This is based on a discussion on the Gordon Clark v. Van Til debate in the OPC in the 1940′s. For further background see my paragraph entitled: Futile Disputes, and peruse through the comments for context.
Dear brother, 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 would recommend reading selected portions of 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, Dr. 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 upon. John Frame is not defending all of Clark’s theses, but he is concerned to accentuate some validity in Clark’s “propositions” (no pun intended).
Here are at least three ways in which man thinks God’s thoughts after him.
see DKG 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 same things, 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, and of course, I would defend on the basis of Frame’s analysis that it is sufficiently plausible to assume disanologies between God and Man as Van Til affirmed.
I hope we can continue to discuss this matter.