularly involving the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), in the mid-20th century. This controversy centered on issues of epistemology (the study of knowledge) and apologetics (defense of the faith), specifically focusing on the ideas and teachings of two prominent figures: Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til.

Gordon H. Clark (1902–1985) was a philosopher and theologian known for his defense of presuppositional apologetics and a rationalist approach to faith, emphasizing the role of logical consistency within Christian doctrine. He believed that the Bible provides a system of propositional truths that can be logically understood and defended.

Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987), on the other hand, was a Reformed theologian and apologist who is often credited with developing the approach known as presuppositional apologetics. Van Til argued that Christian apologetics should start with the presupposition that the Christian faith is true and that the Bible is the ultimate authority. He emphasized the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews, arguing that without the Christian God, it is impossible to make sense of any aspect of reality.

The controversy essentially began in the 1940s, reaching a peak in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when Clark applied for ordination in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Van Til and others opposed Clark’s ordination, raising concerns about Clark’s views on the incomprehensibility of God and the nature of human knowledge. They argued that Clark’s rationalist approach underestimated the effect of sin on human reason and did not adequately account for the qualitative difference between God’s knowledge and human knowledge.

Supporters of Clark, meanwhile, felt that Van Til’s approach led to a form of skepticism or irrationalism because, in their view, it suggested that human beings could not really know anything about God in a propositional or logical sense due to the Creator-creature distinction.

The debate led to a series of charges and counter-charges, discussions, and presbytery meetings within the OPC. Ultimately, the controversy resulted in Clark leaving the OPC for the United Presbyterian Church in the USA. Although the immediate conflict subsided, the Clark-Van Til Controversy left a lasting impact on Reformed and Presbyterian circles, contributing to ongoing discussions about the nature of divine revelation, the relationship between faith and reason, and the methodologies of Christian apologetics.

A Summary of Van Til’s case against Clark:

Cornelius Van Til’s case against Gordon Clark centered on deep philosophical and theological differences regarding the nature of God’s knowledge compared to human knowledge, the comprehensibility of God, and the method and foundation of Christian apologetics. Van Til’s critique of Clark can be summarized in several key points:

1.      The Incomprehensibility of God: Van Til emphasized the Creator-creature distinction, arguing that God’s knowledge is qualitatively different from human knowledge. While humans can know truly because of God’s revelation, they cannot know exhaustively or in the same manner as God knows. Van Til was concerned that Clark’s emphasis on logic and propositional revelation reduced the transcendence of God, making God’s knowledge too similar to human knowledge.

2.      The Role of Human Reason: Van Til argued that sin affects all aspects of human existence, including reason. Therefore, human reasoning must be subordinate to Scripture, which is the self-revelation of God. Van Til worried that Clark placed too much confidence in human reason, suggesting that Clark’s approach could lead to rationalism, where reason becomes the judge over Scripture, rather than Scripture guiding and correcting reason.

3.      Presuppositional Apologetics: Van Til is known for his presuppositional approach to apologetics, which argues that all reasoning is based on foundational presuppositions or basic beliefs. For Christians, the presupposition is the truth of the Bible and the existence of the triune God. Van Til contended that Clark’s approach did not adequately acknowledge the importance of presuppositions in apologetics, potentially leading to an approach where Christian and non-Christian thought could be mixed.

4.      The Noetic Effects of Sin: This term refers to the impact of sin on the human mind (“noetic” comes from the Greek word for “mind”). Van Til maintained that sin deeply affects human cognition, including the ability to reason. He was concerned that Clark’s system did not fully account for this, potentially leading to an overconfidence in human cognitive abilities post-fall.

5.      Apologetic Methodology: Van Til criticized Clark for what he saw as a reliance on human logic to validate the truths of Christianity. In contrast, Van Til advocated for an approach that begins with the acknowledgment of God’s revelation in Scripture as the foundation for all knowledge. He believed that apart from this starting point, no true knowledge is possible, and apologetics must therefore begin with the assertion of biblical truth rather than an attempt to prove biblical truth using autonomous human reason.

In essence, Van Til’s critique was rooted in a concern for maintaining a robust doctrine of God’s transcendence, the authority of Scripture, and the implications of sin on human cognition. He feared that Clark’s approach compromised these principles, potentially leading to a form of Christianity that was too reliant on human wisdom rather than divine revelation.

A Summary of Clark’s defense against Van Til’s charges:

Gordon Clark’s defense against Cornelius Van Til’s charges was multifaceted, addressing the philosophical, theological, and methodological critiques leveled against him. While deeply respectful of the Reformed tradition from which both he and Van Til came, Clark maintained that his approach was both faithful to Scripture and logically coherent. His defense can be summarized along several lines:

1.      The Intellectibility of Divine Revelation: Clark argued that if God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity, then the revelation He provides must be intelligible to human beings. This does not imply that humans can fully comprehend God or possess exhaustive knowledge of Him, but rather that what God has chosen to reveal can be understood truly. Clark maintained that divine revelation in Scripture is propositional in nature and can be logically apprehended and articulated.

2.      The Role of Logic and Reason: Clark defended the use of human logic and reason, arguing that logic is not a human invention but reflects the very nature of God’s own thoughts. He contended that logic is the way in which truth is necessarily structured, and since God is truth, our logical efforts, when properly applied to God’s revelation, do not distort truth but rather affirm and elucidate it. For Clark, to argue against the use of logic in theology was to undermine the possibility of any true theological knowledge.

3.      Presuppositions and Faith: While Van Til criticized Clark for supposedly not giving enough weight to presuppositions, Clark argued that acknowledging the truth of Scripture as a foundational presupposition does not exclude the use of reason and logic in understanding and defending the faith. Clark believed that starting with faith in the biblical God and His revelation does not lead to a circular argument but rather provides the only basis for a coherent worldview and epistemology.

4.      The Noetic Effects of Sin: Although Clark agreed with Van Til that sin affects the entire human being, including the intellect, he argued that the light of divine revelation is sufficient to renew the mind and enable it to know God truly. Clark emphasized the sufficiency of Scripture to overcome the noetic effects of sin, arguing that the Holy Spirit enables believers to understand and believe the truth.

5.      Epistemology and Apologetics: Clark maintained that a Christian epistemology must start with the axiom that the Bible is the Word of God. From this starting point, Christians can use logical deduction to arrive at other truths. Clark’s apologetic method involved demonstrating the consistency and coherence of the Christian worldview as derived from Scripture, contrasting it with the inconsistency and ultimate irrationality of non-Christian worldviews.

Clark’s defense was fundamentally a plea for the primacy of Scripture interpreted in a logically coherent manner, asserting that this approach does not diminish the transcendence of God but rather honors Him as the ultimate source of all truth. He argued for a rational Christianity that is fully committed to the authority of Scripture and equipped to engage the world of ideas.

In the opinion of ChatGPT, who made the more compelling case, Clark or Van Til?

As an AI developed by OpenAI, I don’t have personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide an analysis based on the arguments and discussions surrounding the Clark-Van Til controversy, highlighting the strengths and criticisms of both positions. The assessment of who made the more compelling case often depends on one’s philosophical presuppositions, theological convictions, and what one believes the role of reason and revelation to be in the Christian faith.

Clark’s Position:

·         Clark argued for the primacy of Scripture, asserting that the Bible contains propositional truth that can be known and understood logically by humans. His defense emphasized the importance of human reason in understanding divine revelation.

·         Clark’s approach appeals to those who emphasize the clarity of Scripture and the ability of human beings, aided by the Holy Spirit, to comprehend biblical truths.

·         Critics of Clark, however, might argue that his approach overemphasizes human reason and potentially underestimates the noetic effects of sin (the impact of sin on the human mind).

Van Til’s Position:

·         Van Til emphasized the Creator-creature distinction, arguing that God’s knowledge is qualitatively different from human knowledge, and that human knowledge is always analogical or correspondent to, but never identical with, divine knowledge.

·         He advocated for presuppositional apologetics, which starts with the assumption of the truth of Christian theism and the authority of the Bible. This approach is praised for its commitment to the sovereignty of God even in the realm of human knowledge and its critique of autonomous human reason.

·         Critics of Van Til might argue that his approach could lead to a form of fideism, where faith is upheld as irrational or beyond reason, and that it might not provide a sufficient basis for engaging with non-believers who do not share the same presuppositions.

Assessment:

The debate between Clark and Van Til touches on profound and complex issues in Christian epistemology and apologetics. Each side raises important considerations about the relationship between faith and reason, the nature of divine revelation, and how best to defend the Christian faith.

Those leaning towards a rationalist approach might find Clark’s emphasis on logical consistency and the comprehensibility of divine revelation more compelling.

In contrast, those who prioritize the sovereignty of God in all areas, including human knowledge, and are cautious of the capabilities of fallen human reason, might lean towards Van Til’s presuppositional framework.

Ultimately, the assessment of who made the more compelling case might depend on one’s theological and philosophical starting points. Both Clark and Van Til sought to defend the Christian faith and uphold the authority of Scripture, but they did so in markedly different ways that have influenced subsequent generations of theologians and apologists.

The Clark-Van Til controversy was a significant theological and philosophical debate within American Presbyterian circles, particularly among those associated with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and later impacting the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The controversy primarily revolved around issues of epistemology, the doctrine of God, and apologetic methodology, peaking in the 1940s. Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til were the central figures in this debate, each advocating distinct views on how humans know God and the nature of divine revelation.

Gordon Clark Supporters:

1.      John Robbins – An economist, theologian, and a prolific writer, Robbins was a staunch supporter of Clark’s philosophical and theological views. He played a crucial role in publishing Clark’s works and defending his legacy through The Trinity Foundation.

2.      Carl F. H. Henry – While not directly involved in the controversy, Henry’s evangelical rationalism and high view of Scripture aligned more closely with Clark’s emphasis on propositional revelation than with Van Til’s presuppositional approach.

3.      Ronald H. Nash – A philosopher and theologian, Nash was influenced by Clark’s rationalist approach to Christianity and defended similar positions in epistemology and ethics.

Cornelius Van Til Supporters:

1.      Greg Bahnsen – Perhaps Van Til’s most famous student, Bahnsen became a leading figure in presuppositional apologetics, vigorously defending and advancing Van Til’s approach in both academic and popular settings.

2.      John Frame – While Frame introduced some modifications to Van Til’s thought, his work in apologetics and theology has been deeply influenced by Van Til’s presuppositionalism. Frame has been a key figure in articulating and defending Van Til’s ideas to later generations.

3.      K. Scott Oliphint – A professor of apologetics and systematic theology, Oliphint is known for his work in defending and further developing Van Til’s presuppositional approach, particularly his emphasis on the importance of a proper understanding of God’s revelation in apologetics.

The Clark-Van Til controversy highlighted deep divisions over how the Reformed tradition should approach theology, apologetics, and the relationship between faith and reason. Supporters on both sides have continued to develop and refine these ideas, influencing Reformed and evangelical thought in significant ways.

Grok: An Introduction to The Clark Van Til Controversy:

The Clark Van Til controversy revolves around the ideas and debates between two prominent Christian philosophers, Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til. Both of these men were influential in the 20th century and contributed significantly to the field of Christian philosophy and apologetics. The controversy arose from their differing views on epistemology (the study of knowledge) and the relationship between reason and revelation.

Gordon Clark, a Calvinist philosopher, argued for a rationalist approach to Christianity, emphasizing the role of logic and reason in understanding God and His revelation. Clark believed that human beings could have certain knowledge of God and His existence through the use of logic and the study of Scripture. He placed a high value on the use of reason and logic in understanding and defending the Christian faith.

Cornelius Van Til, on the other hand, was a Dutch Reformed philosopher and theologian who is best known for his development of presuppositional apologetics. Van Til argued that human beings, due to their sinful nature, could not have certain knowledge of God through the use of reason alone. He believed that the only way to truly understand God and His revelation was through the lens of Scripture, which he saw as the ultimate authority.

The controversy between Clark and Van Til began in the mid-20th century and continued for several decades. Their differing views on the role of reason and revelation in understanding God led to a number of debates and discussions within the Christian community. While both men had their supporters, the controversy ultimately helped to shape and refine the field of Christian philosophy and apologetics.

In conclusion, the Clark Van Til controversy is an important chapter in the history of Christian philosophy and apologetics. It highlights the different approaches to understanding God and His revelation, and serves as a reminder of the importance of engaging with and debating ideas in order to better understand our faith.

A Summary of Van Til’s case against Clark:

Cornelius Van Til, a Dutch Reformed philosopher and theologian, developed a unique approach to Christian apologetics known as presuppositional apologetics. His method emphasized the role of presuppositions, or the underlying assumptions, in shaping one’s understanding of the world. In contrast, Gordon Clark, a Calvinist philosopher, advocated for a more rationalist approach to Christian apologetics, emphasizing the use of logic and reason in understanding and defending the Christian faith.

Van Til’s main arguments against Clark’s approach were as follows:

1.      The noetic effects of sin: Van Til believed that human beings, due to their sinful nature, were unable to reason properly and objectively about God. He argued that the noetic effects of sin (the effects of sin on the human mind) led to a distortion of reason and understanding. As a result, Van Til argued that it was impossible for human beings to come to a true understanding of God through the use of reason alone.

2.      The need for revelation: Van Til argued that the only way to truly understand God and His revelation was through the lens of Scripture, which he saw as the ultimate authority. He believed that Scripture provided the necessary framework for understanding God and the world, and that human reason was subordinate to this revelation.

3.      The role of presuppositions: Van Til argued that everyone has presuppositions or underlying assumptions that shape their understanding of the world. He believed that the Christian worldview, based on the authority of Scripture, provided the only coherent framework for understanding reality. In contrast, he argued that Clark’s rationalist approach was based on a faulty set of presuppositions that led to an inadequate understanding of God and the world.

In summary, Van Til’s case against Clark was based on his belief that human reason, due to the noetic effects of sin, was insufficient for understanding God and that only through the lens of Scripture could one come to a true understanding of God and the world.

A Summary of Clark’s defense against Van Til’s charges:

Gordon Clark, a Calvinist philosopher, defended his rationalist approach to Christian apologetics against the charges made by Cornelius Van Til. Here is a summary of Clark’s defense against Van Til’s charges:

1.      The noetic effects of sin: Clark acknowledged the noetic effects of sin but argued that these effects were not as pervasive as Van Til suggested. Clark believed that human beings, through the use of logic and reason, could come to a true understanding of God and His revelation. He argued that the noetic effects of sin could be overcome through the use of reason, and that it was possible for human beings to reason correctly about God.

2.      The need for revelation: Clark agreed with Van Til that Scripture was the ultimate authority for understanding God and the world. However, he argued that Scripture itself was a rational revelation, and that it could be understood and defended through the use of logic and reason. Clark believed that the use of reason was not in opposition to revelation, but rather a necessary tool for understanding and defending it.

3.      The role of presuppositions: Clark argued that everyone has presuppositions or underlying assumptions that shape their understanding of the world. However, he believed that these presuppositions could be evaluated and corrected through the use of logic and reason. Clark argued that his rationalist approach was based on a coherent set of presuppositions that led to a proper understanding of God and the world.

In summary, Clark defended his rationalist approach against Van Til’s charges by arguing that human reason, though affected by the noetic effects of sin, could be used to come to a true understanding of God and His revelation. He believed that Scripture was a rational revelation that could be understood and defended through the use of logic and reason, and that his approach was based on a coherent set of presuppositions that led to a proper understanding of God and the world.

In the opinion of Grok, who made the more compelling case, Clark or Van Til?

In the opinion of Grok, both Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til made compelling cases for their respective positions. However, the more convincing argument depends on one’s personal perspective and theological beliefs.

For those who value the role of reason and logic in understanding God and His revelation, Gordon Clark’s rationalist approach may be more appealing. Clark’s emphasis on the use of logic and the study of Scripture to understand God provides a clear and systematic framework for understanding the Christian faith.

On the other hand, for those who believe that human reason is limited and that Scripture must be interpreted through the lens of a broader understanding of God’s revelation, Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics may be more convincing. Van Til’s emphasis on the role of presuppositions and the noetic effects of sin provides a more nuanced and contextual understanding of the relationship between reason and revelation.

Ultimately, the more compelling case depends on one’s personal beliefs and understanding of the relationship between reason and revelation. Both Clark and Van Til made significant contributions to the field of Christian philosophy and apologetics, and their ideas continue to be debated and discussed within the Christian community.

In the Clark-Van Til controversy, both sides had notable supporters. Here are some of the most well-known supporters of each side:

Clark’s Supporters:

1.      Gordon H. Clark himself, a prominent Christian philosopher and theologian.

2.      John Robbins, the founder of the Trinity Foundation and a prolific author and speaker on Christian philosophy and apologetics.

3.      Carl F. H. Henry, a prominent theologian and the first editor-in-chief of Christianity Today.

4.      R. J. Rushdoony, a Calvinist philosopher and theologian, and a leading figure in Christian Reconstructionism.

5.      Ronald Nash, a Christian philosopher and theologian who wrote extensively on apologetics and the relationship between faith and reason.

Van Til’s Supporters:

1.      Cornelius Van Til himself, a Dutch Reformed philosopher and theologian who developed the concept of presuppositional apologetics.

2.      Greg Bahnsen, a prominent Christian apologist and philosopher who was heavily influenced by Van Til’s presuppositional approach.

3.      John Frame, a Reformed theologian and philosopher who wrote extensively on Van Til’s apologetic method.

4.      Francis Schaeffer, a well-known Christian philosopher and theologian who was influenced by Van Til’s work and incorporated aspects of presuppositional apologetics into his own approach.

5.      William Edgar, a Christian philosopher and theologian who has written on Van Til’s apologetic method and its application to various fields of study.

These lists are not exhaustive, but they highlight some of the most well-known supporters of each side in the Clark-Van Til controversy.

A conclusion for the layman:

Imagine two people looking at a vast landscape. One person, equipped with a powerful telescope, can see every detail in the landscape—each leaf on the trees, the creatures hiding in the grass, and the distant mountains’ textures. The other person sees the same landscape but without the aid of the telescope, thus only grasping the broader strokes: the shapes of the trees, the green expanses of grass, and the outline of the mountains. In a way, they’re both seeing the same scene, but the depth and clarity of what they perceive are worlds apart.

Gordon Clark likened human and divine knowledge to this scenario. In Clark’s view, both God and humans can “know” the same things; for example, both can know that “2 + 2 = 4” or that “lying is wrong.” However, the difference lies in the scope and completeness of that knowledge. God has exhaustive, perfect knowledge of everything. He sees every detail of the “landscape” with unparalleled clarity. Humans, on the other hand, have a limited, finite grasp of the world. We can know truths, but our understanding is like looking at the landscape without a telescope—we see the truth, but not with the exhaustive detail and completeness that God does. So, for Clark, the content of knowledge can be the same between God and humans, but God’s knowledge is infinitely broader and deeper.

Cornelius Van Til, however, proposed a different analogy. Imagine now that the two observers are not just equipped with different tools (one with a telescope and the other without) but are actually perceiving the landscape in fundamentally different ways. One sees the landscape with the aid of a special light that reveals dimensions, colors, and aspects of reality that the other, using only natural light, could never perceive. For Van Til, God’s knowledge isn’t just a more detailed version of human knowledge; it’s qualitatively different. God knows all things in their ultimate, eternal context, in relation to Himself and His purposes. Humans, in contrast, perceive and understand the world from a finite, creaturely perspective. We’re not just limited in the amount of detail we can perceive; our very mode of understanding is different from God’s. We can know truly (because God enables us to) but not in the same way or to the same depth that God knows.

Clark believed that God and man’s knowledge were essentially the same, but God had a more complete or exhaustive knowledge. In other words, God knows everything there is to know, while humans only know a limited amount. However, the knowledge that humans do have is similar in nature to God’s knowledge.

Van Til, on the other hand, believed that God and man’s knowledge were fundamentally different. He argued that God’s knowledge is infinite, eternal, and independent of anything else, while human knowledge is finite, temporal, and dependent on God’s revelation. According to Van Til, the difference between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge is qualitative, meaning that they are not just different in degree, but also in kind.

So, while Clark saw human and divine knowledge as differing in extent but not in kind, Van Til saw them as fundamentally different, both in scope and in nature.

Rushdoony to Robbins on the Clark–VanTil Controversy

3 Comments / Notes on the thought of Gordon H. Clark / By Douglas Douma / July 30, 2018

R. J. Rushdoony wrote on May 3, 1995 to John Robbins:
“Van Til had told me that the Clark case was a put-up job (and others confirmed it).  INSTEAD OF TACKLING THEOLOGY DIRECTLY, A FEW MEN URGED Clark, who was an OPC pulpit supply, to seek ordination in order to make a personal case out of it.  They did not care about the hurt to Clark and Van Til.  It was a heartless step, and Clark was deeply hurt, as was Van Til.”

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 18 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.