Clark
-
Knowing the Incomprehensible God
Regarding the creator-creature distinction, there is no disagreement among Christians as to whether God knows a greater number of propositions relative to man, or whether God understands how all bits of knowledge exhaustively relate to each other in a mode or manner not available to created beings. Indeed, there is a quantitative difference between God’s… Continue reading
-
Incomprehensible Yet Knowable (part iii)
Although we cannot define God, we can describe God. Our descriptions of God will be proportional to what God desires us to know. Yet being finite, there are of course limits to what we can know of God. With respect to mode or manner, God cannot have us know him as he knows himself. We’d… Continue reading
-
Univocal Of The Analogical (part ii)
When ectypal knowledge obtains, the object of it must be true. If the object is true, then God must believe it (since God believes all truth). God believes it as it truly is, an analogy of the archetypal knowledge, which only God has (knowledge of the archetypal). Assume all our thoughts of God are analogical.… Continue reading
-
Univocal Of The Analogical (part i)
Regarding the Clark / Van Til controversy of the 1940s these points were innocuous. 1. Both sides affirmed a quantitative difference between God’s knowledge and man’s. The disagreement wasn’t so trivial as to pertain to the number of propositions known or how they exhaustively relate to each other. Surely, both sides agreed. God knows more… Continue reading
-
Justified by Belief Alone? (Assent Alone and The Gospel)
It has been argued by some Arminians (usually antinomians) and Calvinists (usually Clarkians) that we are justified by belief alone and that receiving and resting in Christ unpacks what it is to believe. In other words, receiving and resting in Christ is considered a figure of speech by which belief in Christ can be defined.… Continue reading
Philosophical Theology 