In his introduction to Apologetics, Professor Frame told us that the Van Til vs. Clark debate was a futile discussion that only led to chaos in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). The disputation concerns whether we think like God (Clark) or our whether our thoughts will never be similar to God because of the Creator/Creature distinction (Van Til). As anyone familiar with Professor Frame will guess, he believes that both Van Til and Clark were right in different ways/senses. Professor Frame continues to display a form of Orthodox irenicism that begs to be heard in the evangelical church (particularly in the Reformed community). Such minute issues are mere bagatelle in the spectrum of eternity.
Categories
Apologus
- Uma caminhada na praia com minha linda esposa de dez anos. instagram.com/p/Zbd1pJp2pz/ 22 hours ago
- Meditation on the Lord's Supper wp.me/p1MW3-2IH 1 day ago
- RT @JRRTolkien: The writing of The Lord of the Rings is laborious, because I have been doing it as well as I know how, and considering ever… 1 day ago
- When sin is not confessed in the home, fellowship is hindered. @douglaswils , Reforming Marriage, 69 3 days ago
- Infant Communion: An Ancient Tradition preachersinstitute.com/2012/12/08/inf… 3 days ago
Facebook
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- Audio Book Reviews Calvin/Calvinism Christian Living Church Calendar Communion Meditation Culture Eschatology Exhortation Federal Vision John Lent Links Liturgy Music N.T. Wright Peter Leithart Politics Prayers Psalms Quotes Reflections Ron Paul Trinity Talk Interview Typology/Symbolism/Biblical Parallels Uncategorized Update War Word/Sacrament YOUTUBE VIDEO
How can man think like God when he is an enemy of God? Unless “like” is a mystical term.To think like God would require man to be like God.Men are little god makers that are fashioned from their own minds.Thinking futile thoughts are not Godlike.
Thanks for bringing up that point. The issue for Clark was the preservation of our faith. In other words, Clark wanted to avoid skepticism. His point was that if we saw a blue sky, then God must see the sky as blue as well. The blue sky for us would never be a purple sky for God. Clark was concerned that if we saw or thought about truth (Jesus is God) then that had to be the same truth God saw and believed. Clark was well aware that no one knew Christ better than the Father, but the issue is that the truth about the universe that we see was the truth that God saw. Of course, you may be aware that Clark saw almost no value in general revelation, but that’s another discussion. Let me know if this helps.
I appreciate the latter part of your post (as echoes of Titus 3:9 ring in my heart’s ears). God, save us seminarians from ourselves!
It depends apoun whether God sees like we see. This is an anthropomorism. Gods mind has perfect thoughts that are not idle but active. He doesnt waste His time. God is involved in every detail of His creation as the hair on the head.Im not convinced God sees as we see because of this mode of being that transends all created things.Does His being pleased come from His seeing his creation of the original thought that predetermines its end?
Amazed,
I concur with your analysis that God’s mind is not idle but active. But remember that neither are our minds idle. Our minds function in ways that are limited but yet reflect the imago dei. As for your question: “Does His being pleased come from His seeing his creation of the original thought that predetermines its end?” frankly it is too speculative. But I would assume that God takes glory from His thoughts whether they have been made in time (which is absurd to some, but cautiously accepted by others) or in eternity past.
I agree that our minds reflect the image of God and that it is limited but how much of mans mind reflects the image of God in its darkened state? The pre fall state was that man reflected his image. How many thoughts are honoring to God after that fall? There is that image of the original but the production of that original is evil continually. There is a moral responsibility of personal evil that is attributed to man which does not reflect that image. It is the action of that original that is not an image of God. The punishment that the moral law demands is not just on the action but on the original.
Where does the corrupted image which incites wrath as pleasing God begin and the image as original as pleasing God end?
If the work of Christ in time was predetermined then how could His thoughts be original in time? There is much mystery here and i only say that we need embrace the absolute soveriengty of God lest we entertain semi-palegainist ideas.
That post above is mine.
Amazed,
Let me write once again in order to further our dialogue. I get the impression that you have not read Gordon Clark or further that you are not familiar with the Clark v. Van Til debate. If you are not, I’d recommend you look at John Frame’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God for a great summary. To facilitate let me list you a few of Frame’s reasons for similarity in God’s and man’s thought in defense of Dr. Clark. Remember Clark wanted to avoid any form of skepticism for the Christian. In other words, if man could not think as God thinks then we have no certainty to rely on.
Here are at least three ways in which man thinks God’s thoughts after him.
see Frame pg.26
1) Divine and Human thought are bound to the same standard of truth. This even Van Til agreed on, proving that He and Clark simply talked passed each other (as Professor Frame pointed out in class). “God’s thoughts are self-validating; man’s are validated by God’s. Thus they are both validated by reference to the same standard, divine thought(26 – DKG).”
2) “Divine and Human thought may be about the sam ethings, or as philosophers say, they may have the same “objects.” When a man thinks about a rose and when God thinks about it (God is always thinking about it since He is eternally omniscient), they are thinking about the same thing.”
3) “It is possible for man’s beliefs, as well as God’s, to be true. A true belief that will not mislead. God’s beliefs do not mislead Him, and true human beliefs do not mislead human beings… if there is no truth, or if man’s truth is “wholly different,” wholy disanalogous, from God’s, then knowledge is impossible.”
So you see, it is sufficiently plausible to assume analogy upon God and man’s knowledge for knowledge to be justifiable.
I hope we can continue to discuss this matter.