The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Scripturalism

I have a question that until very recently have never heard of.
It concerns Van TIL and Clarke on the topic of ‘Scripturalism’.

I am not really sure how much I want to pursue this particular matter. But if what I am told is correct, Clarke was a ‘Scripturalist’ and VanTil was against Scripturalism.
There seems to be quite a debate going on between these two groups.
So much so, that I really did not end up understanding what the real debate was.

I am hoping someone here, can briefly shed some light on the issue and tell me who they think is correct.

Thank you
Tom

So basically, what is the 'friction' between the two groups. I am aware of some of the disagreements, but the way you have presented this particular one, I am not sure what the issue is, i.e., define "Scripturalism/Scripturalist". That way I will know what is being said of Gordon Clarke and what is being said of Van Til.

Pilgrim
Actually, that was part of why I came to this forum, to hopefully find out what ‘scripturalism’ means and what the big deal about it is.
One organization that takes Clarke’s side of the issues is (hopefully I got the name correct) (John Robbins) Trinity Foundation.
Not sure if that helps.

Tom

Tom,

I am aware of some of the contentions among those who are followers of Clarke, some of which I believe are based upon untruths and others on minor issues, none of which will probably never be resolved since both parties are gone home. As is often the case, definitions of words are not openly defined and this causes unnecessary friction. That is why I asked for what definition is being used for the word "Scripturalist". Van Til certainly held to the historic doctrine of divine inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. So, I certainly would consider Van Til a "Scripturalist".

I guess the only thing I can point to is something from
The Trinity Foundation’s website on the matter.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=276

Okay, it is what I suspected. Clark's proposition is that whatever is in the mind of man (truth derived from Scripture... my summation) is in the mind of God. He also claimed that whatever God has revealed in Scripture can be known "perfectly" by man (assumed by a regenerate man).

Van Til would unreservedly agree that all true knowledge is from God and him alone. And true knowledge has been revealed in Scripture (natural revelation; that which can be observed in the creation is subject to special revelation; the Bible). But Van Til also believed that the written word of God; the Bible is "analogous" to what actually exists in the mind of God, i.e., it is not identical. I believe Van Til was correct, for a finite creature, albeit one created in the image of God cannot comprehend the perfectly the mind of the infinite omniscient God. To put it in the vernacular. God "lisped" when he brought forth the Scriptures so that man could comprehend the truth revealed. There is no error, contradiction, untruth in Scripture, but it is written in such a way that it can be grasped by the regenerate man and received as absolute truth. It seems that Clark failed to take into account that all men are fallen and thus every facet of his being is corrupted and prone to error even on his best day. Even Peter, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote that there are parts of Scripture which are difficult to comprehend (2Peter 3:16).

Another contention that existed between the two men is Van Til's use of the term "antinomy" when speaking of Scripture. Clark insisted that an antinomy IS synonymous with "paradox". But this is not necessarily 100% true. Antinomy can also be defined as an [i]apparent[i] paradox or contradiction. The problem is not to be found in Scripture, but in the inability of man to comprehend that truth, e.g., the Trinity, God's absolute sovereignty and man's responsibility, the incarnation, the fall of Satan, etc. This goes back to what I wrote above re: the Fall and the penalty of the corruption of nature of mankind, and the fact that God is has an infinite knowledge and man only has an infant/finite knowledge, and that derived, although man does has some inherent knowledge, e.g., what is right and wrong, the existence of God, et al (cf. Romans 1).

Bottom line for me is that Cornelius Van Til was no less a Scripturalist than Gordon Clark. I think a good and easily seen example of this is Van Til's Why I Believe in God.

Thank you, that makes a lot of sense.

Tom