Back in the day I was an ardent Van Til supporter. I am no longer, and here is why. These are reasons I’ve come up with from my own reflections. I am rejecting Van Til largely independent of the Clark debate, simply because I have no read enough Clark to sufficiently comment on that.
- In order for Van Til’s apologetic to work, one must know an insane amount of Hegelian and German Idealist philosophy. I actually do, sort of. But if that is the precondition for knowing Van Til, surely there is a better way?
- I’ve listened to a few Clark lectures, and while I am not sure of the ins and outs of Scripturalism, I think Clark’s critique of Van Tillian arguments is pretty good.
- Clark has a clearer style and can be utilized by more people.
Moving on, I think a lot of Clarkians have really overplayed Van Til’s real influence. True, Westminster Seminary is Van Tillian, but how many there really understand what Van Til said? In Frame’s book on Van Til Frame doubted most really caught on to what Van Til said.