Perhaps, but I think we would need to go into the details. If the following critique applies to Clarkian Scripturalism, which I believe it does at least in part, then I would agree it is quite different: Top Ten Reasons to Reject ScripturalismNang:16469 wrote:If I may dare to interject, it is my understanding that Clark's Scripturalism is quite different than Van Til's "Analogical Knowledge," and for this very reason, a theological controversy was born.
Thank you for reminding me of another epistemological difference, Steve Hays of Triablogue has helped define the differences through his critique of Gordon Clark.Nang:16469 wrote:For here Bahnsen defines Fideism, which claims those who simply accept supposed paradoxes without question, are the most devout of believers.
Van Til taught seemingly contradictory passages are reconcilable...though he might disagree with the clearly understood part. Anyway, I am awfully tired at the moment, but I did some searching, and came across a post I read on Christianforums by mothcorruptheth in which he nails the reason I am not a Clarkian...Nang:16469 wrote:Clark taught that paradoxical and seemingly contradictory passages can be reconciled and clearly understood, by devout Christians studying and comparing all the revelations (Holy Writ) provided to men by God.
"...the main debate, as I understand it, is over what theology has traditionally regarded as "mystery," and the nature of saving knowledge.
With regard to the former, Clark argued that our knowledge of God was not analogical, but actual. Whatever God has revealed, we know it exactly as God knows it. Thus, the only difference between us and God is the quantity of knowledge that we have. Van Til said the difference was quantitative and qualitative; we know God's truths in a different but analogical way than God knows them. When it came to mysteries like the Trinity and the tension between predestination and human responsibility, Clark claimed that there was no tension and that we could fully understand, prior to glory, how God's threeness is compatible with His unity. Whereas Van Til said that, although there is no true contradiction between God's threeness and his unity, there is inevitable psychological tension over it. Van Til was seriously offended that Clark would imply that he understood the Trinity completely. Clark's followers accused Van Til of a kind of mysticism that has somehow translated into an acceptance of Charismatism and Federal Vision (an argument I've never really understood).
With respect to the nature of saving knowledge, the churches of the Reformation have always held forth that saving knowledge is notitia, assensus et fiducia--notice, assent, and trust. That is, the believer takes note of the logical proposition that Christ died, was resurrected, and ascended to the right hand of God; the believer inwardly and outwardly confesses that he agrees to the truth of that proposition; and the believer places his trust in that proposition is such a way that he obeys the commandments of God. This was Van Til's position, as well. But Clark, much like the OSAS crowd (e.g., Zane Hodges), argued that saving knowledge is notitia and assensus only. For Clark, all you had to do to be saved was assent to the logical proposition that Christ died and was resurrected for our justification. To posit that anything else was required was to believe in a kind of works righteousness, and to open the door to all kinds of sensationalistic variants of Charismatic revivalism. You'll find that that's a major theme with Clark and his followers: anything that smacks of experimental religion or emotional satisfaction is put on their naughty list." - post by mothcorrupteth