Home

Knowing God: The Existing One

In my ongoing study of epistemology -- how we know what we know -- I was reading some comments by a "Clarkian" (a person who follows Gordon Clark's epistemological model), who was arguing that a phrase such as "the sky is blue" is an axiom that can neither be proven or disproved. He argues against the classic Christian epistemology which starts with "God is", or "God exists" hence the entire point of the "I AM THAT I AM" statement from God when Moses asked Him his name in Ex 3:14.

Couple this with Romans 1:20 which says:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse..."

We see that God is making the case that He is the AXIOM.

However the Clarkian continued in his argument of "The Bible is the Word of God written". Of course it is, no Christian would say otherwise. But before that proposition there is the question of God. The very mention of Him, even within the Clarkian axiom reveals there is a precedent axiom -- GOD. It is senseless to say, "The Bible is the Word of God written" without defining WHAT a "god" is. Perhaps a Clarkian would object that we can't know that apart from the Bible, yet clearly even the Bible says we can and MUST "clearly see" God's invisible attributes and understand by the things made/existing even His eternal power and Godhead. Not acknowledging this much, humanity is without excuse. And, this bears itself out as almost every, if not every culture has a concept of divinity.

NOW.... we get the proposition of the Clarkian: "The Bible is the Word of God written". Contained in that proposition is this challenge to people who ALREADY are assumed to accede to the axiom of "God(s) exist".

THE CLARKIAN CHALLENGE CORRECTLY PRESENTED
The challenge is sort of like this put into modern terms:

"Since you acknowledge the existence of god(s), we propose that the Bible is the Communication of God. It is the source that reveals who and what God is beyond human's natural awareness."

We see Paul arguing in this exact same manner in Acts 17:22-28 --

"Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’"

Paul didn't start with, "The Scriptures are the Word of God" however he does acknowledge the Athenians natural awareness of divinity and then DECLARES to them the God of the Bible without once telling them to go confirm it in the Hebrew Scriptures. He presupposes they ALREADY believe in god(s). He even cites their own pagan sources.

All of this does NOT deny or negate that YES -- The Bible is the Word of God written. Of Course. But it seems the Clarkian likes to use this truism in a myopic manner. I even have one Clarkian that follows me around the Internet trying to claim I don't "have a command of the material" when it comes to this topic.

Clarkians often call themselves "Scripturalist" when in fact they are Textualists. That is, they argue; and quite unbiblically so that God can't be known outside of the Bible. YET, the Bible itself says not only is He known before a person even cracks open the Bible, but that He is revealing Himself so much that if a person still doubts there is god(s), then they are without excuse.

Clarkians posit an absurdity of circular reasoning. What they advocate isn't really axiomatic at all. To accede to the proposition that "The Bible is the Word of God written", MUST FIRST presuppose the person...how shall I say?...has a command of the material that GOD IS -- that is "God exists" and following that; that the Bible is His Word written.

Lastly, the poignant phrase found throughout that Bible; The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge presupposes before a person BEGINS to "know" anything; they first FEAR the Lord. As you can see, it keeps coming back to the FACT that it all must start with GOD IS the I AM THAT I AM -- The Existing One.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Complaint against Clarkianism

When Van Til and the others opposed Clark's ordination, they do so because:

1. The decision to waive the requirement of two years of study in a theological seminary for Clark.
2. A special meeting was called to confer Clark, which was clearly against the Synod's rules since 1700's to 1944.

Immediately, Van Til and the others addressed the main issue with Clark's views in their Complaint to the Synod:

"The Christian doctrine of the knowledge of God is distinguished as well by its affirmation of the incomprehensibility of God as by its assertion of his knowability. The point does not need to be labored that the knowability of God lies at the very foundation of Christianity. That God can be known, and that he has given a knowledge of himself through his works and words, is pervasively taught in the Scriptures. The possibility and actuality of true religion depend upon the light and truth which God communicates to men. Skepticism and agnosticism are thoroughly anti-Christian."

Note that the complaint specifically says "the knowability of God lies at the very foundation of Christianity. That God can be known, and that he has given knowledge of himself through his works [read Rom 1:20] and words, is pervasively taught in the Scriptures."

Further...

"Now the judgment to which with deep sorrow we have been compelled to come is that the doctrine of the knowledge of God which was set forth before the Presbytery of Philadelphia by Dr. Clark is very far from being in agreement with the high view of Scripture and of the Confession and Catechisms as that has been expounded above. It is true indeed that Dr. Clark accepts the term “incomprehensible” as a quality of God. But the issue of course is not settled by the bare acceptance of the language of the standards. The modernists in our day have frequently indicated a readiness to accept the language of the historic creeds, but have reinterpreted that language to mean something sharply at variance with their historic meaning. It is our contention that Dr. Clark's view of the incomprehensibility of God is definitely at variance with the meaning that this doctrine has had in Christian theology."

Note that the Complaint says Clark's views actually have in converse, a low view of Scripture and of the Catechisms and Confession. It is alluded that Clark redefines terms, much as a "modernist" does. There is a reason the Van Til group was concerned with Clark's lack of a formal Christian education. Most of Clark's education was secular and in philosophy, not theology.

Continuing...

"We judge then that Dr. Clark's view of the incomprehensibility of God, as presented to the Presbytery of Philadelphia, is not a proper one. And that he is in error seems to be due to the fact that he does not approach the doctrine by way of an exegesis of Scripture. His approach, in the contrary, while admittedly taking into account certain teachings of Scripture, is to a large extent rationalistic. His argument is built up from certain principles derived from reason. One cannot expect a sound theology to proceed from a faulty method. In short, therefore, we hold that both the formulation of this doctrine and the method by which it is it is reached are out of harmony with orthodox Presbyterianism."

These were not minor issues the Van Til group had with Clark. Today, I often hear Clarkians act like Clark was a great theologian. No, he was a great rationalist philosopher dabbling in theology.

Further, while Van Til made clear that Clark is not a full blown humanist; Van Til did say:

"...when his position is compared with the teachings of the Bible, the Westminster Standards, and also with the writings of Reformed theologians, it unfortunately begins to appear that he is in grave danger of falling into the equally serious error of humanistic intellectualism. No Calvinisti would for a moment deny the tremendous importance of knowledge and of the intellect; a Calvinist might even say that knowledge is the first requirement of such a religious activity as faith. However, neither the Bible nor the standards nor the theologians of the Reformed tradition support such a view of the primacy of the intellect as that outlined above."

Again, Van Til sums up the seriousness of what Clark is advocating:

"To sum up briefly a few of the conclusions of this section, Dr. Clark's view of the primacy of the intellect is at serious variance with Scripture, with our standards, and with recognized Reformed writings, not only in the general concept of human psychology or of man's religious activity, but specifically in the doctrine of God's spiritual nature, in the doctrine of the image of God in man, in the doctrine of man's spiritual nature, in the doctrines of faith, repentance, and sanctification, in the doctrine of the covenant, in the doctrine of sin, particularly as regards its noetic effects, and in all the ethical implications of these doctrines. The variance is no minor matter; it is the product of a rationalistic dialectic. The approval or overlooking of such a variance is a matter of the utmost gravity."

On Clark's arrogance that he has single-handedly resolved the dilemma of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, Van Til had this to say:

"Here then is a situation which is inadequately described as amazing. There is a problem which has baffled the greatest theologians of history. Not even Holy Scripture offers a solution. But Dr. Clark asserts unblushingly that for his thinking the problem has ceased being a problem. Here is something phenomenal. What accounts for it? The most charitable, and no doubt the correct, explanation is that Dr. Clark has come under the spell of rationalism. It is difficult indeed to escape the conclusion that by his refusal to permit the scriptural teaching of divine sovereignty and the scriptural teaching of human responsibility to stand alongside each other and by his claim that he has fully reconciled them with each other before the bar of human reason Dr. Clark has fallen into the error of rationalism...it is clear that Dr. Clark regards Scripture from the viewpoint of a system which to the mind of man must be harmonious in all its parts. The inevitable outcome is rationalism in the interpretation of Scripture. And that too is rationalism. Although Dr. Clark does not claim actually to possess at the present moment the solution of every Scriptural paradox, yet his rationalism leaves room at best for only a temporary subjection of human reason to the divine Word."

In conclusion, Van Til clearly stated that Clark's views were at stark disagreement not only with the Reformed Faith, but with Christianity in general.

"It will appear from the above examination of the views of Dr. Clark as they were propounded to the Presbytery of Philadelphia that these errors are far from being peripheral. The very doctrine of God is undermined by a failure to maintain a qualitative distinction between the knowledge of God and the knowledge possible to man, thus denying the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God and impinging in a most serious fashion upon the transcendence of the Creator over the creature. The interpretation of Christianity as being fundamentally intellectualism subordinates the volition to the intellect in a manner that is flagrantly in violation of the teaching of Scripture and of the Reformed theology...Nor do these errors concern only isolated details. In all of these matters there is manifest a rationalistic approach to Christian theology. The highest activity in man is the intellectual activity; his highest goal is the intellectual contemplation of God."

And lastly, Van Til says:

"And, even though he speaks of the infinity of God's knowledge, he does not rise above a quantitative distinction between the content of the knowledge of God and the content of the knowledge which man may possess. And in pursuance of his effort to penetrate into the mind of God he sets aside, or attempts to set aside, by resort to reason, the paradoxes which Reformed theology has recognized as existing for the human mind between the divine foreordination and human responsibility and between predestination and the divine offer of salvation to all men, with the consequences that the doctrines of human responsibility and of the free offer of salvation to all fail to be set forth in any adequate way. These innovations are then not curiosities of an innocent sort, but concern some of the most central doctrines of the Christian faith, including even the all-decisive subject of the doctrine of God. And the result of this rationalistic approach to theology is a failure to maintain the balanced, comprehensively Biblical, character of historic, classic Calvinism which is set forth in the standards of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church."

SOURCE: http://godshammer.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the-complaint.pdf