Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Jack Larrane
Sydney 2011
First published: December 2001 Second edition: July 2007 Expanded edition: May 2011 FSBN X 123456 78 9 X
Typeset, printed and bound at The iLaser e-Print Publishing Company Pty. Ltd., Sydney, Australia.
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3 Analysis ............................................................................................................. 5
Clark and Van Tils proof of Gods Existence.......................................................5 Clarks Objection ......................................................................................................5 Proposed Approach ................................................................................................. 6 Controlling Concepts............................................................................................... 6 The Details ................................................................................................................7 Key Thought: Impossibility of the Contrary ....................................................... 8 Key Thought: The Truth-Logic Complex ..............................................................10 Rationality: Impossibility of the Contrary .........................................................10 Truth: Impossibility of the contrary ...................................................................10 Logic: Impossibility of the Contrary ................................................................... 11 Form ........................................................................................................................ 12 Validity .................................................................................................................... 13 Common Errors ...................................................................................................... 14 1) Logic as a synonym for truth.......................................................................... 14 2) Truth, facts, data or theory as a synonym for practice ................................. 15 3) The charge of vicious circularity.................................................................... 16 4) Psychology is logic.......................................................................................... 17 5) Practice is logic ...............................................................................................18 6) The charge of induction .................................................................................18 An Interim Recap .................................................................................................. 20 Category Error ....................................................................................................... 22 The TAG Proof: First Attempt .............................................................................. 22 Objections to the First Attempt ............................................................................ 23
Synthesis ......................................................................................................... 24
Additional Explanations ....................................................................................... 24 1) Rationality ...................................................................................................... 24 2) God ................................................................................................................. 25
Page - i
Imperative: We must return to our Starting Principles..................................... 26 Imperative: Our Axioms Must Include All Key Concepts ................................... 29 Yet another Objection ............................................................................................ 31 The Answer ............................................................................................................. 31 1) God is Truth ................................................................................................... 32 2) God is Logic ................................................................................................... 33 3) Logic is not autonomous, prior or external to God ..................................... 35 The TAG Proof: Second Attempt .......................................................................... 35 The TAG Proof: Simplified.................................................................................... 36 How do we Know that the Bible is True? ..............................................................37 Does This Beg All Questions? ............................................................................... 40 More Objections to the Second TAG attempt ....................................................... 41 1) Not Compelling? ............................................................................................. 41 2) Uncertain? ..................................................................................................... 42 3) Confused? ...................................................................................................... 42 4) Burden of Proof? ........................................................................................... 42 5) Any More?...................................................................................................... 43 Yet More Objections: Return to Starting Principles........................................... 44 Biases and Neutrality ............................................................................................ 46 Critics Implicit Hostility........................................................................................47 Critics own Petitio Principii ................................................................................. 48 Where to Next? ...................................................................................................... 49 The TAG Proof fails after all .............................................................................. 50 The Christians Final Answer ................................................................................ 52 Fideism and Irrationalism? .................................................................................. 53 The TAG Proof in Apologetics ...............................................................................57 Old Objection Revisited: Why bother?! ............................................................... 59 Apologetic Task ..................................................................................................... 65 Closing Remarks.................................................................................................... 70
Postscript ........................................................................................................ 73
Noetic effect of the Fall ..........................................................................................73
Page - ii
Introduction
Dr. Gordon Clark was a Christian philosopher, theologian and educator. He is the author of over 40 books, as well as over 200 articles, and many book reviews and letters in various publications. He taught for 60+ years in many colleges and seminaries. In this way, he has been a shaping influence on many well-known Christian thinkers. As a teacher, he affected the thought of 00s of students, including of this author, who has thoroughly enjoyed and benefited greatly from Dr. Clarks work for many decades now. Dr. Clark passed away in 1984, but most of his works are available from The Trinity Foundation.1 Dr. Clarks output covers many aspects of biblical Christianity. Of these, a most important area and one of intense, life-long interest to Dr. Clark was the study of epistemology. Epistemology is the science or study of knowledge; what is knowledge, how do we know what we may think we know and so on. Dr. Clark claimed that only on the basis of Gods Revelation is any knowledge even possible. As we shall see, biblical Christianity is rational and reasonable precisely because Bible is Gods revelation. We will discuss this in detail. We will discuss what a proof is, including the proof that God exists, the so-called Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG). Please note that TAG is not of central or primary interest to our work. The discussion of TAG is only as a vehicle, as the UNIFYING THEME to raise and tie together many of Dr. Clarks insights and ideas. These are deep yet surprisingly simple, but at the same time they are crucial to all world-views and systems of thought, whether these are Christian or not. It is these ideas and insights we wish to focus on, explain and apply. The TAG proof is simply our running example, which we will use to clarify key points along the way. We urge the reader not to fall into the trap of thinking the TAG proof as such is what this work argues for or defends.
The Trinity Foundation details as of May 2011 are, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/ Post Office 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692; Phone: 423.743.0199 There is a Yahoo Group unrelated to the Trinity Foundation that discusses issues raised in this monograph and much more: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GHCLark_List1/
Page - 3
Introduction
We also urge all not to focus on the controversy that even today still rages among movement-like factions of Dr. Clark and Dr. Van Til. For the purpose of our work, the controversy is entirely incidental. We can only say over and again that our main purpose is to explain Dr. Clarks key insights by using TAG as a concrete example of how they work in actual practice and in ALL of our arguments, without exception. We wish to explain those ideas in a way that makes them accessible to the ordinary person, who might not otherwise bother to consider them or even read them in the first place. Nevertheless, because it is our theme, we will discuss TAG also. The TAG claim is certain to be controversial for many, but especially for those friends of Dr. Clark, who have a movement-like, uncritical devotion to Dr. Clark an attitude, which we are certain Dr. Clark would abhor, rebuke and firmly disavow as unbiblical. Dr. Clark would be first to admonish those of his followers that it is not him or his ideas but the truth of the matter we are to seek, follow and defend. He would remind all that, For while one says, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. (1 Cor. 3:4-6) Dr. Clark also encouraged and would applaud that all biblical Christians should obey Apostle Pauls call to critically test and examine all truth claims: Dr. Clarks, the present authors or even those of an angel. We hope that not just students of Christianity will benefit from studying Dr. Clarks work. We hope all people, friend or foe and critics of Dr. Clark and of Christianity will benefit from this work, by seeing what it is they do also what it is they too cannot escape in their life. After reading this work, if readers continue to reject biblical Christianity or TAG, still the author hopes they will have gained a better understanding of what it is that in fact drives and lies hidden deep in their own thought and what in fact is the true source of their objections. In this spirit, we invite the reader to come and let us reason together.
- o0o -
Page - 4
Analysis
Clark and Van Tils proof of Gods Existence
We can be sure it was not Clarks intent, but in his writings he defended Van Tils alleged proof of Gods existence as this author understands Clarks works. The irony here is that some of Van Tils best-known champions, like Greg Bahnsen, mocked in Clarks work the very building blocks of the TAG proof that Van Til said was possible though Van Til never provided it.
Clarks Objection
We do not deny that Clark objected to Van Tils view of the TAG proof. For example, Clark wrote,
Van Til replied in A Christian Theory of Knowledge (291-292) and charged Buswell with formulating the argument improperly. Quoting partly from one of his earlier works, Common Grace, he says: The argument for the existence of God [TAG] and for the truth of Christianity is objectively valid. We should not tone down the validity of this argument to possibility level. The argument may be poorly stated and may never be adequately stated. But in itself the argument is absolutely sound... Accordingly I do not reject theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as not to compromise the Scripture. That is to say, if theistic proof is constructed as it ought to be constructed, [TAG] is objectively valid. This assertion that the cosmological argument is valid, absolutely sound, a formal demonstration, and not merely a probability argument does not hold true of any cosmological argument published in any book. Van Til pays no attention to the fallacies embedded in Thomas Aquinas. The argument he defends is one that no one has ever yet written. But how does he know that it is possible to formulate this ideal argument? What is the argument he defends? He says he insists on formulating it correctly. For many years some of Van Tils contemporaries have been challenging him to produce this reformulation he insists upon. He has not done so.2
Page - 5
Analysis
Note well that Van Til always demanded a condition along the lines of I do not reject theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating [the proofs] in such a way as not to compromise the Scripture. It seems Van Til never gave the proof he claimed was possible. Perhaps it was only his intuition. For now, the answer is immaterial. What matters is that Clark essentially laid the foundation precisely for the very kind of proof Van Til thought was possible. To this writer it is clear that Clark made the argument, although its key components are sprinkled throughout his works. But, the argument is implicitly there, even though it does not use the typical language of the TAG proof. In other words, we do not say Clark articulated, much less defended the TAG proof directly or obviously in any one place, or that Clark intentionally set out to build the TAG as his objective. But, Clark put all the key pieces on the table. In effect, Clark explained how a scriptural TAG is and ought to be constructed. In fact, using only different words, Clark explained clearly how it is that any Christian can prove that the God of the Bible exists. That is, Clark showed the TAG proof exactly for what it is, when Van Til says, if theistic proof is constructed as it ought to be constructed [so as not to compromise the Bible] it is objectively valid. Also, on this writers view, Clark explains why it is that Clark agrees with Van Til, even though Clark attacked the very idea of a TAG proof. We will show why there is no self-contradiction in this at all.
Proposed Approach
Our method will be to lay out how it is that Clark made the argument. To allow scrutiny of our claim, we will list some key concepts, which Clark and Van Til insisted must be in place first. Then we will review them as a whole in what appears to form a coherent system that shows how the pieces amount to and defend the TAG proof in Clarks terms. Any reasonably informed person about Clarks views will see this list and many of our steps as only repeating the patently obvious. But, it is critical that we spell out exactly what is under dispute and what is not.
Controlling Concepts
Clark urged that certain concepts, which he insisted the Bible taught, must always control all of our thinking. Sadly, Clark was attacked and even mocked for defending these concepts as biblical ideas. As a result, Clark was accused of everything from fideism, rationalism, skepticism and all in between not empiricism; most critics of Clark usually get that right.
Page - 6
Analysis
Our analysis begins by quoting one of Clarks more controversial claims, or rather a deliberately provocative translation, which Clark made in his works, In the beginning was Logic... and Logic was God, and again, God and logic are one and the same first principle.3 There it is; the TAG proof is done. The rest of this monograph will simply fill in the details. In fact, as all formally valid arguments are, this monograph too yet again will only exemplify what we will explain next is impossible to avoid or escape; no one, no, not even God can avoid or escape it.
The Details
Clarks provocative translation of John 1:1 is usually misunderstood and often misrepresented to a point of intentional lies and slander. Here is more of the context, which Clark had in mind when he gave his translation,
[P]rologue to Johns Gospel may be paraphrased, In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God... In logic was life and the life was the light of men. This paraphrase in fact, this translation may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout persons distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain... Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti-intellectualistic accusation of reducing God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom. Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic.4
Of course, Clark wrote far more on this. But the above already identifies some key thoughts that are crucial to the TAG proof: The God of the Bible is a Rational Mind who chose to reveal himself in Truth.
3 4 Clark, God and Logic, The Trinity Review, Nov/Dec 1980; italics in the original. Clark, ibid. Or again, why should to say Christ is Wisdom or Reason be more offensive than to say Christ is the Word?
Page - 7
Analysis
The real question is what kind of dogmatist or presuppositionalist we are! That is, what are our presuppositions that we hold dogmatically? Or consider these: To claim we have NO bias or vested interest is already to betray a bias and that we have a vested interest. To claim that NO truth exists, is already to assert one truth. To claim that NO absolute truth exists or that all truth is relative is already to assert at least one absolute, non-relative truth. To claim we cannot know any truth is already to claim we can and do know at least one truth. To claim there is such a thing as non-propositional truth; yet it cannot be explained or discussed except propositionally and no example is ever given. Indeed, a non-propositional truth is an oxymoron.
Clark, Classical Apologetics, The Trinity Review, September/October 1985. Dogmatism is a technical term, here used as a synonym for presuppositionalism; every start is asserted dogmatically, without prior proofs. Dogmatism should not be confused with the pejorative and propaganda use of the word.
Page - 8
Analysis
Also, a lone word, say, dog is neither true nor false. A lone word makes no truth claim, unless we intend it elliptically. If so, when fully articulated, it is again a proposition, which in principle is either true or false. Or again: To reject the so-called Three Laws of Thought, or worse, to try to prove via a logical argument that the Three Laws of Thought do not hold or are purely conventional etc. is already to adopt and use those very same Three Laws of Thought. 6 To reject language and possibility of rational communication is already to carry on rational communication and to use language. The claim all language is metaphorical and/or meaningless, expects to be taken literally and with a very definite meaning. We could give many more examples to illustrate the impossibility of the contrary. The truths these claims try to deny are always included among starting principles by all sane men. Even if this is not explicitly recognised, in actual reasoning the truths are applied. They must be first assumed as true, to then attack and reject them as false. They are self-justifying to the critic and advocate alike. They are axiomatic. All axioms are and must be taken as self-attesting and self-authenticating by their advocates. Here it is very relevant to note that all axioms are chosen! That is, axioms are not first proven by some prior arguments and only then we decide to choose them; absolutely not. As Clark puts it, Axioms can never be conclusions [of prior proofs].7 If such axioms were conclusions of prior proofs then those proofs would be in fact that persons real axioms and start. One cannot start unless, well, unless one starts. And right at that start stand our axioms. As we will see, our starting principles or axioms play THE most profound role in most matters, but in our reasoning above all. 8
7 8
For now note the Laws in view are the Law of Identity (a thing is what it is), Law of (non) Contradiction (a thing cannot be at the exact same time and in the exact same sense also what it is not) and the Law of Excluded Middle (a thing either is what it is or it is what it is not; that is, there is no third or middle option). Clark, pg. 98, Language and Theology, 1993 For Van Til a starting point or presupposition all mean essentially the same as Clarks axiom or starting principles and so on. All the terms intend to denote a prior belief or set of beliefs, which govern all other subsequent beliefs.
Page - 9
Analysis
Page - 10
Analysis
The disputed question here is over the authoritative source of Truth. For Clark and this author, we can answer this question can properly answer it only in the context of our axioms. We will return to this later.
For example, in intuitionistic logic, the Law of Excluded Middle is not one of its axioms.
Page - 11
Analysis
if 2 = 3 = 4, not only do zoology and mathematics disappear, Victor Hugo and Johann Wolfgang Goethe also disappear Even so, without logic, Goethe could not have attacked the logic of John's Gospel.10
To state and grasp the meaning of any formal logic languages rule, even its very first axiom, it is essential that this axiom or rule: 1) Means what it means the Law of Identity is in use, 2) Does not mean at the exact same time and in the exact same sense what it does not mean the Law of Contradiction is in use, and 3) Either means what it means or it does not mean it; there is no third or middle option the Law of Excluded Middle is in use. This is true for every single element and aspect of that logic language; for its every axiom, every term and connective, every definition, formation rule and so on. This is just as true for every single logic language, even those that explicitly reject the formal inclusion of one these three Laws as an axiom. In order to reject formally any of the Laws, we must informally first accept and then use those very same Laws to formulate the logic language!
Form
Logic, deductive logic, is a formal science of necessary inference. This means that Logic per se is empty. It has forms, rules and processes etc. But Logics forms have no real content as such. That is, how we are to play the musical notes, how fast, how loud, how vigorously and so on, none of this tells us what the actual notes are, which we are to play when we play a musical piece. For the notes, the content or the material, for the truth of a premise or claim, we need to look to the source of that content or material, say, to the composer and not to Logic. That is, Logic per se is not about data or content or truth claims etc. Nor can Logic say if our premises, the material of our reasoning, are in fact true. Terms in Logic are like terms in, say, Algebra. Consider 1a + 2b. The letters a and b can stand for apples, bananas, oranges or unicorns. The letters a and b are just signs, tokens, or placeholders used purely for our convenience. In the formal sense, Logic is purely hypothetical. Logic operates on the principle: If this is true, Then that follows necessarily. 11
10 Clark, God and Logic 11 See Clark, pg. 89, Logic, 1988. Also, see pg. 134, Both categorical and hypothetical syllogisms are categorical and hypothetical hypothetical because logic does not
Page - 12
Analysis
Consider If All A is B, and If All B is C, then it follows necessarily that All A is C. It is impossible for it to be otherwise: It is the impossibility of the contrary again. The letters a and b or A, B and C are just tokens, signs or placeholders for anything we want. The letters a or B could have been blb, aJHbgW or words in English or in any other language, for all it matters to Logic. The signs are purely pragmatic and conventional. We can use any tokens we want, as long as we use them consistently throughout any one argument.
Validity
Logic is about thinking correctly. It rules the inferences in our reasoning. Logic shows us which inferences are valid, that is, which conclusions follow necessarily from given premises of an argument. Strictly speaking, a valid argument only makes evident how the premises are connected. As such, the conclusion in every formally valid argument is already contained in its premises, as it were. This is utterly crucial to all formally valid arguments. Every formally valid argument in the end reduces to a petitio principii12 once we grasp and eliminate all the in-between steps and links. It is logically impossible not to be so. It is the impossibility of the contrary yet again. This work will prove itself yet another petitio principii. We will make this fact blatantly obvious later on. The fact that all formally valid arguments are just a petitio principii is not something that makes deductive reasoning useless. Indeed, formally valid arguments are psychologically very valuable and ought to be provided! As Clark explains,
The conclusion is always logically contained (in the valid moods), but it is not always contained psychologically. That is to say, a person by putting
assert the truth of a premise. 12 Petitio principii means to assume the initial or starting point or principle. Because of this, it is also often called the fallacy of begging the question or a circular argument. The proposition to be proved as true by the argument is implicitly assumed and declared as true at least in one of the premises, using only different words. But since different words are used in the premises to those used in the conclusion, this gives the impression that the premises did indeed prove the conclusion. In fact, the argument is only arguing in a circle, and so it begs the audience to accept the conclusion as if it was proven. But, a petitio principii is not a formal fallacy. As an argument, it is NOT compelling to any who REJECT its premises, and it is redundant to any who ACCEPT its premises. Yet, it would be fatal and end all rational communication if a petitio principii was genuinely invalid and a formal fallacy. Every petitio principii formally is a perfectly valid argument.
Page - 13
Analysis
together two pieces of information he knows may derive a third proposition he has not been aware of.13
And it is just so with Clarks own works regarding TAG! By putting together key thoughts from Clarks works, it is this authors claim that we have not been aware that Clark provided the very essence of what Van Til said was possible: A scriptural TAG proof. That is, a scriptural TAG proof is logically contained in Clarks works, even if psychologically this is not yet obvious to most people.
Common Errors
At this point, it is important to note some fatal, but very common errors and confusion that plague these discussions. 1) Logic as a synonym for truth Many frequently confuse truth with validity. They refer to arguments as true. Of course, colloquially and metaphorically we can use the word true even though we only mean it as a synonym for valid in its technical sense. But, properly speaking, truth is never the same as validity. Arguments are valid or invalid, strong or weak, sound or unsound. They are never true or false. Only its premises and conclusions can be true or false. If we want to think and reason clearly, then we must not confuse the HOW of a proof with the WHAT of a proof. Logic as a process or method of itself never asserts the Truth of anything. The Truth of any matter or a claim is for authoritative sources to determine. It is never for Logic to declare or decide. Further, valid arguments can have premises as well as conclusions that are false or true. This too does not lessen value of Logic in the least. Recall Logic is hypothetical; it is all about If this ... Then that, for example: If All humans are mortal beings, and If Socrates is a human, Then it necessarily follows that Socrates is a mortal being. Or, If All fish are barking things, and If Fido (a dog) is a fish, Then it necessarily follows that Fido (a dog) is a barking thing.
Page - 14
Analysis
Logic per se does not say that all humans are mortal or that Socrates is a human. Socrates can be a human, a rock, or just a fictitious character in a book, for all it matters to Logic. Logic does not say what to be mortal is. The same is true with fish and Fido or false premises and true conclusions. Logic per se could not care less about any of these things. A closely related error is to look to or give Logic the power to establish if anything exists. That is, Logic does not ever assert, much less defend that humans and Socrates or fish and Fido in fact exist materially as concrete, tangible, or actual physical things. In Logic, everything exists formally. But, not all things that exist formally also exist materially. Yet the material, tangible existence is what most people nearly always have in mind and confuse here.14 But, formal existence only is all that matters in the present context. 2) Truth, facts, data or theory as a synonym for practice Many frequently confuse facts, theory or truth etc. of a matter or claim with the practice, application or with our conduct and so on. As Clark puts it, Speaking may be practical, but the truth spoken is theoretical.15 For example, theology (i.e. theory) declares what is a moral or immoral act (i.e. the morality of a practice). But, theology is quite distinct from the practice or conduct. That is, some theory always precedes practice or doing. Theory is first; the practice, conduct or doing is second. In this sense, every practice, conduct, or doing is ultimately the practice or application of some theory or other. The adage practice without theory is blind is cute and has some truth to it. But it is also misleading, because any practice already has some kind of theory behind it even if that theory is not fully articulated or acknowledged or even self-consistent and complete. Nonetheless, the practice or conduct is already an application of some prior theory or other. Further, all this says nothing about whether the theory is false or true. Just because a practice seems to work or delivers results, this does not make the underlying theory true. Many false theories work and deliver results. In principle of course, every theory or claim is either true or false, even if we may not know which it is, and though God alone knows. But the main
14 Of course, it necessarily follows that if anything exists materially, then ipso facto it exists formally also. 15 Clark, The Theologians Besetting Sin, The Trinity Review, March/April 1992
Page - 15
Analysis
point to grasp here is that vast bulk of theories simply cannot be practiced or done. They can be only believed or disbelieved to be true. For example, the theory or doctrine or truth claim Jesus is God is either believed or not believed to be true. Besides believing or disbelieving it, there is nothing more to apply, no practice to practice, no command to obey or for us to do something. To believe or not believe it is all that there is to it. Truth is and only can ever be believed. It is impossible to obey truth or do truth. We can obey only commands, laws or rules. We do not, and never can, obey truths. Truths are intellectually grasped. This intellectual understanding is then accepted or rejected. That is, we believe or do not believe. Thats it. Yet even commands and laws presuppose the Truth-Logic Complex. Without the Truth-Logic Complex, we could not understand them. That is, Rationality always comes first and laws or rules and commands with their doing and application come second. 3) The charge of vicious circularity Many often raise the charge of vicious circularity16 or a petitio principii fallacy as a decisive objection against claims they dislike. Among movement Clarkians, but not only among them, this is commonly seen in their attacks against the TAG. Ironically, even the best-known advocate and publisher of Clarks works, Dr. John Robbins most unwisely also raised this exact charge against the TAG proof. But a petitio principii is only an informal fallacy. Words like vicious are pure emotive propaganda words designed to influence the psychology of the audience. The power of the objection is wholly psychological; it has no logical force whatsoever. In fact, if the charge had any logical force, it would be self-refuting and destroy itself!
16 Some imagine that there is a technical sense, in which the phrase viciously circular can be used; that it refers to the immediate form or the direct kind of circularity or begging of the question that is involved. Others accept that an argument can be viciously circular, but they reject the charge about their argument by imagining hierarchies or they claim their argument is self-consistent or coheres with the so-called objective reality, and in this way, their argument avoids the circularity. But even if all that were so, all that the objections and attempts to escape the charge and all the forms of circularity reduce to is that the conclusion is still in some way assumed in one or more of the premises. Whether this circularity is immediate or direct, because it relies on just the one premise and then comes the conclusion; or whether the circularity is discovered only after hundreds of premises and intermediate conclusions are examined; the ultimate circularity of all logically valid arguments is utterly inescapable.
Page - 16
Analysis
This is because in every formally valid argument, the conclusion always follows necessarily from its premises; indeed, it must! Every formally valid argument must ultimately reduce deductively, and it always does, to a petitio principii. It is the impossibility of the contrary yet again! All deductively valid proofs no matter how long and detailed they are, with one, two or a thousand premises ultimately boil down to concluding with a claim, which essentially was implicitly asserted already as true by one or more of its premises. In fact, if a deductive argument did not ultimately reduce to a petitio principii, it would prove that the argument is formally invalid. It would show that its conclusion did not follow from its premises and so the conclusion had no logical legitimacy and force at all. Indeed, it is mandatory to all sound reasoning for every premise to imply itself; for every axiom to imply itself as a theorem. So, to object that every argument is ultimately a petitio principii is irrelevant. To show an argument is a petitio principii at best is the basis for a psychological objection. It is not the basis for a logical objection. Quite the reverse: To prove it is a petitio principii proves categorically that the argument is formally valid.17 What is really in dispute is not the validity of the TAG, but the truth of its premises. This immediately raises the next common error and confusion. 4) Psychology is logic Logic is about the methods, processes, rules, forms, validity etc.; about the formal HOW of deductive arguments and inferences. Psychology is about subjective and cognitive states, like emotions, likes, and dislikes, impressions, choices, convictions and so on. Psychologically, a formally valid argument may not impress or convince a person. Psychologically, many remain skeptical, even though a conclusion follows indubitably and inextricably from its premises. Indeed, to appeal to self-interest and use bribes, to employ emotive propaganda or just plain brute force is far more effective in persuading others psychologically, than it is to use Logic or deductive proofs and to reason validly. People often do not grasp psychologically what is irrefutable logically. And what some grasp at first glance, others do not get despite years of study.
17 This point is crucial to a proper understanding of the role that valid reasoning plays in proofs. For a clear and detailed explanation, see David Miller, Critical Rationalism, 1994, in particular Chapter 3. He explains about having good reasons vs. Reason! People who demand a proof almost always have no idea what a proof is, what it involves or what it actually does or can accomplish, if it is a valid proof.
Page - 17
Analysis
Many of Clarks advocates will reject the conclusion of this work, as they will not grasp psychologically what this author believes is irrefutably already contained logically in Clarks works. In other words, Logic is powerless in the face of psychology, whereas bribery or brute force is usually very effective to gain compliance and to enforce at least some outward agreement and submission. But bribery, brute force or psychology must not be confused with Logic. 18 5) Practice is logic We practice and apply Logic. But Logic is not the practice. A botanical investigation of itself is not the science of Botany per se. Laws and their application or practice (i.e. our compliance), are two distinct ideas. Laws, be it about Logic or sex, should not be confused with the violation of those laws, such as adultery or fallacious reasoning. We do not deny that we disobey laws or make mistakes and err in our practice of theories. But our errors, mistakes and disobedience do not change or annul the underlying laws, be it the laws of Logic or any other. Further, the burden of proof rests with those who believe that an error or mistake in our compliance or application has occurred, to show that in fact this is the case and to show the nature of the error. Any fool can cast doubts or make allegations. However, it is another matter to make the charges stick. By definition, the person who allegedly erred clearly does not see how or where he made the error. That is why the burden of proof rests with those who say they know where or how an error was made. It is up to them to show and explain it to those that do not see or understand. 6) The charge of induction Another charge commonly made against the TAG proof (and so against Clark and Van Til) is that it uses inductive processes to draw its conclusions. Earlier, we asserted the impossibility of the contrary of some claims. We used particular examples to illustrate our general point. But this practice must NOT be confused with or held out as an example of inductive reasoning to draw a universal conclusion from particulars. For example, some allege that Clark argues as follows:
18 It is vital to understand the limitation of reasoning to persuade or convince people. Valid arguments or so-called proofs cannot do what most people think they can do. For more, see an excellent essay by Miller, Do We Reason When We Think We Reason, or Do We Think? pg 57, Learning for Democracy, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2005.
Page - 18
Analysis
This and that non-Christian world-views are self-refuting, All non-Christian world-views tested so far were self-refuting, THEREFORE, All non-Christian views are and will be self-refuting. Indeed, if this inductive method was the way in which Clark or Van Til set up their arguments, then the objection would have great force! But, to put this inductive method into their mouths is to misunderstand and misrepresent what they actually do. The truth of the matter is exactly the very opposite of the charge. Both Clark and Van Til start with universals and necessity, and only then move to particulars. Clark always very clearly states that universals and necessity can only ever be a priori. We can never legitimately draw universals from particulars or by inductive processes. Nor can we ever validly conclude what ought to be from what is. Clark and Van Til start and work from there. So, their demolition of a proposed world-view and philosophy is simply the practical application of their starting principles, in which they already declared their universals dogmatically and axiomatically. They did not use induction first to establish their universals. As far as non-biblical world-views go, reduced to its essentials Clark and Van Til argue as follows: Axiom: Generally, non-Christian world-views tend to be inconsistent, if not outright self-refuting. And if they contradict the Bible, they are always false. THEREFORE, It is not surprising to find that this non-Christian or that non-Christian world-view and all other non-Christian world-views scrutinised so far have shown themselves to be inconsistent and even self-refuting. This is not induction. This is not to deduce a universal from particulars.19
19 Here we do not mean a subset of a view, e.g. OT in the Bible. Also, it is possible to have a world-view that is not self-refuting and is internally self-consistent. But, self-consistency of any system, while a necessary condition, does not guarantee the truth of that system. That is, self-consistency of a system is a necessary condition, but it is an insufficient condition. On the other hand, if a system is built on truth, it will be internally self-consistent. That is, all true systems will be self-consistent, but not all self-consistent systems are true.
Page - 19
Analysis
Clark and Van Til are simply applying practically the logical rule If All are, Then Some are. This is a perfectly legitimate way to critically examine and falsify competing claims. In other words, Clark is only explaining how a claim, an axiom even, can be shown to be self-refuting and so proves itself to be false, on its own terms. To do this, Clark does not need to resort to induction at all.
An Interim Recap
With Clark, we insist it is impossible for the conclusions of the next two arguments logically to be other than what they are. It is the impossibility of the contrary again. The conclusions follow necessarily, inexorably, irrefutably. To try to deny them is already to have logically affirmed them implicitly, though psychologically a person may not yet grasp how this is so. Arguments in these two forms are extremely common and are used every day by all people in some way or another. Stated in its direct logical form, known by the Latin name modus ponens, which means mode of affirming, it looks like this (Argument A1): Given: If P is true, Then Q is true. P is true; THEREFORE, Q is true.20 If a person accepts that P is true, logically speaking, he already accepts the conclusion, though psychologically speaking he may not yet understand or see how it is that he accepts the conclusion. Stated in its indirect logical form, known as the reductio ad absurdum form, which simply means reduce to the absurd, sometimes also called a proof by contradiction, which simply proves it is logically impossible for the premise to be false, it looks like this (Argument A2): First, for the sake of argument, lets assume our starting claim P is true is false; that is, P is not true which the same as P is false. Given: If P is false, Then Q is false. But we know that Q is true; THEREFORE, P is true.
20 Or more formally, If P, Then Q; P. Therefore, Q.
Page - 20
Analysis
THEREFORE, The for the sake of argument assumption reduces to an absurdity, That is, If P is false, Then P is true! THEREFORE, The for the sake of argument assumption is necessarily wrong, THEREFORE, P is true.21 Logically speaking, all should accept the conclusion of both arguments. It is the impossibility of the contrary again. We reject the conclusions on the pain of self-contradiction. Of course, the simple fact is that people often contradict themselves and are inconsistent. But our errors in application do not change the status of the conclusion or the logic of the processes. Psychologically speaking, of course, many often do not grasp or accept what is logically necessary. The simple fact is that people err and often make mistakes. But these are a matter of authority and of human psychology. They are not for Logic to solve or fix. To reiterate, we must not confuse psychology with logic. Of course, a petitio principii is unconvincing to any who reject the truth of any premise in our argument. 22 Of course, when we argue to support our claims, we are already interacting with psychology. It is also only natural that to satisfy our psychology we ask for more and more facts when people make a claim. Since we are all unique, we also have a unique psychological threshold at which the number of extra premises or the level of detail in the argument, which its proponents use to defend the truth of their claims, becomes convincing or compelling to us. This support allegedly persuades and convinces us about the truth of the conclusion.
21 This is an example of a third most common form of argument, so-called modus tollens, which means mode of denying. It has the form: If P is true, Then Q is true. But Q is false. Therefore, P is false; or more formally, If P, Then Q. Not-Q. Therefore, Not-P. In the reductio ad absurdum we see modus tollens used, where all terms have a not appended: If not-P, Then not-Q. But, not-(not-Q) (=Q). Therefore, not-(not-P) (=P). We will not expand the monograph to explain modus tollens in more detail as any basic logic textbook will cover it. Modus tollens should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum, but as it sometimes is. 22 Note Well: All this again is a matter of psychology and not of logic per se.
Page - 21
Analysis
Category Error
But, it is a category error to assign to Logic the power of persuasion! Persuasion and conviction is all about our choices and about psychology. They are not among the powers of Logic. Logic has no such powers. The idea that we must appease the psychological needs of people causes yet more confusion as far as the logic of a matter goes. Do not mistake this as a claim that in our day-to-day lives psychology, that is, our choices, errors and so on are unimportant and we can ignore them. On the contrary! Psychology far outweighs all logical arguments and proofs. Therefore, we must consider psychology. But, psychology and choices aside, if an argument is formally valid, we must never forget that no matter how extensive or detailed a proof is, it is essentially just one big petitio principii. This is simply to say, its conclusion is already contained logically in the premises of the argument, irrespective of whether those premises are true or false. The upshot of all this is that in its formal forms A1 and A2 above, Van Til and Clark would say the proof is absolutely and objectively certain. It cannot be otherwise. It is the impossibility of the contrary again. To deny the conclusion, is already to affirm it logically.
Page - 22
Analysis
- o0o -
Page - 23
Synthesis
Additional Explanations
Note that in our first TAG attempt we used the English words Rationality and God as our placeholders or terms. Actually, it was terms Ranltioaity and Dog, you might immediately try to correct here. But this seeming confusion over the actual words, terms or tokens we used is exactly the point here. We are immediately confronted with two new questions to answer: 1) Where did we get our content or data etc. to decide or declare the meaning of our key terms in our claims or premises? And, 2) How did we determine the truth of our claims or premises? This is where the pieces of Clarks proof start to come together. Recall that logical terms and forms are empty. Those forms and terms must be filled with some data or content etc. to be of any practical interest and use. So, at some point every proof must make contact with the world out there. By this, we simply mean that the author of the proof must assert some truths (or at least what he believes to be truths) as his premises. This immediately forces him to declare or disclose his starting principles or presuppositions or axioms (whether he likes to admit to having them or not). We all must do this, so that the terms in our arguments mean something: What do A and b or Ranltioaity and Dog or aJHbgW and blb mean? This exact same requirement applies to terms like God and Rationality in a TAG proof. So, how does data, content, or facts etc. enter any argument? How do we come to know the meaning of our terms? How do we fill the empty forms of Logic? What is Rationality or God exactly? All these are exactly the right questions to ask. 1) Rationality We have already dealt with the easier question: What is Rationality or more narrowly, one of its components, Logic. Logic is axiomatic. As all axioms are, indeed must be, so too the advocate as well as their opponent must regard Logic as self-authenticating. Here we
Page - 24
Synthesis
simply note the TAG proof already relies on and presupposes Logic, and therefore Rationality. The argument is its own explanation of the meaning, so to speak. 2) God By far the more difficult or it is better to say contentious term is the second one: God. Unless we fill this term with some content, it can mean anything anyone wishes it to be. It just happens to be Dog backwards or a combination of three letters G-o-d. The term God could have been equally blb or aJHbgW. If the term God can mean anything we want it to be, then our TAG proof is complete: It proves anything we want God to be. To show in the starkest contrast just exactly how the TAG proof works, let us look at another claim, using the identical logical form, but with a different key term to Dog, that is, God, which we used in our first attempt. This time let us prove that Santa exists is true. We will start with the A2 form, the so-called indirect argument: Step 1: For the sake of argument, lets assume the opposite claim of the original one is true: i.e. that Santa does not exist is true; Step 2: If Santa does not exist, Then rational inquiry is impossible;23 Step 3: But the claim Rational inquiry is possible is true; Step 4: Therefore, the for the sake of argument assumption that Santa does not exists is false and wrong; Step 5: Therefore, the original claim Santa exists must be true.24 This is perfectly valid formally. Given our premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be anything other than what it is. It is the impossibility of the contrary again. Here most will quickly object, But, we all know what Santa exists means and we know that there is no such thing as Santa. But do we really know this to be true? How could we prove it?
23 Note that by negation and swapping sides of our terms this is logically equal to: If rational inquiry is possible, then Santa exists. Or formally: If P is true, Then Q is true. 24 We combine the reductio ad absurdum with the so-called modus ponens as well as with the modus tollens forms. See the heading Interim Recap in the Analysis Chapter to review the background. Summarised more formally: If not-Q is true, Then not-P is true. But, P is true. Therefore, not-(not-Q) is true. We cancel out the double negative of not-not. Therefore, Q is true.
Page - 25
Synthesis
In any case, consider the atheist who similarly objects to the term God and who insists that no such thing as God exists: That is, both Santa and God are equally fictitious. They are just empty word games. All this talk about Santa or God is pure metaphysical nonsense as far atheists are concerned. So, unless we first fill them authoritatively with some data or content, both Santa and God are just empty logical terms. This is why our starting point or axioms are so crucial.
Synthesis
If the axioms of other secularists are not nonsense, they are nonetheless axioms. Every system must start somewhere, and it cannot have started before it starts. A naturalist might ... say that all knowledge is derived from sensation. This is not nonsense, but it is still an empirically unverifiable axiom... The point is that no system can deduce its axioms. The inference is this: No one can consistently object to Christianitys being based on a non-demonstrable axiom. If the secularists exercise their privilege of basing their theorems on axioms, then so can Christians. If the former refuse to accept our axioms, then they can have no logical objection to our rejecting theirs. Accordingly, we reject the very basis of atheism, Logical Positivism, and, in general, empiricism. Our axiom shall be, God has spoken. More completely, God has spoken in the Bible. More precisely, what the Bible says, God has spoken.25
Or again,
The first principle cannot be demonstrated because there is nothing prior from which to deduce it. Call it presuppositionalism, call it fideism, names do not matter. But I know no better presupposition than The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs.26
25 Clark, Atheism, The Trinity Review, June/August 1983; italics in the original. 26 Clark, Classical Apologetics, The Trinity Review, September/October 1985
Page - 27
Synthesis
ethical norms? Does revelation give a theory of politics? And are all these results consistent with one another? We can judge the acceptability of an axiom only by its success in producing a system. Axioms, because they are axioms, cannot be deduced from or proved by previous theorems truth is not thus disjointed. It is systematic. And by the systems they produce, axioms must be judged The Christian system is no more indefensible on this point than any other system. 27
Clearly, the Bible is Clarks starting principle. It is his authoritative source of truths about God at the very least. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, the Bible is to be the rule of faith and life.28 Clark and Van Til fill the term God with the meaning the Bible gives. They do it axiomatically. It is what they start with! It is not what they prove. Their axiom, the Bible defines for both Clark and Van Til what it is to be objective in the light of truth or that neutrality is impossible and so on. In doing this, they are not peculiar nor do they resort to some illegitimate trick. They are not dishonest or commit an egregious or fatal error. Everyone in their own way does the exact same thing when they construct their world-view. It is a case of the impossibility of the contrary for any system, if it wishes to start. The start is not a problem that only a Christian system must face. Again, Clark better than most is fully aware of all this and explains,
[T]he status of the argument now confronts us with the selection of axiom or choice of first principles. This difficulty is found in every system, and the empiricist does not compliment his intelligence by raising it against dogmatism. What now is the question to be answered? It is not, Shall we choose? Or is it permissible to choose? We must choose; since we are alive we have chosen either a dogmatic principle or empirical insanity.29
27 Clark, pgs. 58-62, Introduction to Christian Philosophy, 1993 28 Sec. 2, Chp. 1, Westminster Confession of Faith 29 Clark, pg. 138, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, 1989
Page - 28
Synthesis
The philosophically minded may be repelled by the notion of choice because it seems to smack of unphilosophical [sic] arbitrariness... But it is easier to be repelled by the notion of choice than it is to show that choice is not necessary... choice is sometimes arbitrary and whimsical... Still the choice of an ultimate principle or of a system of philosophy is not necessarily or ordinarily a personal whim or arbitrary decision... Choice, however, is unavoidable because first principles cannot be demonstrated, and though some choices are arbitrary, the philosophical choice has regard to the widest possible consistency. Choice therefore is as legitimate as it is inevitable.30
Our start or starting principles or axioms and so on reign supreme. They are impossible to avoid. Everyone alive implicitly if not explicitly chooses one or another set of axioms, and then they live more or less consistently according to them. The alternative is suicide. However, suicide too is ultimately a choice. Choice is utterly unavoidable and inescapable.
Page - 29
Synthesis
In the next place, as would not be the case if each Biblical proposition were singly and strictly regarded itself as an axiom, the truths of Scripture can be arranged in patterns of logical subordination.31
Note that Clarks single axiom, the Bible, is not merely a sound in the air. The sign Bible is there only pragmatically to refer to the many thousands of truths and theorems (as well as commands, etc.) in it, rather than having to list them all every time we wish to refer to them. This is no different as in, say, Chemistry. It is a perfectly sensible pedagogical device to refer to the Periodic Table and not list all its elements every time. So too it is a perfectly sensible pedagogical practice to refer to the Bible as the Axiom. As Clark explains,
This criticism [ed. against the word Bible in my Axiom], so it seems to me, proceeds on the assumption that the Bible is just a word - a sound in the air, to use a nominalistic phrase... Similarly, the proposition Everything God says is true, need be a separate axiom, only if God too is just a word. But if the word has a meaning, the Biblical meaning, then it is analytically certain that everything God says is true.32
In fact, here again our starting principles and valid reasoning can be clearly seen to reign supreme, as they do in every world-view or philosophical system. The reason is this: As we saw earlier, it is impossible for the conclusion of a valid argument to contain any novel term or claim of truth that was not already asserted in at least one of the premises of that argument. If the conclusion did contain any such novel term or truth claim, then by definition that argument is invalid. The conclusion will have been drawn from the premises illegitimately. It is of necessity that our axioms MUST already include all our key terms and sufficient truths to allow the valid deduction of other truths we wish to discover from those axioms. As Clark explains,
Obviously a first principle or a set of axioms covers all that follows. Indeed that is why first principles are asserted. It is their function to cover all that follows. But this is not to identify the axioms with the theorems. Euclidean geometry
31 Pg. 88, Introduction to Christian Philosophy 32 Nash editor, pg. 442, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, 1968 33 Pg. 449, ibid
Page - 30
Synthesis
may have six axioms and a hundred theorems. The axioms imply the theorems, to be sure; but the theorems are not axioms. The distinction between axioms and theorems is for the purpose of arranging derivative truths under a basic or comprehensive truth. Were a geometer to assume one of the Euclidean theorems as his axiom, he would, except in very special cases, deprive geometry of many of its propositions. Thus an all inclusive axiom that swallows everything at one gulp is most desirable. So it is with verbal revelation. This first principle will give us all the teaching of Scripture; whereas if some particular teaching of Scripture were made an axiom, a teaching that did not swallow everything at one gulp, much would be irrecoverable.34
So, how can we show that our TAG proof is absolutely sound; that is, that the proof is formally valid and all of its premises are true?
The Answer
Above we noted that an agreement of sorts is possible. This is a vital clue to what Clark identified. Clark showed that all systems, which can be discussed and communicated to others, have at least one axiom or starting principle in common, which is this: The Truth-Logic Composite, Compound, or Complex. It is impossible to be otherwise whether people will or like to admit it or not.
34 Pgs. 62-63, Introduction to Christian Philosophy
Page - 31
Synthesis
Certainly, this is not how Clark would say it. On the face of it, it does not seem to be Clarks answer. When all is said and done, Clarks answer is that Holy Spirit alone can do what neither logic nor psychology can: To change a persons mind, persuade and cause them to believe the Truth; that is, to believe and start with the truths and theorems of the Bible. But, as we will see, the seeming dissimilarity evaporates on a closer look. 1) God is Truth One of Clarks controlling ideas, and because it is so familiar to some it is easily missed, is the claim that God is Truth. As we saw earlier, Clark followed Augustine in this, as we here follow both Clark and Augustine. They asserted the necessity of, or the impossibility of the contrary, the identity of God with the eternal, immutable and so on Truth. As for Augustine so too for Clark there is but the one Mind that thinks or is the one Truth, who is the God of the Bible and who is the source of all truths. 36 So, if God is Truth, then Truth is eternal and immutable, because God is eternal and immutable. It is impossible to be otherwise. To deny it, is already to affirm it.
35 Bahnsen, pg. 121, Always Ready, 2000 36 When we say God is thinking truths or doing we are speaking anthropomorphically. God does not think discursively, sequentially or temporally, which humans only can; that is, in a temporal sequence of thoughts, or needing to make syllogistic deductions etc.
Page - 32
Synthesis
We assert this identity between God and Truth as an integral part of our Axiom, which is The Bible. God is Truth because the Bible says so. Or as Clark stresses this idea over and again,
[The] Scripture, the written words of the Bible, is the mind of God. What is said in Scripture is Gods thought... [W]e maintain that the Bible expresses the mind of God... The Bible then is the mind or thought of God. It is not a physical fetish, like a crucifix. [We do not] pray to a black book with red edges. Similarly, the charge that the Bible is a paper pope misses the mark for the same reason. The Bible consists of thoughts, not paper; and the thoughts are the thoughts of the omniscient, infallible God, not those of [Pope] Innocent III.37
Further, Clark insists that Gods truths or thoughts always come to creatures via Gods revelation in a propositional form. We see the Truth-Logic Complex at work. Every word of Gods revelation means something, as well as it does not mean something else, and as we shall see more under the next point. That is, Gods revelation comes with its own data or information, the facts, the content, the truths etc. as well as with its own method, rules, or processes embedded, so to speak. 2) God is Logic But, as noted earlier, Clark went further than Augustine did. Clark also asserted the necessity of, or the impossibility of the contrary, the identity of God with the eternal, uncreated, unchangeable, etc., Logos. To quote Clark again, In the beginning was Logic Logic was God God and logic are one and the same first principle, which is to say, we can see the Three Laws of Thoughts or Logic everywhere in Gods Word.38 Clark explains further, including why Logic is not the Axiom,
[E]very declarative sentence [in the Bible] is a logical unit. These sentences are truths; as such they are objects of knowledge. Each of them has, or perhaps we should say, each of them is a predicate attached to a subject. Only so can they convey meaning. Even in the single words themselves, as is most clearly seen in the cases of nouns and verbs, logic is embedded. If Scripture says, David was King of Israel, it does not mean that David was president of Babylon; and surely it does
37 Pgs. 69-70, Introduction to Christian Philosophy 38 See for example: I AM who I AM (Ex. 3:14) identity; no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21) contradiction; he who is not with me is against me (Matt. 12:30) excluded middle. Of course, every word in the Bible means what it means, as well, it does not mean what it does not mean, and it means either one or the other, and there is nothing in the middle.
Page - 33
Synthesis
not mean that Churchill was prime minister of China. That is to say, the words David, King, and Israel have definite meanings. The fact that a word must mean one thing and not its contradictory is the evidence of the law of contradiction in all rational language. This exhibition of the logic embedded in Scripture explains why Scripture rather than the law of contradiction is selected as the axiom. Should we assume merely the law of contradiction, we would be no better off than Kant was. His notion that knowledge requires a priori categories deserves great respect. Once for all, in a positive way Kant demonstrated the necessity of axioms, presuppositions, or a priori equipment. But this sine qua non is not sufficient to produce knowledge. Therefore the law of contradiction as such and by itself is not made the axiom of this argument.39
Or again,
For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on Gods thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of Gods thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that Gods will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think. As there is no temporal priority, so also there is no logical or analytical priority. Not only was Logic the beginning, but Logic was God. If this unusual translation of Johns Prologue still disturbs someone, he might yet allow that God is his thinking. God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity. This is the philosophical terminology to express the Biblical idea that God is a living God. Hence logic is to be considered as the activity of Gods willing... [Aristotle] used a phrase to describe God, which, with a slight change, may prove helpful. He defined God as thought-thinking-thought. Aristotle developed the meaning of this phrase so as to deny divine omniscience... [But] the Aristotelian definition of God as thought-thinking-thought may help us to understand that logic, the law of contradiction, is neither prior to nor subsequent to Gods activity. [Some analytical thinkers] may wish to separate logic and God ... they would complain that the present construction merges two axioms into one. And if two, one of them must be prior; in which case we would have to accept God without logic, or logic without God; and the other one afterward. But this is not the
Page - 34
Synthesis
presupposition here proposed. God and logic are one and the same first principle, for John wrote that Logic was God. 40
In God the Truth-Logic Complex and God are one and the same, to put it crudely. The Composite reflects the very nature of Gods Thought, which is his eternal Rational Mind. It is what the God of the Bible is. 3) Logic is not autonomous, prior or external to God Sadly, many Christians who should know better try to put into Clarks mouth that Logic is above or prior to God, or that Clark makes Logic an autonomous test for anything God may say in the Bible. Nothing more could be further from the truth, as we have already seen. Quoting John Calvin favourably, Clark adds even more clearly,
Without a prior certainty of revelation... certainty stronger than any judgment of experience, the authority of the Scripture is defended in vain by arguments, by the consent of the church, or by any other support... To [this] I [GHC] should like to add only that the law of contradiction, or reason, is not an external test of Scripture. Logical consistency is exemplified in the Scripture; and thus the Scripture can be meaningful revelation to the rational mind of man. Self-contradictory propositions would be meaningless, irrational, and could not constitute a revelation.41
Most assuredly, Clark would not compromise this claim in any way at all. Logic and Truth cannot be prior or above or external to God, because they are: 1) The WHAT (the content, the truth) of what God thinks. And, 2) The HOW (the characteristic, the logic) of how God thinks. To repeat: the Truth-Logic Complex is just what God is. God is WHAT he thinks (Truth) and HOW he thinks it (Logic). God is his eternal Rational Mind. Gods eternal Rational Mind is His Thoughts, Words or Truths. The Bible is a record for us of some of those thoughts, words and truths. We believe this to be true or we do not. It is simple as that.
40 Pg. 68, Introduction to Christian Philosophy 41 Clark, pgs. 81-82, Gods Hammer, 1987; emphasis added.
Page - 35
Synthesis
The TAG also, and necessarily so, reduces to a petitio principii. Simply put, the petitio principii that proves the claim The Truth-Logic Complex exists is true, is as follows (Argument A3): Given: If Truth-Logic Complex exists, Then Truth-Logic Complex exists. Truth-Logic Complex exists; THEREFORE, Truth-Logic Complex exists; Axiomatically: God is at the very least the Truth-Logic Complex THEREFORE, God exists42 In other words, the TAG proof itself, as is every word, every sentence, every claim we make, is its own evidence and proof that the Truth-Logic Complex exists. To even try to deny that the Truth-Logic Complex exists, is already to affirm that it exists, and therefore to affirm that God exists. Of course, Christians would teach many more truths about God as the Bible teaches them to be. But the issue at hand was simply to show that God exists, not to show what else God is. If we show Lassie is a dog and therefore Lassie is a mammal, we need not then discuss or prove ALL else that Lassie is, in addition to being a mammal (e.g. the length and colour of its fur, where it lives, with how many teeth etc.) All such added considerations about God, as with Lassie, while in their own context they are interesting and important, here they are unnecessary and immaterial. We have all that is necessary and sufficient for the TAG proof to work and for its conclusion to follow.
Page - 36
Synthesis
There; done. Our proof of Gods existence is complete, irrefutable, absolute and objectively true. God is his own self-attesting and self-authenticating axiom for when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.43 Indeed, to what higher authority could God appeal: To Man? By starting with the Axiom noted in A4 above, it is analytically44 true that God exists; that the Bible is true; that God does not lie and cannot lie; that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and so on. Further, if TAG is formally valid, then the existence of God can never ever be a NOVEL conclusion of an argument that did not already contain this truth. That is, at least one of the premises of the TAG proof must have asserted Gods existence as a truth implicitly or explicitly; and so it was! That is simply to say, the TAG proof is a petitio principii. So, TAG is complete and it is impossible to be otherwise. Still not persuaded or agreed? If not, then why not?
Page - 37
Synthesis
Clark is fully aware that if the Bible made contradictory statements, then we would know for sure that one or the other side of the contradiction is necessarily false, and so the Bible as a whole cannot be true. As Clark puts it,
We may not know which half of the contradiction is false and which is true, but we would be logically certain that both parts cannot be true.45
Page - 38
Synthesis
was groundless. What the Bible claims is an essential part of the argument. The Christian is well within the boundaries of logic to insist that the first reason for believing in the inspiration of the Bible is that it makes this claim. The truth of a conclusion depends on the truth of its premises. This means that the next step is to show that as a matter of fact the Bible makes this claim Even those who have a fair knowledge may not realize how insistently the Bible makes this claim... If the reader already accepts the Bible as the Word of God, the question that forms the title of this chapter, How May I Know the Bible Is Inspired, has been answered.46
Note carefully how Clark answered the question about inspiration. First, Clark assumes axiomatically that the Bible is true. Second, Clark makes a circular argument, fully aware how the audience will receive it: We believe the Bible to be inspired because the Bible makes the claim. We believe the claim because the Bible is inspired and therefore true. This does not seem to be the right way to argue, Clark notes. But, Clark knows that if we wish to give a valid argument and not resort to irrational appeals and non-sequiturs there is no other legitimate way logically to argue validly. The truth of every validly drawn conclusion always depends on the truth of its premises. And the premises in the case of the Bible as well as of the TAG proof or any world-view or philosophy are its axioms. Therefore,
[H]ere again we must consider the nature and limits of proof. Demonstrative proof, such as occurs in geometry, depends on unproven axioms. However valid the demonstration may be, if two people do not accept the same axioms, they will not be convinced by the same proof. Is there then any proposition which the believer and the unbeliever will both accept without proof.47
Be it Atheism, Christianity, toothpaste or TAG, we cannot escape the facts about the truth and logic of the matter, nor the profound and all-controlling effect that our start or axioms have on all our thinking. The axiom of biblical Christianity, just as it is of a TAG proof formulated in such a way as not to compromise the Bible, that is to say, it is constructed as it ought to be constructed, is: The Bible is the Word of God. Proofs are not some kind of magic that simply just makes any claim true.
46 Pgs. 1-3, Gods Hammer; italics in the original. 47 Pg. 15, ibid
Page - 39
Synthesis
48 Pgs. 62-63, Introduction to Christian Philosophy; italics in the original. 49 Pgs. 1-3, ibid
Page - 40
Synthesis
Here note that for any person to explain how their primary premises came to be accepted this is entirely a matter of psychology and not of logic or truth. Logic cannot command or order our choices nor compel or oblige or enforce our compliance. We choose to believe. Second, Clark agrees that no valid argument, be it about the Bible or TAG, can be legitimately rejected because it is a petitio principii, because no valid argument can ultimately escape this circularity. Even the rejection itself relies on this fact. The truth of every conclusion depends on the truth of its premises. In a deductively valid argument, the truth of every conclusion of necessity always must be, and implicitly is, asserted by one or more of its premises. Finally, Clark only repeats the Bibles command: We are to explain why we believe what we believe and why we chose as we chose. Always be ready to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you.50 Christians are to have good reasons for choosing their axioms, just like other people should.51 But, we remain adamant that we must not confuse having good reasons with having a conclusive and objective proof, as if conclusivity or objectivity could be had without any reference to our axioms. For Clark, as for Van Til, only the Bible can authoritatively tell us what is true or what is legitimately objective, and what constitutes a compelling proof, be it about the Bible or TAG, which is formulated so as not to compromise the Bible; that is to say, constructed as it ought to be constructed. This is because Clark and Van Til insist that the Axiom for ALL people ought to be: The Bible is the Word of God. And this is what the God of the Bible commands.
50 1 Peter 3:15 51 Good reasons are meant in a logically weak sense, as our explanations or narrative.
Page - 41
Synthesis
but which we now wish to deny: The Truth-Logic Complex exists. In other words, the TAG proof is compelling as far as its Logic goes. Further, it would be to reject a priori as true what Clark and Van Til accept is to be objective, neutral, compelling and so on. But, surely the critic is, or at least claims to be unbiased, neutral, objective, impartially willing to consider all the facts and so on, no? Therefore, to reject a priori what Clark and Van Til accept, without any consideration would only expose as a lie the critics claim of being objective, impartial, and neutral and so on. 2) Uncertain? Can we legitimately urge since we all are fallible humans, so we can make mistakes in our reasoning, therefore the proof is not absolutely certain? Of course not; or again not and still remain consistent. Again, it would be a self-refuting appeal. In order to use the objection we have to deny the truth of the very thing we wish to assert and are trying to persuade others to accept as true: That the critics reasoning is not mistaken. The critic believes his reasoning here is infallible and not mistaken, does he not? Yet, surely, the critic is human? He does not claim to be God, does he? So, if the critics original objection is to have any logical force and credibility, then he must allow he too could have erred. He must allow this on his own terms! After all, the critic does not claim to be infallible and inerrant, does he? But if he may have erred and his reasoning is not compelling on his own terms, then why should we bother with his arguments and objections in the first place? In fact, all the preceding shows critics have erred and erred so badly, that if their contentions were true, then their contentions would prove to be false. And if false, then they refute themselves. Nothing more needs be said. In other words, the TAG proof remains standing as far as its Truth goes. 3) Confused? Indeed, the critics objection here confuses application and psychology with the Truth and Logic of the matter. We will not belabour the point already made earlier in this work. 4) Burden of Proof? Further, as noted already above and earlier (e.g. see pg. 18), the burden of proof rests with the critics as they claim to know where an error exists.
Page - 42
Synthesis
Has or can the critic show where there is an error in the proof: An error of fact and / or invalidity of inference? Can the critic guarantee the truth of their premises and the validity of their reasoning, on their own terms, given they admit to be fallible humans? Indeed, can the critic even open his mouth to protest, since to speak already is a performative self-contradiction on their terms? Not only is speaking the use and application of the Logic laws, but what the critic asserts is a theory or truth claim. That is, if he is rational and not insane, it is a Truth claim and it is necessarily to employ Logic. Performatively all this is very unfortunate for and damning of the critic. Contrary to the critics claims of rationality and objectivity, all they seem to have left is psychology of their likes and dislikes, irrationalism, subjectivism, mysticism, or anything else but rationality and objectivity! 5) Any More? Can the critic reject our axiom? Of course they can. In fact, in the following we will show this rejection lies at the very heart of this dispute and their objections. Can the critic still claim there is a possibility of error in applying Logic? Of course they can. But, without a substantiating argument and explanation of the alleged error, their claim is not credible and cannot be taken seriously. In the face of all of the above, can the critic still insist that an objectively absolute and compelling TAG proof was not provided? Of course they can! Psychology, choices, application etc. are not something anyone can force through using valid reasoning or formal proofs. A gun is far more effective. As for the truth of the premise that God exists in our earlier argument A4, it simply asserts that the Truth-Logic Complex must exist. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. Even to deny the truth of the premise that God exists is already to admit it is true. The truth that God exists is axiomatic. In other words, the critics objection ultimately again reduces to a dispute as to which start or axiom we may or ought to choose. It is to dispute about what constitutes objective or absolute or certain and so on. But with all of these, we all have no other alternative, but to make some choice or another. We all can only choose our axioms, which we then use to decide what we will accept as the correct answer. In other words, the critic
Page - 43
Synthesis
demands for himself the very right (i.e. the right to choose his axioms), which he then wishes to deny to others. Can the critics still object that the proof is just a petitio principii? Of course they can! We insist on it: The TAG proof is a petitio principii! After all, it is our unwavering claim that the proof is formally valid. And if formally valid, then necessarily it ultimately must be a petitio principii! Every premise implies itself as a conclusion. And, every validly deduced conclusion is contained already and necessarily in the premises of an argument. What the critics betray by raising the petitio principii as an objection is that they reject the Truth of our starting principles or axioms; that they do not like our choice of starting premises or axioms. That is to say, they have again entered the realm of psychology as the real basis of their objection. But Logic does not try to refute objections based on psychology, such as our personal likes and dislikes. What more is there? Nothing; we are done. The TAG is done and it is impossible to be otherwise. Still not persuaded or agreed? If not, then why not?
Note how we always return to our start and axioms. This is because truth is determined by our start and not by logic.
52 Pg. 60, Introduction to Christian Philosophy
Page - 44
Synthesis
Even more fatally, neither our nor the critics deductions can legitimately make any truth claims, which were not already made (at least implicitly) in our starting premises, which is to say, in our axioms. There can be no NOVEL term or a truth claim asserted in any conclusion of an argument or proof, which was not asserted already in the premises of that particular argument or proof. Indeed, both Clark and Van Til insist that unless God revealed himself to us and unless he created us in his image first, we would not and could not know anything about God or about anything for that matter. We would be alogos just like rocks or brute beasts. In his Introduction to Christian Philosophy and in his other works Clark explains in detail also why we must choose as our Axiom the Word of God, the Bible and not God, concluding,
God as distinct from Scripture is not made the axiom of this argument. Undoubtedly this twist will seem strange to many theologians. It will seem particularly strange after the previous emphasis on the mind of God as the origin of all truth. Must not God be the axiom? ... [T]he Scripture is offered here as an axiom. This gives definiteness and content, without which axioms are useless. Thus it is that God, Scripture, and logic are tied together. The Pietists should not complain that emphasis on logic is a deification or an abstraction, or of human reason divorced from God. Emphasis on logic is strictly in accord with Johns Prologue and is nothing other than a recognition of the nature of God. 53
Therefore, the key question remains: How can we show; how do we know that the God of the Bible exists? That is, how can biblical Christians prove that all the truth claims they make about such a God are in fact true? The critics ultimate question in the end really is simply: How do we know the Bible is true and that it is the Word of God written? In other words, hidden in the critics seemingly reasonable question is an implicit demand that Clark must prove the truth of his Axiom! But this demand is quite illegitimate. No one can prove his or her starting point and axioms to be true. Not Clark, not the critic, not Van Til, not Bahnsen, not the atheist, not the skeptic, not anyone. Of course, at this point many will again urge the need to be objective and neutral. Should we not provide a proof that is objectively, neutrally stated,
Page - 45
Synthesis
without prejudices and biases? Is this not a guileless and sensible, a most reasonable request? Is it not a praiseworthy purpose, many will ask. Alas, it may seductively appear to be so, but there is a deadly catch.
Page - 46
Synthesis
It is impossible to prove if an axiom is true. But we can test axioms. In principle, we can prove them false, if they are false. We can test axioms to see if they are self-refuting or produce an incoherent system. But all such tests are critical and negative. They do not prove the truth of claims and axioms.
Synthesis
the end of any and every rational discussion and communication. It would mean utter futility, total despair and finally suicide. Happily, most critics are inconsistent. They do not follow through their reasoning to the fatal end it actually leads to! They choose to live. In fact, most people, including many Christians, who object to the TAG because of this circularity, are fooled by their own arguments. Most are at best simply unaware what it is they are really advocating. That is, to state it very bluntly, what they are really saying is, We want to replace your petitio, which we dislike, with our petitio, which we like. It is as simple as that. Psychology, their likes and dislikes are the driving force and not valid reasoning or genuine interest in rationality, as many claim or pretend it to be.
Synthesis
But, if the Truth-Logic Complex did not exist, if in Clarks translation of Logos in John 1 the God-Logic did not exist, then no rational communication, not even the denial that God exists would be possible. We indeed get the TAG proof from Clark via the impossibility of the contrary, since Clarks Axiom is the Axiom of Revelation or more precisely: The Bible is the Word of God. Still, not all is as simple and cut and dry as it appears!
Where to Next?
Do we have to accept the critics objections? Of course not. We can choose our start just as everyone can choose his or hers. We all can test our axioms for internal coherence and self-consistency. We can examine the results our axioms produce as a system and so on. We can, and indeed we should be able to give our good reasons, that is, explanation for why we choose this or that axiom as our start. But we cannot prove the truth of axioms. It is foolish to try to prove the truth of axioms. At best, we can only ever disprove axioms, by showing how they are self-contradictory and self-refuting or produce an incoherent system. So, have the critics shown conclusively that there is an invalid inference in the reasoning and / or that one or more premises in the TAG proof are false? Or, that its axioms or the argument itself is incoherent or self-contradictory? No! We are yet to see a valid refutation, which succeeds on its own terms. It is true that some Christians may concede defeat and choose to accept the critics claims. But, if those Christians want to be consistent, they also must be prepared to reject their Christian axioms. This includes that they accept the critics definitions of what objective, compelling, proof, absolute and so on mean. All these terms will now have a non-biblical meaning. Be all that as it may, note well: The critics objections (whatever they are) are already committed to and presuppose at the very minimum the Truth-Logic Complex. It is truly an impossibility of the contrary that this is not so. And just to rub salt into the wound, if the critics argument did succeed, then the critics will have destroyed their very own argument. In fact, critics are guilty of a performative if not blatant self-contradiction and so stand condemned by their very words and practice. In short, Clark put on the table all the pieces to produce a perfectly valid theistic proof of God, formulated so as not to compromise the Bible, exactly as Van Til wanted it to be. Simply, the TAG proof is a long or a very short petitio principii proof. But, oh that annoying but!
Page - 49
Synthesis
Why is it that we must accept Bahnsens claim, but we may not accept the second claim as a philosophically objective and certain proof when they are formally identical? How do we prove the truth of the one against the other? Why does the second claim not likewise prove the impossibility of the contrary if Bahnsens claim proves it? Why not start with Allah, Buddha, Frist or Santa Clause? Why is it the Bible is acceptable, but the Koran or the Book of Mormon is not? Why must it be Christianitys and not Fristianitys God? Fristianitys Boise Bible is identical to the Christian Bible in every respect, except instead of God as a Trinity, its God is a Quadrinity. Why not? Alternatively, we could declare Truth and Logic transcendental, without any need to identify the Truth-Logic Complex with the God of the Bible, but as Clark identifies God.58 If not, then why not?
55 56 57 58 It seems Quadrinity, Frist and Boise Bible originated in 1990s with David Byron, Yale. Pg. 72, Introduction to Christian Philosophy Taped public debate held at the University of California (Irvine) in 1985. Bahnsen attacks and ridicules Clark on this very point. Does this mean that he agrees with those who do not identify the Truth-Logic Composite with the God of the Bible?
Page - 50
Synthesis
Indeed, why do we need to identify the Truth-Logic Complex as a god in the first place? Why cannot Rationality be axiomatic and transcendental? Why posit a god at all? Recall that we do not prove axioms and due to their nature, they cannot be proved. We may have good reasons for choosing this axiom over that axiom, but at the end of the day, all axioms are just believed. So, what makes a god any more special or more needful to be believed than anything else? Or, if we must identify the Complex with a god (for example, because a Mind must exist if Truth exists, and so on), then why may we not identify the Truth-Logic Complex with the Mind of Allah, or Buddha, or Santa Clause, or Frist or whatever else one may like? Why cannot the proponents of those gods dogmatically declare their god as the precondition of intelligibility without which it is impossible to prove anything? Of course they can! Their argument is formally identical to Bahnsens. They differ only as to their authoritative source of truth and so in their respective choice of their starting axioms. Bahnsens claim is self-serving and smacks of double standards, especially when he mocks Clarks provocative translation of John 1:1. Further, why not affirm two gods one for Truth and another for Logic; and a third one as Rationality for good measure? Why must it be that, the starting point is the Triune God of the Bible, who from all eternity knows and loves Himself and enjoys true communion within the godhead? Perhaps the real Triune God is simply Truth, Logic and Rationality. Sure, the Person of the Godhead as a Trinity of Divine Persons must be so, but only if we presuppose with Clark that the Bible is the Word of God as our Axiom, which we cannot prove to be true. But, Bahnsen ridicules and derides this answer. So, how else can Bahnsen substantiate his claim, without presupposing that the Bible is true and it is his Axiom? Now, it is true that the Truth-Logic Complex is compatible and consistent with the idea of a God, even the Triune God of the Bible as existing, no doubt. But is it the impossibility of the contrary that the Truth-Logic Complex is a god, much less the God of the Bible? Can purely formal Logic achieve, after all, what we insist formal Logic cannot achieve; that is, prove the truth and existence of anything? Is Bahnsen really saying, as it appears, that he can prove truths by Logic alone, which is blatant rationalism, without presupposing first the truth of the Bible, which is allegedly fideism, the very things he falsely accuses Clark of? Surely not! And
Page - 51
Synthesis
we believe Bahnsen does not intend this. But then what is good for Bahnsen as the goose, surely it also must be good for Clark as the gander, no? Bahnsen cannot have it both ways and do what he then denies to Clark. Of course, purely formal Logic cannot accomplish any of this. Also, as we have shown above, to be compatible and consistent WITH is not the same AS the impossibility of the contrary and it is a serious error to think that it is.
After Christs resurrection, we are told faith and specifically believing the Bibles words is all what believers today have till the Judgment day.60 Yet again, we are right back to our starting principles. Not to evidences, not to proofs, not to psychology, not to practice and so on, but to beliefs, and specifically to beliefs about the claims or axioms, which the Bible asserts to be true for all, regardless if they choose to believe the Bibles claims or not.
[God] has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being... I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness... But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.61
59 Romans 1:17; Hebrews 10:38, 11:3, 6; emphasis added. 60 See e.g. John 20:29; 1 Peter 1:8 61 Acts 17:26-28; Romans 1:16-18; Galatians 3:11
Page - 52
Synthesis
A biblical Christian simply believes the above claims to be true thats it. Faith is the true impossibility of the contrary of all views including of biblical Christianity. Every system starts with faith with a belief about the truth of its starting principles and axioms. By faith we assert the universals (i.e. the WHAT, the starting data, the truths, including those of the Bible) and the necessity (i.e. the HOW, logic and validity, moral imperatives where Clark and Van Til again source all these back to the Bible). We then reason from there. Or, as the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it,
By [saving] faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of god himself speaking therein; and acts differently, upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.62
62 Sec. 2, Chp. 14, Westminster Confession of Faith 63 See e.g. Acts 1:3; 9:22, 29; 17:11; 19:8-9; Galatians 1:8-9; Colossians 2:4. Of course, this means false in the sense of contradicting the Bible.
Page - 53
Synthesis
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.64
That is, Clark insists that in the final analysis Holy Spirit alone persuades and causes any person to accept the truth of the Bible as Gods Word, though ordinarily God usually uses the explanations and reasoned arguments of other people as his instrument to accomplish this result. But, explanations, reasoning or logic in and of themselves, and we as instruments have no inherent power to persuade and convict anyone. In fact, Clarks opponents repeatedly attacked him on this point, since he dared to declare the Bible as THE AXIOM of biblical Christianity, which we do not try to prove as true. Instead, we believe Holy Spirit alone can convict and will cause all of Gods elect people to choose the Bible as their start and to believe it as The Truth. Sadly, many like Bahnsen claim Clark was a fideist, by badly misunderstanding or misrepresenting Clark. For example,
Though sometimes called a presuppositionalist, the later Clark actually treated Christianity as an unprovable, fideistic first axiom, which is merely chosen. 65
Of course, for Clark it was not Christianity, but the Bible that is the first axiom of biblical Christianity. Other forms of Christianity each reflect their respective axioms, since not all forms in fact choose the Bible as their sole starting point though many claim this to be so in theory, in their actual practice they use and rely on all kinds of authorities other than the Bible. This does not mean that Clark had no good reasons for why he chose the Bible as his Axiom. Indeed, Clark had many such good reasons. He explains them in detail in his works. Only, Clark did not make the category blunder of confusing those good reasons with having a proof in the strongest sense of the word. But, although he did not try to prove the Bible as true, he insisted Holy Spirit ordinarily uses various instrumental means to cause believers to believe the Bible to be true.
64 Quoting Sec. 8, Chp. 1, Westminster Confession of Faith in many places. No absolutely objective proofs sans axioms are possible, be it Science, Atheism or biblical Christianity. 65 Bahnsen, pg. 17, footnote 57, Van Tils Apologetic, 1998
Page - 54
Synthesis
So, if to be caused by Holy Spirit to believe the Bible is the Word of God means it is merely chosen then so be it. In this Clark simply agreed with the Confession, that our full persuasion and assurance about the Bible is the inward work of Holy Spirit. We chose to believe the Bible because God first regenerates and causes us to believe the Bible as true. Moreover, Bahnsens misguided juxtaposition of unprovable, fideistic and axiom demand that we explain how it is that anyone is able to prove the truth of any axiom, never mind the truth of the Bible! It would be astonishing if Bahnsen thought he could prove in the strongest sense of the word that the Bible was in fact true; that Bahnsen would deny what the Confession affirms and in doing so, it only repeats the Bibles teaching on this. Of course, if simply to start with the truth of our axioms is to be fideistic, then EVERY system (not just Christianity) is fideistic including Bahnsens system. It is impossible to prove the truth of the start of any system, other than by a petitio principii proof. But, that kind of proof is not what most people have in mind when they hear the word or when they ask for proof.
Page - 55
Synthesis
It is true we may believe to have good reasons (i.e. explanations) why we chose this or that start and axiom. But, we should never confuse having good reasons with having a proof. We should never confuse Reason (or Rationality) with reasons! Yet, many repeatedly appeal to reasons as their justification for the truth of their claims, of their axioms and in presenting their proofs. Alas, reasons belong into the realm of Psychology and not to Logic nor to valid reasoning nor to Rationality. 67 In addition, biblical Christianity vehemently rejects the idea that any truth can be deduced by pure and unaided logic alone.68 Logic has no such power. Clark started deliberately and unashamedly with Revelation. He rejected both Irrationalism and Rationalism, though he realised that,
Christian view of God, man, and language [is] a type of a priori rationalism. Mans mind is not initially a blank. It is structured... an unstructured blank is no mind at all... Universality and necessity can only be a priori.69
The point of contact, which Clark noted between biblical Dogmatism and pure Rationalism, is their high view of Logic. For biblical Christianity this is so only because Logic must be understood to belong to the very essence of God himself. It is not because Logic in and of itself merits such esteem or is prior to God, never mind is autonomous or above God. Further, in biblical Presuppositionalism or biblical Dogmatism the role of Logic always must be ministerial (it serves alongside with truth). Its role is never magisterial, which would dictate and lord it over truth, but as many twist it to be, to justify their slanderous accusation that Clark is a rationalist in the tenth degree as at least one of Clarks opponent called him. That is, Logic is not some prior or autonomous and external test. In our faith, not even God is first. Of necessity, Gods Revelation is and always must be first. If it were not for Gods self-revelation, we would not know anything about God. Logic and Truth are embedded in Revelation, if we can put it in this way, because Gods self-revelation is specie of rational communication. This also means we do have many very good reasons for why we believe what we believe; why we start with the Bible as our Axiom; why we fill our
67 Here we yet again urge the reader to study Millers excellent Critical Rationalism. 68 This is a common simplified understanding and definition of rationalism: All knowledge is obtained by pure Reason or Logic alone. 69 Pg. 139, Language and Theology; italics in the original.
Page - 56
Synthesis
logical terms, e.g. God, with the data, facts, content etc. using the truth claims of the Bible rather than, say, of Koran or other alleged authoritative sources. But, to reiterate over and again: We must not confuse good reasons with having objective proofs, where we define objective without reference to the Bible, never mind as proofs that are prior to, above or independent of our world-view with its starting principles or axioms, as it were. Our start and axioms are paramount! And the start and axioms of a biblical Christian at a minimum must include all the truths asserted by the Bible.
In general, the Jews accepted the truth of the premises; the WHAT. They rejected the validity and the logical necessity of the conclusion, which is that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament (OT). The Jews ought to have concluded from the OT what Jesus taught and explained. If they had really believed Moses writings as they claimed, then they ought to have believed Jesus.71 Christ as the valid conclusion of the OT still today remains a stumbling block to the Jews. On the other hand, Greeks and Romans generally esteemed and accepted Logic and valid reasoning; the HOW. What they did not have or, after it was made known to them, what they rejected is the truth of premises. They were asked to believe the truth proclaimed to them, and specifically to believe the truths of the Gospel. Instead, they considered the Christian claims to be false. Therefore, they considered the Christian conclusions to be logically necessary, but foolishness nevertheless. Today, most so-called Christians are worse than both the Jews and Gentiles. Like the Gentiles, they reject the truth of many of the Bibles premises. Like the Jews, valid inference is a stumbling block. These Christians consider the reasoning of Augustine, Clark, or Van Til to be rationalist foolishness.
Page - 57
Synthesis
Most so-called Christians prefer emotionalism, experientialism, mysticism, subjectivism, irrationalism, anything as long as they are in charge and they can believe anything they want, as they want, reasoning in any way they want: Sometimes validly, most times invalidly. Sometimes consistently, most times inconsistently and self-refutingly. It seems to make little difference to them. All is a mysterious paradox, experiences and feelings and so on. For most, as long as we love all people and tolerate all views (except those that are intolerant now those they do not tolerate!), this is enough; truth or biblical inferences and the Bible be damned. This is quite unlike Jesus, who loved his elect, always reasoned validly and was intolerant of any other point of view that was not in line with Gods Truth. For example, consider the Bibles, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved72 Oh, what intolerant exclusivism. Or, there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things... and there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Or, Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.73 How much more bigoted, intolerant, conceited, exclusivist and arrogant can one get? Or consider this self-promoting claim,
They shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM and he said, Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.74
How did Moses prove that God spoke to him? Where is the philosophically objective, certain proof for the I AM claim? Why should anyone believe it? Why should we believe anything Moses, Jesus or the Bible claims? Sadly, the answer of most Christians today essentially is, My personal experience legitimises what is true and how it is that I know anything to be true. Who cares if this may not fit with the truth or logic of the Bible. What matters is how truth makes me feel. We can change truth and logic to make it fit with our feelings and experience, because true faith is not about truth or logic. True faith is about having a personal relationship with Jesus.
72 Acts 4:12 73 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:6 74 Exodus 3:13-14
Page - 58
Synthesis
Such unbiblical and anti-biblical nonsense is passed off as Christian faith. It is peddled as Christian theology today. All this leads to one final set of closely related objections and criticisms: If it is all a matter of our start; if it is only as it pleases God to cause belief in whom he will, why should we bother saying anything to anyone? How can we recommend Christianity to anyone? How can we hope to persuade anyone who does not accept the Bible as the Word of God? Surely, we must first try to prove Christianity is true. Surely, we must first offer some evidence. How else can we ask people to believe? We cannot ask others to believe just because the Bible commands belief. Surely we must rely on an independent investigation and cogency of proofs to persuade others of the truth of the Bible where we share some common ground with unbelievers? Surely, that is the only rational and sensible way to proceed, is it not? Biblical Christians must face and answer these questions and criticisms.
Page - 59
Synthesis
and to educate the critics about the nature of proof, inescapability of axioms, about presuppositions, validity of reasoning and so on. Third, the critics demand that we must take their claims and meaning of their key terms or ideas as they define, and not how others may use those same words. The critics correctly demand that others address those arguments they actually present, and in their strongest form, and not demolish only those arguments that others imagine or that are presented in their weakest form or worst of all simply are invented and then put into the critics mouths. Yet, in critiquing the claims of biblical Christianity, the critics ignore how biblical Christianity defines its key terms or what their actual arguments are.75 The last comment leads directly to the point about serious misconceptions and even misrepresentations of what biblical Christianity actually teaches. One such gross distortion is to attribute fatalism to biblical Christianity. Questions like, Why bother say anything at all to unbelievers, if it is up to God to cause belief in whomever it pleases him? Why bother with arguments at all, if our reasoning cannot persuade anyone? Why bother with any reasons if evidences cannot justify any truths? and so on disclose this clearly. But all these and other objections like these simply ignore what the Bible teaches about God or how he ordinarily accomplishes his purposes and ends through the ordinary means, instruments and agencies of his created order. The Bible utterly repudiates and admonishes the idea of fatalism. Indeed, it is true that God is in sovereign control of all things. Indeed, God always accomplishes all of his purposes and ends. Alas, most people including Christians envision here only the big and important purposes and ends. They invariably forget about all the ordinary and little ones, including all the means and ways that led to the achievement of all the big purposes and ends. But, all ways and means to all of Gods purposes are always ends in and of themselves no matter how insignificant they may seem to us: A kingdom was lost because a horse-rider fell off his horse, since his horse lost its horseshoe for want of a nail and so stumbled. The loss of the kingdom indeed is a big
75 Do not misunderstand this as a claim that there are no believers that argue irrationally or do not use fallacies to defend their claims or resort to any other number of illicit maneuvers. Of course there are such people. But there are many such unbelievers and critics also. Neither side can use this to dismiss, ridicule or ignore its opponents. Indeed to rely on this as an objection is to confuse between how an individual applies or argues using a theory, with the theory itself. Whether it is the theories of theology, biology or mathematics, errors in application and blunders in reasoning by people in and of itself does not discredit or invalidate the theories themselves.
Page - 60
Synthesis
deal, and the missing nail seems completely insignificant if we consider it in the big picture. But this is to miss the whole point! For the blacksmith, the making of the nail was his purpose and end in and of itself. Similarly, shoeing the horse was anothers job and purpose. So too for the rider of the horse, he was going about his business and purpose: To deliver a message to a king. And so it is with every single means no matter how large or small. All means are always an end in and of themselves for someone or something. These ends in turn become other means towards yet other ends and so on it goes. It is how all big and important ends come to be accomplished. So, if God indeed is in control and accomplishes all his purposes and ends, this necessarily implies that there are no means whatever that are not in Gods total control or which are too small, autonomous or independent, so to speak. This is why we read in the Bible that not a single sparrow dies or a single hair is lost from any head, without Gods sovereign control and purpose. 76 A more sophisticated, but just as misguided and fallacious reasoning heard from unbelievers, and even from so-called Christians, is as follows: OK, lets agree that on your, Clark and Van Tils take the Bible teaches that an unregenerate, fallen and sinful human mind is utterly unable on its own power to believe the truths of the Bible and so come to a saving faith and knowledge of God. We agree that in your view Holy Spirit alone can regenerate and must first regenerate a fallen mind and produce saving faith in any sinner. Lets also agree that unregenerate people are spiritually deaf and blind; they cannot hear and they cannot see. Lets agree that all unregenerate people are spiritually dead in sin, and not merely gravely ill or seriously impaired as a result of the Fall. So, the unregenerate, spiritually dead do not and cannot desire to understand or know God or seek after God. Lets agree that the Bible teaches all this.77
76 See e.g. Matthew 10:29-30; Luke 12:7, 21:18; Acts 27:34 and many more. 77 For example: What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:9-18
Page - 61
Synthesis
Therefore, No amount of rational discussion with an unregenerate person can ever bring them to a saving knowledge of God and biblical truth. No amount of valid arguments offered to an unregenerate person can ever convince them of the irrationality of their views. It is pointless to yell louder and for longer at a deaf person or show yet more evidences under bright lights to a blind person. The deaf cannot hear and the blind cannot see. Holy Spirit must first resurrect those that are spiritually dead; give them ears to hear and eyes to see! Holy Spirit does this in his own time and only with those who are elect. Under your, Clark and Van Tils take, Holy Spirits regenerative work first is utterly crucial before any unregenerate person will accept your version of biblical Christianity. And God alone chooses whom he will regenerate and whom he will pass-by and leave in their unbelief. Therefore, At best, it is pointless to try to convince any unregenerate unbeliever. At worst, it is cruel to demolish the unregenerate unbelievers world-view. Indeed, it takes a special kind of callous and vicious person to exhort a deaf and blind person to hear and see what they cannot hear and see; to chastise and punish an intellectually impaired person for not hearing and seeing, for making errors and choices they could not possibly avoid; for not believing what by their very nature they are unable to understand and believe. You say that the God of the Bible is rational; that he is truth and love. You say the Bible teaches that God decided of his own pleasure before any person is even born who will believe and who will not believe. You say that no person can resist God or is able to thwart Gods plans; that God is the Divine Potter and all men and women are but like clay in Gods hands; that he has mercy on whom he will and he hardens whom he will!78
Note Well: Apostle Paul simply quotes the Old Testament: Psalms 5:9, 10:7, 14:1-3, 36:1, 53:1-3, 140:3; Proverbs 1:16, 6:18; Jeremiah 5:16; Isaiah 59:7-8 78 For example, Romans 9:18-21; Jeremiah 18:1-6; Isaiah 10:15, 45:9, 64:8; 2 Chronicles 20:6; Job 9:12; Daniel 4:35 and many more.
Page - 62
Synthesis
What kind of love is it to scold and punish unbelievers for not believing what by Gods design they are unable to believe? How is that loving? Why does God yet find fault and condemn those whom God made to be as they are? How is that fair?79 How is it rational to use reason and valid arguments to convince those who are incapable of believing or even understanding the truths of the Bible, unless and until Holy Spirit first regenerates them? How is that coherent and consistent? Surely, it is inconsistent and incoherent to reason with an unregenerate. It is completely irrational to reason with a person that does not share or agree with your axioms and starting point. To be consistent, you biblical Christians should say nothing and instead wait for Holy Spirit to first work on those who are elect. It is self-refuting to use rational arguments and reason with those who on your view are incapable of understanding and believing to be rational and true what you are telling them is rational and true. Therefore, Your biblical Christianity is inconsistent, incoherent and self-refuting. - o0o Plausible as all the above may sound to a superficial thinker, it would take a whole chapter to explain fully all the confusion and errors in reasoning as well as in fact that the objections outlined above contain. Of course, on deeper thought as well as on Bibles terms there is no problem. In fact, as an example of this, we read in the Bible that when Lazarus died, Jesus returned only after Lazarus had lain in the grave four days already ...
79 Romans 9:19-21, You will then say to me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who are you that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus? Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? NB: There is just the one lump, not two kinds of lump. And God decides what He makes.
Page - 63
Synthesis
Jesus said, Take away the stone. Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, Lord, by this time there will be stench, for he has been dead four days.80 Yet, to prove his point, only then Jesus commanded a DEAD Lazarus, who could not hear or see, to rise and come out of his tomb. So, how could a dead Lazarus obey and do what he was utterly incapable of doing? After all, he was dead! How crazy is it to command a dead person to hear, never mind to do something! However, all this seems as crazy only to those who decide for themselves what God can and cannot do; to those who set themselves as the measure of what is possible; to those who decide whether God even exists. But, men are neither God nor the measure of what God can or cannot do with his Creation. The simple fact of the matter is that Christs commanding a dead Lazarus to rise was Christs means or way through which Christ caused the dead Lazarus to become alive and so able to hear and obey. Christs command was merely the instrument. He could have used any other means to accomplish his purpose and demonstrate his power. As Christ says, you err, because you know not the scriptures, neither the power of God.81 The plain fact taught in the Bible everywhere is that to cause the belief of one and disbelief of another ordinarily God uses as his instruments people and what they say. Ordinarily, God uses our reasoning and arguments, or facts, evidences and all kinds of ways and means to achieve his sovereign ends and purposes. Ordinarily, it is important that we speak and argue, correct, rebut, explain, refute, discuss, clarify and so on. These are simply some of the ordinary means God uses to ensure why it is that some will come to believe and others will not. There is no conflict between the two ideas. On the next point of presupposing as true what is antagonistic to the Bibles claims, there are many such items. God does not exist; if God exists, he is not sovereign; man is autonomous, unbiased; mans nature is not sinful or fallen and he has a free will; the Bible is not Gods Word and so on and on it goes. All of these and many more are reasons why Christians should and indeed must deal with the critics criticisms; why Christians should and must bother to answer and explain why they believe what they believe to those who may ask them. They should point out the critics hostility and their misunderstanding or
Page - 64
Synthesis
outright misrepresentation of biblical truths; highlight their double standards or fallacious and self-serving arguments and so on. This is in addition to the single over-riding fact that the Bible commands all believers to engage unbelievers and critics; to deal with their objections and attempts to disprove the Bibles claims; to answer their questions; to expose their hostility, ungodliness and unrighteousness. Christians are to,
Be ready always to give an answer [argument or explanation] to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you ... the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ...82 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit...83 The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.84
Indeed, rather than being inconsistent by reasoning with unbelievers and critics, Christians would be disobedient and inconsistent in their beliefs and the implications of their axiom if they did not discuss or reason with critics and unbelievers. The TAG proof is simply one such great opportunity!
Apologetic Task
Clark ties all this together and explains it brilliantly in his works. He writes,
Page - 65
Synthesis
There is another and final objection to dogmatism. This type of philosophy, so its critics claim, is to be rejected because it puts an end to communication and eliminates all possibility of convincing an opponent. Anselm adopted his form of rationalism because he thought it enabled him to meet Jews and Moslems on the common ground of reason As Anselm wanted to convert the Moslems, so today evangelical empiricists want to convert humanists by arguments based on some common principles, such as the trustworthiness of sensation. Because [ed. Christian] dogmatism is an all inclusive system and has no propositions in common with any other system, its Christian opponents throw up their hands in despair and whimper, How then can we recommend the doctrines of Christ to anyone? Agreement at some point must, they say, indeed must be found, if one person is to convince another. Is this not the way ordinary conversation is carried on? When I want to persuade you to have lunch with me, I appeal to premises on which we agree: that lunch is good, that our conversation will be profitable or enjoyable, that we have to eat now anyway, etc., etc. Or, more academically, I convince you that the square of the hypotenuse equals the other two on the basis of axioms we both accept. If you did not agree with my axioms, I could not convince you. Now, in dogmatism, a Christian cannot convince a Moslem because there is no agreement. The one accepts the Bible, the other the Koran. Since both are dogmatists, neither can appeal to higher common principles. All this sounds very plausible, and the reference to the Moslems and the Koran is very true. Nevertheless, logically, it is a poor objection to dogmatism because it applies with equal force against, not only Anselm, but even the contemporary evangelical empiricists who use it with such an air of finality. Let us ask, in all seriousness, How can a Logical Positivist convince me, Christian Dogmatist that I am, that sensory experience is the sole test both of truth and meaning? Can a Christian empiricist, who presumably rejects the second part of the positivists thesis but retains the first, appeal to the Bible to convince me that only in sensation is the basis of truth to be found? He certainly cannot appeal to sensation to prove the truth of sensation when the truth of sensation is the very point at issue. Two persons who agree on their axioms can in this way solve subsidiary problems. But the status of the argument now confronts us with the selection of axioms or choice of first principles. This difficulty is found in every system, and the empiricist does not compliment his intelligence by raising it as an objection against dogmatism... If now one appreciates the present status of the argument, the dogmatic answer to the question can easily be given. The present status of the argument is the choice between dogmatism and nihilism. Empiricism has been demolished. Unless therefore one chooses a dogmatic first principle, one must choose skepticism and irrationality. Neither of these has anything to oppose to dogmatism. Sanity therefore must be dogmatic... Page - 66
Synthesis
What now is the question to be answered? It is not, Shall we choose? Or, is it permissible to choose? We must choose; since we are alive we have chosen either a dogmatic principle or empirical insanity. The question therefore, urged by atheist, evangelical Christian, and evangelistic Moslem, is, Why does anyone choose the Bible rather than the Koran? The answer to this question will also explain how a Christian can present the Gospel to a non-Christian without depending on any logically common proposition in their two systems. Since all possible knowledge must be contained within the system and deduced from its principles, the dogmatic answer must be found in the Bible itself. The answer is that faith is the gift of God. As Psalm 65:4 says, God chooses a man and causes him to accept Christian dogmatism. Conversely, the Apostle John informs us that the Pharisees could not believe because God had blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. The initiation of spiritual life, called regeneration, is the immediate work of the Holy Spirit. It is not produced by Abrahamic blood, nor by natural desire, nor by any act of human will. In particular, it is not produced by arguments based on secular and empirical presuppositions. Even if there were a common truth in secularism and Christianity, arguments based on it would not produce faith. What empirical evangelicals think is most necessary, is most useless. Even the preaching of the Gospel does not produce faith. However, the preaching of the Gospel does one thing that a fallacious argument from a nonexistent common ground cannot do: It provides the propositions that must be believed. But the belief comes from God, God causes a man to believe; faith is a divine gift. In evangelistic work there can be no appeal to secular, nonChristian material. There is an appealit is the appeal of prayer to the Holy Spirit to cause the sinner to accept the truths of the Gospel. Any other appeal is useless.
We must pause at this point to note a possible serious misunderstanding. Clark does not say that appeals are illegitimate, wrong and forbidden! This view is entirely incorrect. Useless does not mean illegitimate. It does not mean we may not use any non-Christian and secular material in our apologetics. On the contrary, Clark insists that not only we can but that we should use all kinds of appropriate and relevant material in our apologetics. But, we should not erroneously attribute to them a power, which is in fact Gods a power to convince and persuade. Clarks useless simply means all such material and appeals are ineffective and insufficient in their own right, as if they could be autonomous, and not that they have no instrumental value at all. Clark insists that ordinarily God uses instrumentally all kinds of ways and means as he pleases, including our use of non-Christian and secular material.
Page - 67
Synthesis
Similarly with preaching and faith. Ordinarily, God uses preaching of the Gospel to produce faith. And so God commands us to preach and reason. But, we must not delude ourselves that we or our preaching and reasoning in and of itself causes faith or convince and persuade anyone. Preaching, reasoning and we also are all simply Gods instruments to accomplish his purpose. Clark keeps distinct what many confuse: The role of Truth (claims), the role of Logic (valid reasoning) and the role of Psychology (persuasion). To continue,
If now a person wants the basic answer to the question, Why does one man have faith and another not, or, Why does one man accept the Koran and another the Bible, this is it. God causes the one to believe. But if a person asks some other question or raises an objection, he will have to read the argument over again... Empirical evangelicals sometimes, usually, logically without exception, regard dogmatism as condemning the Christian apologist to archaeological silence. If historical investigation at best could corroborate the truth of only this or that Biblical passage and not the inspiration and truth of all Scripture, and if at worst, i.e. technically and accurately, empiricism cannot guarantee the reliability of perception, leaving in doubt the description of an artifact [sic] and even its natural status, does not the dogmatic Christian deprive himself of the tremendous advantage of using these startling discoveries in his evangelistic endeavors? This question, with its presupposed, unargued, affirmative answer is thought to cover the dogmatist with inescapable ridicule. The dogmatist ... can make two replies. One is basic and in a way repeats the argument already given in the body of this book, merely applying it to this particular case. The second is more tactical to suit less philosophical tastes. Briefly the first reply seizes upon the rhetorical nature of the question. The form of the question presupposes an affirmative answer. It tacitly excludes a negative answer. It is at the same time a disguised double question (like, Have you stopped beating your wife yet?), and as such hides a dogmatic assertion that empiricists on their theory ought to eschew. Or, to put it another way, it assumes without reasons that perception can indeed accurately describe artifacts [sic] and that a thinker can validly draw from them the conclusion that Christianity is true. If it were a fact that perception is accurate, the question would be legitimate. If the reverse is the case, there are no materials with which to frame the question. That is to say, the question itself assumes the points at issue and is thus merely an illogical device to avoid facing the argument. The nonphilosophical [sic] public, however, is unquestioningly sure that silence on archaeology is ridiculous. Arguments or no arguments, reasons or no reasons, philosophy or no philosophy, archaeology can be spoken about. This is Page - 68
Synthesis
more certain than the academic pretension that sensation might be mistaken. Why pay attention to addled egg-heads? Now, it may come as a surprise to some empiricists that nothing in this book precludes talking about archaeology. Further, the method of talking about archaeology will be satisfactory to the non-philosophical public, even though dogmatic empiricists may sputter somewhat. But then they have no business concerning themselves with this second reply before they have escaped the stringencies of the first. The second reply is that dogmatism allows a person to use ad hominem arguments for what they are worth. And they are worth the embarrassment they create for liberal theologians. To illustrate: Two books before me assert that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because no such claim is made on its pages. Some other books assert that seven-stemmed lamps were first invented during the late Persian period, and hence their mention in Exodus 37 shows that Exodus was written in post-exilic times. Ordinarily an apologete would reply that Caesars Gallic War contains no claim of Caesarian authorship and that in 1962 the archaeologists dug up a sevenstemmed lamp dating many centuries before the time of Moses. Such a reply is what the non-academic Christian wants made. But the academic empiricist complains that on the dogmatists theory the dogmatist has no right to make such a reply. And such surely seems to be the case at first glance. The dogmatic solution of the paradox lies in the fact that his archaeological reply was directed to the liberal theologian in an ordinary conversation. If, however, there is an empiricist present who needs to be satisfied, the ordinary reply must be expanded by making explicit some of the unexpressed conditions. Accordingly the dogmatist would say: Sir, you accept (do you not?) the scientific norms of historiography as they are used by contemporary secular historians. The liberal nods his head. Then how is it, the dogmatist continues, you doubt or deny the Mosaic authorship of Exodus, but do not challenge Caesars? How is it you apply a norm to Exodus and refrain from applying it to the Gallic War? Or, in the same way, the dogmatist would say: Sir, you agree (do you not?) that the method of dating by means of pottery is exceedingly accurate. Then how can you maintain that Moses could not have described seven-stemmed lamps when you admit they were in use in Abrahams times?... [T]he dogmatic mode of argument is clear. It consists of an ad hominem attempt to convict the liberal of contradicting himself. The dogmatist does not attempt to prove the reliability of pottery dating, nor the contemporary principles of historiography. He is not really interested in them. In fact, he has ... shown that they are indefensible and untenable. But none of this vitiates his attempt to convict the liberal of self-contradiction. And covered with Page - 69
Synthesis
contradiction, the liberal and the empiricist, not the dogmatist, have been reduced to silence. Once this is done, there remain no empirical objections against the truth of Scripture. The apologetic task is completed. 85
An informed use of the TAG proof, formulated in such a way so as not to compromise the truths of the Bible, demolishes all intellectual pretences and exposes the poverty of objections raised against biblical Christianity.
Closing Remarks
We have explained the defense of the TAG proof from Clarks works. The claim The Truth-Logic Composite exists is true necessarily, on the pain of self-contradiction. It follows inevitably and inexorably from Clarks Axiom, The Bible is the Word of God. Clark identified the God of the Bible as the eternal Logos or Wisdom, Rationality, Truth of God and so on. It is true the
85 Pgs. 136-142, Three Types of Religious Philosophy; italics in the original. 86 Pgs. 451-452, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark; italics in the original. * Note Well: Clark explicitly identifies the argument as elenctic! Elenctic argument is an indirect form of proof. It refutes an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.
Page - 70
Synthesis
God of the Bible is far more than just this. But, whatever else God is, at the very minimum it includes at least this. But, Clark received much scorn and ridicule for his provocative translation of John 1, In the beginning was Logic... and Logic was God. For example, Van Tils heir apparent, Bahnsen wrote,
Other problems with Clark's rationalistic view could be mentioned. Who can forget his exegetically atrocious rendition of John 1:1?87
Note his propaganda use of rationalistic, which implies Clark rejected Gods Word as Clarks supreme standard; that instead Clark exults logic as an external, autonomous and prior standard by which to judge the Bible. But as we saw, all these suggestions are quite false. The truth is that Clark only insisted we must reason validly from the Bible. Logic is ever subordinate to and coterminous with God, or more specifically with his self-attesting selfrevelation, which we believe today to be the Bible. In the Bible, Gods Word bears the hallmark of coherent rationality, precisely because God is Truth and Wisdom or the eternal Rational Mind. It is part of Gods very nature. Moreover, Van Tils,
If the theistic proof is constructed as it ought to be constructed, [TAG] is objectively valid, whatever the attitude of those to whom it come may be. 88
Page - 71
Synthesis
atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything.90
this is not rationalistic? To rely on the impossibility of the contrary is necessarily to depend on and use Logic. Therefore, if for Clark this is to rationalistically exult logic, then it is true of Van Til, Frame or Bahnsen equally as much, if not more! It is a double standard if we denounce in others as rationalistic what we then freely allow to ourselves. What irony then that Van Tils followers attack Clark just at the point where Clark seems to have unwittingly laid the ground to construct and defend the very thing Van Til claimed was possible: A TAG proof based on the Bible and formulated so as not to compromise the Bible. On the other hand, also recall how Clark criticised Van Tils TAG claim. What irony then that Clark and others attack Van Til, when Clark in effect laid the ground for the TAG proof as it ought to be constructed in such a way as not to compromise the Scripture, exactly as Van Til wanted it to be! At the very least Clark put on the table all the key pieces, even if Clark did not actually join them and then clearly articulate them as a TAG proof for all to see what the proof necessarily must be and only can be, if the proof is formally valid. That is to say, the TAG proof is simply a petitio principii, which is driven and shaped entirely by the axioms on which it rests. We all the believer or skeptic or agnostic or atheist start, live and end by faith, the first act of which is the explicit or more usually an implicit choice of our starting principles, presuppositions and axioms. Moreover, both the advocate and critic alike chose as true and do not prove as true their respective axioms. That is, we all believe; we all start with beliefs and we all end with beliefs. Clark also explained why it is ultimately that we choose as we choose; why it is we believe what we believe: The God of the Bible causes all to believe or disbelieve as it pleases him for his own glory. Again, as Clark did, either we all believe this to be true or we do not. But, all that and more is well beyond the scope of the present discussion. Therefore, we will end our Synthesis at this point.
90 Bahnsen, At War With the Word, an excerpt from the 1987 Van Til Lectures
Page - 72
Postscript
Noetic effect of the Fall
There is one final, but utterly crucial idea that Clark always required. Clark always insisted that Adams Fall and original sin had a noetic effect. It had a profound psychological consequence on all people born of Adam by ordinary generation: To wit, all people sin and disobey God. We all err and make mistakes. 91 Clark even went as far as to say,
Such mistakes are pedantically called the noetic effects of sin. But moral errors are equally noetic ... when God gave them over to a reprobate mind-their sin was first of all a noetic, intellectual, mental malfunction.92 [Effects of sin] consist mainly, or perhaps entirely, of logical blunders.93
The so-called noetic effects of sin are always intellectual malfunctions first. That is, according to the Bible, all sin always starts in the mind first.94 But, though all sin and err, Logic and Truth remain Logic and Truth. The Fall and sin did not affect these in any way at all, just as, say, math of itself or square angles and geometry remain untouched by sin, despite the fact that people make mistakes when doing their additions and divisions or in measuring and constructing angles or squares. 95 So too, truth remains eternally true and valid logical forms remain eternally valid. Invalid ones are always invalid and falsehoods are always false, even if as fallible people we all err and make mistakes in our practice or application of Logic and Truth, be it in math, biology, geometry or theology.
91 The phrase by ordinary generation excludes Jesus. He was born as a man of Mary only. Holy Spirits role in his conception makes Jesus generation extraordinary and unique. As such, in his nature, Jesus was not born as a sinner and he never sinned. 92 Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, The Trinity Review, May/June 1988 93 Pg. 83, Logic 94 Matthew 5:22ff, 12:34, 15:17ff; Mark 7:20; Genesis 6:5, 8:21; Jeremiah 17:9 etc. 95 For example, 1+1 will equal 2 and 2x2 will equal 4 or the sum of angles in a triangle will add up to 180 regardless if we make errors in our calculations and measurements.
Page - 73
Postscript
To object that we make mistakes when we reason, measure or calculate and err or believe falsehoods as if that compellingly refuted, say, the earlier TAG proof, is a category error that confuses our psychology and our application of Logic and Truth with Logic and Truth themselves. If critics insist we must allow for a possibility of error in our argument, (and lets allow it) then the burden of proof still rests with the critics to show where such errors exist. Merely to assert that a possibility of error exists is useless as an objection. Anyone can make assertions about this or that, but bare assertions do not demonstrate anything. The matter is really quite simple. Our error can be only that: 1) One or more of our key premises is false, and / or 2) One or more of our inferences is invalid. Unhappily, critics cannot provide any arguments, as on their own terms, they are humans who err, and so they cannot guarantee the truth or validity of their own claims, objections and supporting arguments. With truth: To what can critics appeal, against which on their own terms they and all others could not object equally and just as much as critics object to the Bible as Clarks axiomatically authoritative source of Truth? With logic: Critics cannot insist their arguments are perfect and without error and still claim to be consistent, because they demand that we must allow for a possibility of error in all human arguments, which on their own terms would destroy their arguments just as effectively, conclusively and irrevocably. All this is most unwelcome and fatal for the critics, as they are or ought to be reduced to silence, with little useful to say, since to open their mouth is to implicitly concede they are wrong. Their objections are self-stultifying. Of course, fortunately (or unfortunately as some may see it) most critics are performatively inconsistent and speak nonetheless. By this they unwittingly help the more informed and attentive Christians so they may refute the critics using the critics very own words. It makes the world an interesting place. Soli Deo Gloria - o0o -
Page - 74