“That knowledge, though not identical at any point with divine knowledge, is analogous to divine knowledge and an expression of genuine truth from a creaturely point of view” (104).

“Recently, Scott Clark . . . of Westminster Seminary California echoed Klooster’s point by locating Van Til’s views within the context of Reformed scholasticism. Post-Reformation Reformed orthodoxy posited two kinds of knowledge, God’s knowledge and the knowledge that God revealed to humanity. This “archetypal/ectypal” distinction “became the basis for Protestant theological method,” and scholastic theologians introduced the necessity of speaking analogically about the knowledge of God, and of understanding theology as it is revealed to us as an analogue of what is proper to God. Scott Clark has argued that Van Til’s doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God was an effort to maintain this distinction, although Van Til employed a different vocabulary” (John R. Muether, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman, 110).