Regarding your question, I’m afraid I’m a bit rusty by now on the history of presuppositional thought, and the distinction between Van Till’s method’s and Clark’s. I’ve probably softened my view since writing The Wisdom of God; which will be reflected in the upcoming second edition. I’ve learned more about the TAG since then, and I’ve decided to just remove the references to it rather than confuse matters. I’m also a little more appreciative of language theory, and of how analogical most of our language really is; so I’m not as certain any more that the criticisms of Van Till as strong as I originally thought.

Essentially, Van Till proposed that all knowledge of God is analogical. Clark objected that an analogy of the truth is not the truth itself, and so Scripture would not actually contain any true propositions about God under Van Till’s view. I think Clark had a point; but since writing my study on the Trinity, I also think Van Till did too. Scripture tells us many things about God, in many ways. I don’t think it’s fair to characterize its analogies as “falsehoods” just because they don’t convey arbitrarily precise propositional statements. They still tell us something true about God; just as all good analogies tell us something true about their referents. I think it would be impossible to make a case against analogies in general from Scripture. Aren’t anthropopathisms analogical statements about God, for example? Did God not include these in Scripture for our benefit?

Whether or not human language itself can be thought of as analogical, so that when we say ‘God is one,’ we are making an analogy (perhaps a very close one) of the real truth, based on the most similar experience we know…that’s something I don’t know enough to comment on. But as I say, I’ve softened my views somewhat; and I’m inclined to argue at least that our understanding of being is “analogical” of God’s mode of being, in the sense that it’s too limited to accurately describe it. You might be interested to read my study on the Trinity which is linked in the sidebar. I wonder what Cheung would think of it, given how naively rigid he tends to be on logic. I think if Van Till’s view was too soft, then Clark’s view (and adherents to it) are characterized in the opposite extreme by naive rigidity—especially in some aspects of their hypercalvinism.

Regards,
Bnonn

Hate to get off topic, but I couldn’t find a good article to post the comment so I’ll just use the latest one.

I’m going through your e-book and this is the first time I have been introduced to the Clark/Cheung style of presuppositional apologetics. I have read a little by John Frame and a few books by Bahnsen as well, so admittedly I am have more of a Van Tillian perspective at the moment.

My question is concerning this great controversy that supposedly existed between Van Til and Clark. In your book you mentioned the qualitative difference between man’s and God’s knowledge. Is that the main difference between the two methods or this there much more to it?