Gordon Clark's Philosophy

Dr. Gordon H. Clark argues there is no tabula rasa (i.e. blank slate). Man is the image of God-- and as such, consciously rational--in contrast to animals. Hence, man is able to use signs to refer to thoughts. Language is formed a priori not a posteriori. All forms of empiricism are objectionable since sensations suffer: (1) ambiguity, (2) unreliability, and (3) relativity. Therefore, knowledge (i.e. the propositions of Scripture) is revealed, directly or indirectly, via the Divine Logos, Christ. It is limited to only those propositions deduced from Scripture.

Clark doesn't explain precisely how knowledge is revealed. Is it by telepathy? Does man create language as it reflects God? If so, does this not entail Adam had an actual private language (at one point in time)? Does not a private language entail self-knowledge? If a private language is denied, then language is a social construct, then how can there be agreement between symbols that matches thoughts without self-knowledge? How precisely does first order knowledge (e.g. I know P) refute Skepticism, if second order knowledge (e.g. I know that I know P) is denied? Moreover, how is skepticism circumvented if there is no standard to confirm language and thoughts match? If Clark appeals to the Divine Logos to prevent skepticism, does not Christian empiricists (e.g. Representational realists) have the same option?
 
Clark's demand for a definition of sensations is reasonable. Yet it is not necessary to define sensations in order to possess prima facie warrant to believe in sensations. It strikes me as a category mistake to require a definition of sensations in terms of logic and math. (e.g. Rationalism requires empiricism to provide definitions in terms of Rationalism or Empiricism contend Rationalism provide an definition in terms of empiricism).The traditional definition of sensations is a non-propositional experience possessed by an experiencing subject. Further distinctions are made in philosophy of perception (e.g. Seeing, seeing as, and seeing that). Thomas Reid makes a helpful point that sensations cannot be reduced to a mere logical definition. Hence, my charge that Clark seems to make a category mistake (e.g. The smell of logic). I think sensations and/or experiences are irreducible to a mere logical definition but that is not to render them unintelligible. For example, we can make sense of the sensation of pain but pain is not reducible to C-fiber stimulation or a mere logical definition (e.g. A person experiences the sensation of pain iff a person's physical body functions properly to interact with the mind in which the mind is aware " I am in pain."

Clark states God causes us to believe in Christianity. In what sense does God 'cause' us to believe? Obviously Clark excludes any empirical method. It's like saying, "I don't know what a 2017 Honda Civic looks like but it doesn't look like that! Clark does narrow what he considers how God 'causes' us to know. It reminds me of the brain in a vat thought experiment. We are to suppose the possibility of a person existing as a brain in a vat. Next, we are to envision an agent (often a mad scientist or demon--take your pick) is the primary efficient cause of the person's beliefs by electrodes. This thought experiment is often leveled in favor of skepticism. The warrant for beliefs is argued to be underdetermined.  Any argument put forward against such skepticism is argued to be based upon beliefs from the agent (presupposing skepticism). I wish to make two points. First, 'cause' deals primarily with metaphysics and ''beliefs' deal with epistemology. If it is granted a causal process produces beliefs then beliefs are not acquired merely for their truth-value but due to the intentionality of an agent. Second, this view seems to commit the genetic fallacy. If one traces the belief to its origin this does not make it true nor false. Furthermore, it commits the naturalistic fallacy. It confuses what 'is' the case (e.g. I believe P) for what 'ought' to be the case (e.g. I ought to believe P). Thomas Reid, the Old Princeton tradition and arguably Plantinga would argue directly a posteriori with properly functioning cognitive faculties. My point is to demand a definition of experiences, e.g. experiencing the color red, such a request seems to confuse categories on the one hand and denies any limit to the extent of how far such a demand can be met.  

(1) If Clark's metaphysics is deduced from his epistemology then his epistemology can be understood from his metaphysics.

(2) Clark's metaphysics is deduced from his epistemology 

(3) Therefore, Clark's epistemology can be understood from his metaphysics. 

In Clark's metaphysics propositions are the object of thought and knowledge not things. The only logically possible world is the actual world. God actualized the actual world comprised of propositions (that can be further reduced to subjects and predicates). All propositions are logically necessary. But some, if not all, propositions are necessarily instantiated (in virtue of necessitarianism). Each proposition is necessarily true. 

Each person is (i.e. in the sense of identity) a set of propositions. Any given person is what he/she thinks. I think it can be argued Dr. Clark's system may be properly associated with epistemic foundationalism, accessible internalism, infallibilism, metaphysical realism and a coherentism theory of truth. But in particular on epistemic justification an argument can be formulated in favor of some form of internalism:   

(1) If Clark affirmed some form of reliabilism/externalism then a person is warranted/rational to believe X, independent of any accessible reasons.

(1a)  If any given belief must be deduced by its axiom to be justified then Clark affirmed any given system of beliefs must be logically deduced from its axiom to be justified.

(1b) Any given belief must be deduced by its axiom to be justified.

(1c) Clark affirmed any given system of beliefs must be logically deduced from its axiom to be justified.

(1d) Logical deduction either requires mental awareness or mental unawareness

(1e) not mental unawareness 

(1f) mental awareness 

(2) A person is not warranted/rational to believe X, independent of any accessible reasons.

(3) Clark did not affirm some form of reliabilism/externalism.

Premise (2) can be demonstrated by Clark's critical analysis of ideas contrary to his. He didn't simply level objections/defeaters. He demanded reasons from his opponents. Clark argued against any position that allowed for the possibility of skepticism. Reliabilism/externalism argues a belief is warranted without conscious awareness, if and only if any given belief is produced by a reliable belief forming process, in the absence of defeaters. But this does not assail skepticism since a person would need to "know" all his/her beliefs are produced by a reliable belief forming process to avoid skepticism. This will not do for Clark. Also, the doctrine of divine simplicity entails some form of internalism (e.g. epistemic mentalism). God's omniscience flows from His decrees. In other words, divine foreknowledge is grounded in divine foreordaination.   

  

The DNA of Church

The DNA of Church

Churches have an organic make up that come in different shapes and sizes. They are communities of Christians that gather for preaching, worship, and fellowship. Some are conservatively small congregations while others are magnificently large. Church members can vary in age, ethnicity and socio-economic status. But each church is to have the same basic DNA as a Biblical church. Exegetical/expository preaching that makes the main point of a sermon the main point of the biblical text. It is verse-by-verse teaching with careful concern for the original languages words, tenses and cases. 

 There is to be accountability among pastors, deacons and members. Protecting and preserving one another in the faith. Bearing each other's burdens. This is all possible in a church with membership, discipleship and discipline. In order to develop biblical theology, godly affections and virtues, to the glory of God. 

Dangers of Churches 

(1) Theologically shallow. 

(2) Frequent low proficiency in exegesis, expository preaching and biblical theology. 

(3) Insecurity in Biblical theology thus susceptible to false teachings.  

(4) Biblical Trinitarian monotheism practically denied with subordination of the Father and Son to the Holy Spirit.

(5) Idolization of Spiritual Gifts. 

(6) Topical preaching with homiletics driven by a topic or idea outside of scriptures that is read back into the Bible for support via proof-texting. 

(7) Simple sermons to the congregation instead of gradually lifting up the congregation to greater and deeper insights of the Bible's complexity, beauty and elegance.

(8) Good works are absent. 

(9) Love is replaced with pride or fear. 

(10) There is concentration of either Biblical theology, worship or service over integration. 

Healthy Churches

Our local Christian newspaper has kindly agreed to publish this:

Contemporary churches often specialize in either expository preaching, heartfelt worship or community service.  This tends to attract specific people to churches that pique their interests. Churches are treated much like college universities where people can select their major field of study to the neglect of other fields. The results are stark. The churches operate under an imbalanced ministry. Only the mind, heart or hand is developed. Hence an emphasis is placed on knowledge, experience or morality. Polarization ensues toward intellectualism, emotionalism or moralism. 

The potential bitter fruits of such imbalances are rationalism, irrationalism or legalism. The beauty of the gospel is overlooked. Imbalances diminish the gospel but with God's sovereign grace in the gospel, stability can be attained. Jesus came to rescues us from our sins of pride, fear, and insecurity. He died on the cross, resurrected on third day, to pay the penalty for sins. So in him is our knowledge, motivation and efforts. In him we find all that we need to balance our affections, goals and works. The priority to love God first reverses the adverse effects of such imbalances. Exegetical preaching, worship and service are understood as interdependent. Each reinforces the other. The proper order should be biblical theology births doxology and evidences good works. 

Please take the time to pray for the local pastors and churches in our area to thrive with balanced ministries to reach the world with the gospel. 

New Covenant Apologetics

Uniqueness of Christianity

Some of the reasons Christianity is not just better than alternative worldviews but necessary: 

1. The unity (one) and diversity (many) we encounter in human thought and experience is explained by the Trinity. God created both to reflect his nature. 

2. The eternal love of God is possible since God is eternally three persons yet one essence that share in eternal love (the good of another person) between each person. 

3. The justice of God is preserved yet satisfied in the love and justice of God satisfied in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross. This shows we are truly loved by God and leaves no room for fear or insecurity: we boldly can come to God through the cross, no room for boasting or self-righteousness, we are so sinful God himself had to absorb the wrath our sin deserves. 

4. Salvation by grace alone.

5. The Bible is primarily the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God; secondarily it is historically reliable with one theme of redemption that surpasses all criticism. (SNAP: Sufficient, Necessary, Authority, and Perspicuity ) It gives us us the only worldview that is coherent, consistent, with rich explanatory power and scope. Transforms our experiences and consciences,  gives us authentic hope, and fulfillment that is livable. 

7. The Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (e.g. His death, burial, empty tomb, resurrection appearances to various people, changed lives by the resurrected Christ in the face of religious/political opposition, martyrdom of his disciples for their faith).

8. Objective moral values/duties, human dignity and beauty that are universally binding upon all people independent of their personal beliefs; all of these are given either as commandments or essential to nature from God that reflect His love, and goodness. 

A Denied Christian Newspaper Article

I submitted an article for the local Christian Newspaper Ministry with the hopes that it would be a featured article. Surprisingly, the editor rejected my submission on the basis that it didn't reach the targeted audience and was too overly academic; the editor said something to the extent that "the article would make a great theology paper." You be the judge if I am too overly academic or simply biblical.    

Biblical Apologetics

           As the advocates of the New Atheism rant in books that sweep the American popular culture, what are Christians doing to counter act this movement? In the first epistle of Peter, the Apostle Peter encourages Christians scattered in Asia Minor to endure suffering and persecution.  In chapter three, he, then instructs Christians to “ sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always [being] ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame (1 Peter 3:15-16, NASB). Christians are commanded here, by God, to set Christ apart as Lord over their hearts, and to be prepared always to rationally defend the Christian faith in gentleness, humility and respect. Our defense, behavior, and lifestyle should consistently honor Christ as Lord to put the nonbelievers’ false accusations to shame.

These verses tell us our starting point in defending the faith must honor Christ as Lord. We cannot talk with nonbelievers in a way that dishonors Jesus. So our approach must transparently honor Christ as Lord and Savior. We cannot be closet Christians in our arguments and lifestyles. We either defend the Christian faith or betray it. We either defend the Triune God of the Bible or we defend idols of the heart. As our Lord Jesus plainly said, “He who is not with Me is against Me…”(Matthew 12:30). Many Christians today are attempting to be faithful to Jesus by defending the Christian faith. But the problem is they are defending the faith at the cost of denying Christ as Lord. They are telling nonbelievers to judge God and the Bible by limited human reason. They have implicitly consented in arguments, God is on trial and, the nonbelievers are the judges and jury. Christians argue as though nonbelievers have the right to count up the evidences in favor of Christianity and then judge if it’s true. However the biblical teaching contradicts this. God alone intrinsically is the judge and jury, while the nonbelievers are on trial, regardless of their desperate attempts to hijack God’s judgment seat. The Bible tells us God is not to be tested (Luke 4:12). God is the source and standard of truth (John 17:17, Det 32:4, John 16:13). Yet such passages are read with no affect. Christians continue to argue for a generic theism or a probable God; but they do not argue for the certain Christian God.

With the above criticisms made, we must move to construct then, a biblical approach to defend the Christian faith against the New Atheism. There are at least two fundamental principles that should set boundaries to the arguments we give to nonbelievers. The first is the no-neutrality principle that states Christians should not be neutral in word, thought, and deed, (including any argument) in commitment to the truthfulness of Christianity. Implicitly, this means Christians will not pretend Christianity is false with nonbelievers and then seek to prove Christianity from pretended disbelief to belief. The second principle, the no-autonomy principle, flows from the commitment to the truth of Christianity. It articulates, and reserves, the right to judge truth claims solely to God. Only God and His Word are our ultimate authority and standard for every facet of life. This runs counter to the idea man is autonomous, and, in turn, is the standard of all things. We are to transparently presuppose, proclaim, and argue from the necessity and authority of God’s revelation in Scripture and nature. 

Ideally, then, every argument we make to defend the Christian faith in some way should conform to these principles. If we stick to these biblical principles then we will effectively practice apologetics to the glory of God. 

Tips for Apologetics

1.     Study: Study and memorize the Bible, Systematic Theology, Evangelism and Apologetics to know what you believe, so you can Biblically preach and defend it. Apologetics presupposes Theology, and Evangelism. One cannot properly engage in Biblical Apologetics without engaging in Biblical Theology with the goal of Evangelism.

2.     Prayer: In apologetics one’s defense is only as good as one’s offense. So both study and prayer must be properly indulged in first before engaging in apologetics with the unregenerate. Remember all men have a sufficient knowledge of God but suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Only God can open the nonbeliever’s eyes so we ought to pray God would do so in our apologetic encounters. Apologetics can only show the foolishness of rejecting the gospel. But God can make the gospel and our defense effective.

3.     Respect: Respect the unregenerate as made in the image of God. Don’t assume you know what the nonbeliever believes even if he associates himself with a particular religion. Let the unbeliever articulate his views and arguments. When refuting the unbeliever always refute and articulate the nonbeliever’s position accurately. Further, always refute the strongest argument the unbeliever can make in favor of his position.

4.     Wisdom: When dealing with the unbeliever’s arguments against or from the Bible always read the scriptures in context and look up the original Hebrew or Greek meaning. Since often times the unbeliever takes scriptures out of context or twists the original meaning of any given passage.  Moreover, we should anticipate the unbeliever’s objections and arguments.

5.     Fellowship: Talk among believers about theology, evangelism, and apologetics. Fellow Christians can learn and encourage one another. Christians possess resources, skills, and experiences that can be shared to proclaim and defend the faith.     

Apologetics Multimedia Recommendations

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, Way of the Master.

Sye Ten Bruggencate, How to Answer the Fool.

Jason Lisle, Nuclear Strength Apologetics.

Apologetics Book Recommendations

Jason Lisle, The Ultimate Proof of Creation: resolving the origins debate (Master, 2009)

John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (P&R, 1994).

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (Dutton,

2008).

Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready (Covenant Media Foundation, 1996)

Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons: An Integrative

Approach to Defending Christianity (Paternoster, 2nd edition, 2006).