Criticisms of Clark

Why not follow Gordon Clark or Cornelius Van Til's apologetic methodology? I think they both had strengths and weaknesses. Robert Reymond constructed a synthesis of their strengths. Dr. Reymond's book is available for free entitled "The Justification of Knowledge".

Criticisms of Dr. Clark's Philosophy 

(1) Arbitrary Axiom 

(1)* Scripturalism is self-refuting (e.g. AquaScum)

(2) Robust Thomistic divine simplicity with its inherent denial of the Trinity.

(3) Denial of the free offer of the gospel.

(4) Voluntarism 

(5) Eternal generation of the Son from the Father. The Son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit eternally derived/proceed from the Father as the original source. This derivation is conditioned upon the Father's decree. 

(6) Necessitarianism with its entailed dependence upon creation

(7) Continuous creation with its denial of personal identity through time

(8)Unlivability. Basic knowledge (e.g. non-propositional knowledge of self) cannot be known only asserted as mere opinion.

(9) The three Persons of the Trinity are merely instances of a genus, namely, God. Hence, a Quadrinity.

(10) The obscurity of Clark's epistemology. Clark demands a definition of sensations from empiricists but does not explain precisely how humans come to know propositions via divine illumination through recollection/reminiscence. 

(11) Incompatibilism (Hard Determinism)

(12) Saving faith is merely understanding and assent

(13) The Son within the incarnation there possessed two distinct natures with two minds. This sounds awfully close to Nestorianism without the proper nuances (e.g. Thomas Morris).
(14) Primacy of the intellect
(15) Occassionalism
(16) Univocal knowledge of God
(17) Denial of theological paradoxes
(18) Supralapsarianism