The Clark/Van Til Controversy

K. Scott Oliphint explores the issue of divine and human knowledge as it relates to the Clark/Van Til controversy. Dr. Oliphint is Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary and is the author of several books on apologetics including Reasons for Faith and The Battle Belongs to the Lord.
reformedforum.org/ctc163/

[@tomgeorge7281]

13:30 or so. Clark did not say God “gains” knowledge. In fact he denied it. You can read about this in Clark’s book, God’s Hammer.

[@Amilton5solas]

I hope that Reformed Forum continues to grow! Much needed.

[@Sunflower-mf6zq]

I have problems with this because the scholar here is so obviously biased that Clark is not being fairly represented.

[@ParaSniper2504]

Look out for J. V. Fesko's book critiquing Van Til.

[@tomgeorge7281]

Re 09:30 - If you read The Clark-Van Til Controversy by Herman Hoeksema, you will find out why Clark left the OPC. The Complainants did not want to accept the decision of the church court.

[@jeremybamgbade]

Even as someone who is no longer an avowed Clarkian, Oliphint clearly does not understand Clark and I’m not sure he’s read him closely. As someone else pointed out, it would have been nice to have Oliphint have an actual clarkian on the show. This is almost propaganda lol.

[@jamesmiller393]

Might have been fairer to have a Clarkian on as well to counter some of Dr Oliphant's claims about Dr Clark's views. I don't think everything said here is accepted fact about Clark.

[@cranmer1959]

Strange, because Dr. Oliphant proposed that God used covenantal properties to condescend to participate in creation. He has obviously been influenced by Open Theism. God never changes, period.

[@PapistWitness]

@@cranmer1959This is why he and Reformed Forum have largely gone their separate ways since this interview.

[@lextalionis3754]

Wonderful discussion. Thanks for posting.

[@tomgeorge7281]

15:00 Leaving aside the confusing discussion of the several meanings of analogy, Oliphint describes Clark’s view and calls it Van Til’s. God knows because He created. Man can learn what God knows through revelation. It was Van Til who said God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge do not coincide at any point.

[@cranmer1959]

Exactly. Taking Van Til's view would imply that the Bible is not God's word because God's knowledge and man's knowledge could not coincide at any single proposition in the Scriptures.

[@tjotwo]

This is an excellent discussion. I purchased 2 of Oliphint's books (Reasons for Faith & Christian Apologetics) while I was listening. Nicene Council is plugging Clark so I plan to recommend this discussion in my comment on their video.

[@speaktruthinlove119]

good stuff. brought clarity. thanks for posting.

[@nestborg]

This was absolutely fantastic!

[@ChristisLord]

Very interesting and educational...thank you.

[@cranmer1959]

I've not heard of Sye Tenbruggencate. But I do know the Van Tilian position well. Van Tilians are basically advocates of a mediating position between the conservative and the neo-orthodox view of Scripture. In short, they end up emphasizing contradictions, antinomies and paradoxes rather than the propositional and logical revelation in Scripture.

[@rorshakks]

I'm trying to get it. I'm trying to understand what "the rational soul is logical" really means. I am trying.

[@cranmer1959]

Can you understand that 2 + 2 = 4? And how do you understand anything at all? Hint: John 1:9.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

Novel-ness of terminology does not impart added value but can help elucidate - for a time, place and culture. Timeless meaning is closer to the truth.

[@yellomoth]

I have the same picture that Scott Oliphint has! It's the signing of the Westminster Confession.

[@samueltunnicliffe7012]

No, it really isn't. It's the so-called 'declaration of liberty'

[@magma2551]

The best thing anyone interested in the Clark/Van Til Controversy can do, besides reading the book by the same name by Herman Hoeksema, is to read the complaint VT and the WTS faction filed against Clark's ordination and Clark's answer. You can find both at God's Hammer linked on the sidebar.

[@oaoalphachaser]

Mr. James Curtis..... Are you a Christian?

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

To prop up each person's understanding of God with references to other human thinkers introduces a humanly defined advocate. Followers have one advocate, one helper, one model to emulate, all of which are aspects of one provider - God.

[@elunico13]

I was reading a debate you had with an Arminian. Talk about grasping at straws and having no knowledge of the bible. There are many who think this way where i go for fellowship, but the few of us that appreciate Gods sovereignty stick together and have bible studies. Back to presupposition and epistemology, does proverbs 26:4-5 apply when a Muslim claims to know truth according to his quran?

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

That we know anything is a gift of God. The quality of any gift is less the concern than the prompting of gratitude it instills in the receiver. The value of any exchange depends on both the ability of the giver to give and the spirit with which it is received.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

To provide guidance to anything requires identifying both the object and its current orientation and, additionally, motion is necessary.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

I use the word "transcendental" to illustrate connection to God's truth not limited to processes of human intellect.

[@cranmer1959]

I'm a Clarkian. But before I ever heard of Clark I knew that denying the Scriptures are the very Word of God is either neo-orthodoxy or liberalism. If all truth is God's true and God knows what we know on the creaturely level, then obviously there is a point of convergence of our knowledge with God's knowledge at those points of truth. If not, then we know nothing and revelation is impossible. Analogy opens the door to equivocal revelation and is therefore heresy.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

It's one thing to utilize portions of current commentary where it may benefit the increase in one's knowing of God and it's another to seek exchanges based upon desiring to fitting into that current scene. One may be lead astray more easily as the primary focus is brought more "down to Earth". Requesting a more direct revelation of the truth of God promotes receptivity to instruction from the source.

[@williampaulbeaugruendler7901]

Whoa! #163! Looking for an expose of Van Til called "The Faith Until Van Til - And Still". I think it's penned by the late Bible Presbytherian pastor (Edmonton!), Edward Crawford. Thanks!

[@tomgeorge7281]

Having listened about 15 minutes, I get the impression that no one in this video has read any of the original material on this controversy, and not a lot of the secondary material. I recommend God’s Hammer and Hoeksema’s book, The Clark-Van Til Controversy. I recommend being wary of Bahnsen’s description of Clark’s ideas.

[@doejohn215]

Pfff, k. Because you a random TYer comment holds more weight.

[@nigelhunter4230]

Mr Scott Oliphant is really clear and helpful to understand this.

[@elunico13]

Would you say that all things learned and discovered by man is a revelation from God as long as it is true?

[@cranmer1959]

Clark's position is that if any man knows anything that is true it is because he has been enlightened by the Logos. If you know that 2 + 2 = 4, it is because man is made in the image of God, which is rationality. Animals are not rational. John 1:9.

[@cranmer1959]

The word analogy keeps getting multiple definitions.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

God as source of all, including the perfect knowledge of such, imparts to each person what is to be expressed by that person to serve God's intentions. That knowledge cannot transform that person into God but is caringly shared to further empower the follower to serve.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

Attempting to identify all that is false cannot lead to revelation of truth. Being drawn nearer to truth allows the followers to, more consistently, turn their backs on the lie.

[@dociansavage]

Could you lead me to in Canada that would be willing to discuss things like this. The Presbyterian church in Canada has been hijacked by unbelievers, but there must be Reformed theologians hereabouts. Your Humble Servant in Christ, Ian

[@elunico13]

Are we commanded to respond to the unbelievers objections in this way? I know I cant argue anyone into regeneration. That is clearly a work of God.

[@elunico13]

///Scripture is the beginning axiom for Christianity/// People typically claim that axioms are unproveable. Is scripture unable to be proven as true?

[@JesusGarcia-Digem]

can someone break this down for this layman? this is interesting but im barely hanging on here....

[@traceylok675]

I hope you not still hanging on...lol.

[@jeremybamgbade]

With Clark and Van-Till, there major differences come from differences in epistemology and understanding of the relationship between God’s knowledge and ours. Van-Til taught that our knowledge is analogical to Gods whereas Clark taught that our knowledge is univocal with Gods. Van-Til maintained that if our thoughts were univocal with Gods, it would violate the creator/creature distinction. As a result, he argued that our knowledge is “analogous” to God’s knowledge. Clark rebuttal is that if our thoughts are not univocal with God’s knowledge, then we can know nothing. He would maintain that if all we have is analogy of God’s knowledge, and we accept the premise that Gods knows all, it follows that we know nothing because an analogy is not the thing itself but a representation of the thing. Honestly, I have come to the conclusion that debates are rather pointless, mostly unedifying, and should be reserved for theology nights with close friends. In the end, neither Clark nor Van-Till were free from the noetic effects of sin and I wish their followers would admit that.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

@@jeremybamgbadewow. Your comment is like the Rosetta Stone for the Abstruse gibberish coming from the speakers in this video. You explained it so much more concisely thank you.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

I prefer to stand as a listener of God and needing not (but, of course, appreciating) the shoulders of any human to listen better.

[@cranmer1959]

Gordon H. Clark argued that Scripture is the beginning axiom for Christianity, not rational arguments for God's existence. Rationalism, according to Clark, always leads to irrationalism and skepticism. And in fact, that's exactly what we see with Van Tilians. They proponents of the theology of paradox, contradiction, and irrationalism. Clark, otoh, argued that Scripture is a ratioanl revelation and all knowledge begins with Scripture.

[@cranmer1959]

Clark was on trial. So Oliphant is misrepresenting the complaint.

[@jeanjacques7611]

would van till support the kem-ham camp?

[@cranmer1959]

For the record, Clowney was a student of Clark. Also, this WAS a heresy trial. It was an effort to prevent Clark from being ordained with the OPC. AND modern Van Tilians continue to falsely accuse Clarkians of the "heresy" of "rationalism," which is totally false. Clark was a presuppositionalist and an Augustinian realist.

[@elizabethcarpenter8711]

How can you bring two Van Tilians into Clark vs Van Til debate? How unrighteous.

[@cranmer1959]

You can read numerous articles about and by Gordon H. Clark at the Trinity Foundation. There are also lectures by Clark posted here in Utube and at the Trinity Foundation. God certainly knows MORE propositions than we do. He knows them all. But if we know that David was the king of Israel and God knows the same thing, then our knowledge and His knowledge coincides at that point. To say that Scripture is not univocally God's Word is to introduce neo-orthodoxy. "Inspired MYTH"? I think not.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

Couching our understand on developing terminologies accepts a necessity for self imposed limitation. I reject such as though it were like swaddling which is a temporary simulation extending the feeling of the care of the womb into the environment of the world. An expression of distrust in the one who created and cares results from attempts to swaddle ourselves.

[@FisherofMen75]

Great video. Enjoyed listening. Learning how much more effective a pre-suppositional approach to apologetics is than evidentialist argumentation. However, I feel that if a learned Classical Apologist or "Clarkian" had been present in this discussion we may have seen several of Dr. Oliphant's statements challenged if not refuted. Just sayin.

[@elunico13]

If scripture is axiomatic and can't be proven as true, then how do you reconcile "God reveals truth to us." and "scripture is axiomatic and can't be proven as true? When atheists tell me their basal assumptions of their worldview are assumed, but can't be known as true. I tell them they can't know anything is true in their worldview. I say the bible is true, because without it you can't know anything is true. And this is the way I would say scripture is not axiomatic to critics. Thoughts?

[@Gisbertus_Voetius]

ClarkRobbinsVanTilBahnsen ClarkVanTil In my opinion, your last sentence doesn't consider Gods relevation through natural theology.

[@timothysun1059]

No, the general revelation from the nature ( revelation through natural theology you called , I think) is insufficient to make the God's truth "axiomatic" to man. Only the special revelation through the Scriptures can bring out the whole Truth that God wants man to know. I can agree with the point of ClarkRobbinsVanTilBahnsen ClarkVanTil, from the perspective of the fact that man's heart is masked by the darkness. On the other side, from the sight of God (that I know from Bible), He needs not anything to compensate Himself in letting man know Him, at this point, He is axiomatic, I think.

[@cranmer1959]

@@Gisbertus_Voetius Natural theology cannot provide even one propositional truth. Creation is simply the created universe. If man knows anything that is true, it is because of the image of God and the enlightenment of the divine Logos. John 1:9.

[@jasonpetersen8778]

In Van Til's Apologetic, Bahnsen quotes Clark saying that it is possible that the logical consistency of scripture could be an accident. Unfortunately, Bahnsen left out a crucial paragraph that followed concerning the Holy Spirit. Clark concluded that the logical consistency of scripture is evidence that it is true, but it does not demonstrate that scripture is true. The truth of scripture cannot be logical consistency, rather, it's the revelation of God that makes scripture true.

[@jasonpetersen8778]

***** Exactly. I was explaining this to a Van Tillian the other day. He said that wasn't the context of the chapter. I asked him if he had read the chapter, he said no, but he was going to take Bahnsen's word for it anyway. Some people are unteachable.

[@jasonpetersen8778]

***** Gordon H. Clark, as he often did, was rhetorically speaking from the perspective of the unbeliever and made the point that the unbeliever would sooner think that the logical consistency of scripture is an accident before they would ever accept that it's the Word of God. Clark then goes on to say that a Christian believes the Word of God because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

[@jasonpetersen8778]

***** Have you read any works by Clark, Van Til, or Bahnsen yet?

[@jasonpetersen8778]

***** Who are you on Facebook? Send me a message. I hate secrets. :P

[@jasonpetersen8778]

***** It sounds like you have your work cut out for you. I always tell my Clarkian friends to not neglect reading Van Til, Bahnsen, and Frame. I do suggest that at some point, you also read Clark. Anyone who misses his writings is missing out on a plethora of knowledge concerning scripture, apologetics, and philosophy.

[@Degasbm]

When Van Til is seen as infallible, this is what happens

[@heresyhunters]

I don't think they see Van Til as infallible. They have simply studied him in-depth and look up to him as a leader.

[@cranmer1959]

You can visit the Trinity Foundation website and my blog at Reasonable Christian. Sean Gerety does the God's Hammer blog.

[@elunico13]

///God is truth. Therefore, truth begins with a knowledge of God, not of creation/// One more question: Romans 1:20 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: Doesn't this verse mean through the knowledge of creation they are without excuse for knowing the truth of God and suppressing it? Thanks again. PM me if you want.

[@cranmer1959]

Natural revelation does not prove the existence of the God of the Bible. Which god does nature reveal? You cannot know that without Scripture. Maybe it's Allah or Buddha?

[@cranmer1959]

It is sad that Westminster Seminary, Cal and PA both promote a semi neo-orthodox doctrine of Scripture as "analogy" rather than as the plenary and verbally inspired and inerrant Word of God.

[@cranmer1959]

Odd that CB Wilson doesn't allow me to respond to his gaslighting.

[@cranmer1959]

Clark begins with Scripture because it is impossible to prove by reason that God exists. And even if you could prove a god exists, which god is it? Scripture reveals God. We begin with Scripture as our axiom.

[@elunico13]

We can prove that biblical christianity is the only possible worldview by the possibility of the contrary.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

No. And if you said it right, it would be a meaningless tautology.

[@cranmer1959]

That's absolutely correct. ALL branches of knowledge begin with axioms, including empirical science. Mathematics and philosophy also begin with unproven axioms. So why deny Christians the right to start with the axiom of Scripture? Scripture ALONE is the Word of God. Logic is embedded in Scripture, and Scripture is a rational revelation from God. Van Tilians say that God is "supra" logical or rational and that logic is created for man. John 1:1 says that God IS logic. Look up Logos.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

Because axioms should be parsimonious . Every man must posit certain presuppositions to function in the world, as a minimum requirement, eg. The reality/uniformity of the world, the persistence of self, the laws of logic. These are common among believers and nonbelievers alike. However when a Hindu wants to presuppose some culturally conditioned mindset derived from a specific traditional interpretation of a holy text, those presuppositions are not warranted. They are culturally subjective, and unnecessary. Every culture believes their holy texts are authored by the one true god, if they were necessary we would not have rational thought flourishing in many cultures, reaching far beck even before those revelations were given and those holy texts were written. The assertion that a culturally contingent, subjective theological framework is necessary for knowledge is a hypothesis that must be justified before anyone can honestly claim that said worldview was a universal primary.

[@cranmer1959]

Thanks for affirming relativism. But the point I made is that Christianity, like every other branch of knowledge, begins with an unproven starting point, namely that the Bible alone is the special revelation of God in written propositions. How do I know that the Christian worldview is true? It's simple enough. I know because I have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. All religions make contradictory doctrinal statements or propositions. Therefore, they cannot all be true. Reason cannot refute Christianity because reason itself is a presupposed axiom which every human has. Man is the image of God (John 1:9; Genesis 1:27) and thinks rationally because God is Logic. John 1:1. Everyone must think using logic, otherwise there would be no intelligent interaction between individuals or cultures. @@isidoreaerys8745

[@cranmer1959]

Axioms are everywhere. Geometry, for example, has about 11 axioms.@@isidoreaerys8745

[@cranmer1959]

The axiom of Christianity is the Holy Scriptures. @@isidoreaerys8745

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

I want to be described as a child of God and not limited to be associated with another human who has some renown for his thinking about God. Non are to be allowed to come between God and any of his creation. All of His creation need to cooperate in continuation adoration ultimately.

[@elunico13]

How does Biblical epistemology compete with Quranic epistemology? I appreciate your responses. I need to visit your blog.

[@georgemay8170]

Only believers have "the mind of Christ" which is never "iconic" because we find our true identity outside of ourselves.

[@Scottles293]

thanks heaps very informative

[@elunico13]

///God knows that same truth just as we know it/// Even more in depth, right? We know Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God just as God revealed it to us, but He could expand on it way more. Is this a correct understanding of what you posted? Is there a website where I could learn about Clark's side?

[@cranmer1959]

If man knows anything that is true, including 2 + 2 = 4, God already knew that knowledge because God eternally knows everything; and He knows it intuitively, not discursively.

[@cranmer1959]

Scripture is the starting axiom or unproven starting point for all knowledge.

[@cranmer1959]

I can answer a Muslim's objections by giving him Scripture and by showing that his own religion is full of contradictions and irrationality. I do the same with Van Tilians. First of all, classical Calvinism did not teach common grace or that God desired to save the reprobate. Both of those doctrines are illogical and irrational attempts to harmonize Calvinism with Arminianism. Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest with historical theology.

[@Blogrich55]

Since Van Til believed in paradox and radical incomprehensibility, I wonder how he expected anything God said to His prophets and Apostles to be even slightly relevant to man..It would appear if that is true, and we do NOT really know what God means to say (if there is NO point of commonality) God might just as well have been speaking in gobbledegook. What possible difference could it have made? Dog OBVIOUSLY didn't mean dog to God as it does to us. As far as Van Til would see it. God bless!

[@cranmer1959]

The fact is rationalism always leads to skepticism. That was GHClark's view. So your assessment of the atheist is right. But you're wrong when you presuppose that Scripture cannot be an axiom. All worldviews begin with axioms. So why are you attacking Christians whose unproven axiom is Scripture? If everything else leads to skepticism, why not begin with Scripture?

[@FisherofMen75]

It is important to make the distinction between evidentialism of Arminians and the Classical Apologetics or Philisophical or Objectivist apologetics of someone like Clark or Sproul. To be clear, I believe you huys are on a level that is doing this from the outset, but again I felt like some things were said that would have been Biblically refuted by a Classicist such as Machen or Matt Marino.

[@cranmer1959]

How can something that is "revealed" be "secret"? And, furthermore, how is it prying into the secret being of God to believe in the perspecuity of Scripture as the univocal revelation of God in written form? Horton's view is purely skeptical of the doctrine that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

[@cranmer1959]

Also, Clark said that the Westminster Standards are THE best systematic summary of the propositions of Scripture there is. Read WCF 1:1. 1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;1 yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation:....

[@cranmer1959]

Yes, but did the ape build the rocket or the computer? Or was he just along for the ride? Do chickens do calculus?

[@cranmer1959]

If Scripture is direct special revelation from God on the creaturely level, how is that "prying into the secret being of God" to say that Scripture IS the Word of God rather than an "analogy" of God's revelation?

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

All paradox is resolvable - just not through human thinking alone. Humans label it a paradox due to the limitation of human intellect. The Word presents them, without labeling, to provide opportunity to be lifted to higher understanding. - which can only be received from above. This represents yet another gift. Humans are not to become complacent with limitations of corporeal existence.

[@cranmer1959]

A paradox without a solution becomes an actual contradiction if your theology asserts that all Scripture is paradoxical.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

My assertion is that what is labeled "paradox" is assumed to be not solvable but is really due to the limitations of human understanding. God must lend His understanding to bring the human to the appropriate level of understanding.

[@cranmer1959]

@@KZbinmademeaddahandle So the Bible does contain a few paradoxes here and there, but is all Scripture paradoxical as Cornelius Van Til and his followers contend? The other question is whether or not some of those apparent contradictions or paradoxes in the Bible have been solved in the past? If so, then it would appear that paradoxes do have solutions if we look for the solutions. You seem to be confusing paradox with an actual contradiction since you assume that humans will never solve the apparent contradiction. The position of faith, on the other hand, presupposes that there are no actual contradictions in Scripture, that paradoxes have solvable solutions even if we have not yet found them, and that Scripture is without errors, falsehoods, antinomies, contradictions, or irrationalities in all that it affirms. Of course, God is providentially in control of the human mind in solving apparent contradictions. Irrational thinking is the result of the noetic effects of sin.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

@@cranmer1959 Human logic can only view a paradox as a contradiction. Godly understanding both eliminates the apparent contradiction and deepens understanding beyond mere human logic. The proper understanding of a paradox is that it presents an apparent contradiction which begs for the resolution only possible with Godly understanding. Don't let human understanding put a box around (imposed limitation of understanding) the relationship of each child of God with HIm. His understanding is timeless as He is the creator of that as well.

[@cranmer1959]

@@KZbinmademeaddahandle God IS Logic. John 1:1. Since God thinks logically and man is God's image, it irrevocably follows that rationality and logical thinking is not merely "human" logic. Your view is outright irrationality and neo-orthodoxy. So, is it possible that your view is in violation of the law of contradiction? Is the Bible a logical, rational and propositional revelation from God? Or does it contain endless unsolvable paradoxes? Is all Scripture paradoxical? No wonder Scott Oliphant proposed a form of open theism in his book on the covenantal properties of God.

[@cranmer1959]

If we know anything that is true, then God knows that same truth just as we know it. God is omniscient. If we know truth then God knows it as well. If not, then we can know nothing at all.

[@cranmer1959]

If you want to know what Scripturalism is, look up Dr. Gary Crampton's article at The Trinity Review: Scripturalism: A Christian Worldview.

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

Logic is a human construct which helps us, in the fallen state, and should be viewed as another temporary aid to performing God's will within this temporary environment. In heaven, human logic will be useless and so not entertained by God.

[@russells1902]

Review of “Logic” by Clark Reviewed by W. Gary Crampton, Th.D. A Book Review of Gordon H. Clark's Logic (The Trinity Foundation, 1998) 140 pages. (From The Blue Banner, v. 10 #3, July/September 2001) In the “Introduction” to this book, John Robbins asks the most pertinent question, “Why Study Logic?” Logic, which is defined as “the science of necessary inference,” is often belittled as unnecessary. After all, we are told, “life is deeper than logic; life is green, but logic is gray and lifeless.” Why then should we spend our time studying logic? Could we not better involve ourselves in something “more spiritual?” In his Logic,[1] Gordon Clark, who taught the subject for years at the college and seminary level, instructs his readers about “the science of necessary inference.” Logic is a text book, and it is classic. In it Dr. Clark defines and deals with Informal Fallacies, Syllogisms, Sorites and other forms of Argument, Truth Tables, etc. All of the chapters are, in typical Clarkian fashion, systematic, and extremely well presented. But the most important thing the author does in the book under review is answer the question “Why Study Logic?” In the “Postscript,” and elsewhere,[2] Dr. Clark presents a biblical view of logic. First, the Bible teaches that the Triune God is a God of knowledge, who is also the source and determiner of all truth. That which is true is true because God thinks it so. And since that which is not rational cannot be true (1 Timothy 6:20), it follows that God is rational, and the laws of logic are the way he thinks. This is, of course, what the Bible teaches. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33); he is a rational being, the Lord God of truth (Psalm 31:5). So much does the Bible speak of God as a God of logic, that in John 1:1 Jesus Christ is called the “Logic” of God: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God” (the English word “logic” is derived from the Greek logos used in this verse). John 1:1 emphasizes the rationality of God the Son. Logic is as eternal as God himself because “the Logos is God.” Hence, God and logic cannot be separated; logic is the characteristic of God’s thinking. So God and logic are one and the same first principle. This should give us a greater understanding of the relationship of logic and Scripture. Since Logic is God, and since Scripture is a part of “the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16), it follows that Scripture must be logical. What is said in Scripture is God’s infallible and inerrant thought. It expresses the mind of God because God and his Word are one. This being the case, the Bible is a logically consistent book. Further, logic is embedded in Scripture. The very first verse of the Bible, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” necessitates the validity of the most fundamental law of logic: the law of contradiction (A is not non-A). Genesis 1:1 teaches that God is the Creator of all things. Too, it says that he created “in the beginning.” It does not teach, therefore, that God is not the Creator of all things, nor does it maintain that God created all things 100 years after the beginning. The verse assumes that the words God, beginning, created, and so forth, all have definite meanings. It also assumes that they do not mean certain things. For speech to be intelligible, words must have univocal meanings. What makes the words meaningful, and revelation and communication possible, is that each word conforms to the law of contradiction. This most fundamental law of logic cannot be proved. For any attempt to prove the law of contradiction would presuppose the truth of the law and therefore beg the question. Simply put, it is not possible to reason without using the law of contradiction. In this sense, the laws of logic are axiomatic. But they are only axiomatic because they are fixed or embedded in the Word of God. Also fixed in Scripture are the two other principle laws of logic: the law of identity (A is A), and the law of the excluded middle (A is either B or non-B). The former is taught in Exodus 3:14, in the name of God itself: “I AM WHO I AM.” And the latter is found, for example, in the words of Christ: “He who is not with me is against me” (Luke 11:23). Logic, then, is embedded in Scripture. This is why Scripture, rather than the laws of logic, is selected as the axiomatic starting point of Christian epistemology. Similarly, God is not made the axiom, because all of our knowledge of God comes from Scripture. “God,” as an axiom, without Scripture, is merely a name. Scripture as the axiom defines God. As we are taught in the Bible, man is the image of God (Genesis 1:26,27). God “formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Adam became a type of soul that is superior to that of non-rational animals (2 Peter 2:12). Man, as God’s image bearer, is a rational being (Colossians 3:10). This is why the apostle Paul could spend time “reasoning” with his auditors “from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). Moreover, because Christ is the Logos who “gives [epistemological] light to every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9), we are to understand that there is a point at which man’s logic meets God’s logic. In fact, John 1:9 denies that logic is arbitrary; it also denies polylogism, i.e., that there may be many kinds of logic. According to John, there is only one kind of logic: God’s logic. And the Logos gives to every image bearer of God the ability to think logically. Man, then, has the capacity to think logically and to communicate with God. God created Adam with a mind structured in a manner similar to his own. In the Scripture, God has given man an intelligible message, “words of truth and reason” (Acts 26:25). God has also given man language that enables him to rationally converse with his Creator (Exodus 4:11). Such thought and conversation would not be possible without the laws of logic. Logic is indispensable to all (God-given) human thought and speech. This being so, we must insist that there is no “mere human logic” as contrasted with a divine logic. Such fallacious thinking does disservice to the Logos of God himself. One might argue here that the fall of man rendered logic defective. But this is not the case. The noetic effects of sin indeed hinder man’s ability to reason correctly (Romans 1:21), but this in no way implies that the laws of logic themselves are impinged. In other words, it is not the laws of logic that are affected by the Fall, it is man’s ability to think logically that is so affected. As we have seen, the laws of logic are eternally fixed in the mind of God. They cannot be affected; they are eternally valid. Logic is fixed and universal; it is necessary and irreplaceable. Conclusion: Why should we study logic? First, because we are commanded by Scripture to do so. Second, as taught by the Westminster Confession of Faith (I:6), all things necessary for our faith and life are either expressly set down in Scripture, or can be logically deduced from Scripture. Logic then is indispensable to the study of the Word of God. And third, logic is not only indispensable to the study of theology, it is necessary for our study of all subjects. In the words of Augustine: “The science of reasoning is of very great service in searching into and unraveling all sorts of questions that come up in Scripture....The validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but it is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God.”

[@Youtubemademeaddahandle]

@@russells1902 Man is compelled by sin to attempt to "couch" God in their own terms. This is (and will be) not possible in His presence.

[@turquoise770]

that the conveyance of revelation (or knowledge) from God's spirit (the Holy Spirit) to the believing born-again spirit in man was not addressed here tells me a lot about this particular sect.

[@cranmer1959]

Van Til's theology of paradox undermines the authority of Scripture as the very and univocal revelation of God in written form. CVT's view is really just a compromise with neo-orthodoxy, a fact that Gordon H. Clark saw clearly. That's how you see people like Tim Keller advocating theistic evolution and Mike Horton saying that the Bible is "inspired myth." The Bible is NOT fable, myth, saga, or legend. It IS the Word of God. That's Clark's position and it is mine as well. CVT was irrational

[@elunico13]

I appreciate your responses. This makes sense. That's what I heard Dr. Oliphint say. Would say that scripture is true because God says his word is true, but without out it you can't prove anything as true? Have you heard of Sye Tenbruggencate? You should look him up on youtube and listen to a short video of his. I'm curious to know what you think.

[@rorshakks]

Charlie, Is this right to say? General revelation can only give the Law? It cannot save.

[@cranmer1959]

All truth is God's truth. That's Arthur Holmes' view. But Clark's view was that God knows all truth and if we know anything that is true, God must know that same truth just as we know it because God is omniscient. If we know nothing God knows, then if follows that nothing we know is true. There must be at least ONE point of coincidence or convergence between God's knowledge and our knowledge if we are to know anything true. Of course, we are limited. But to deny that we know anything?

[@thebibleformula]

If you know the Bible Formula, you can easily unify Van Til's Trinitarian apologetics and Clark's Logos or Scriptural apologetics.

[@Blogrich55]

@11:56 "Analogical"? So if the ONLY thing I tell you about a motorcycle is to use the analogy of a Horse and I add "of course it is a man made machine and therefore not alive" (I do this to be clearer) you REALLY don't know that much about a motorcycle do you? Van Til's view leads to utter skepticism if for no OTHER reason that you cannot PROVE anything by analogy. Analogies only illustrate. There is the Fallacy of false analogy too. I have heard some try to explain every detail in a parable..

[@cranmer1959]

All truth is God's truth, that is. The bottom line here is that we are limited but God communicates univocally to us on our level. We do not know all that God knows but when God reveals any truth to us that truth is not subjective but propositional in nature.

[@cranmer1959]

Just because God knows more than we do does not mean that we can know "nothing" that God knows. General revelation can lead only to skepticism.

[@Blogrich55]

One last thought: IF God knows everything (and of course He does) and man does not even know ONE THING as God does (for example 1+1 = 2) THEN man knows NOTHING. That, my brothers, is absolute skepticism. Dr Gary North who is one of Van Til and Rushdooney's greatest disciples. Once wrote in his book UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER that God was One Person AND 3 Persons. Sounds profound, doesn't it? But even a blessed Arminian like the late Dr Walter R Martin said such profundity was sophmoric. God bless.

[@cranmer1959]

and let God sort 'em out. God's elect will believe the Gospel and the reprobate will not.

[@elunico13]

I think I understand this now. Only the scriptures provide the true premises (God's revelation) in order to make our conclusions sound. Of course we can't know everything, but we can begin to know things and have absolute certainty in some things (revelational epistemology) , i.e. our Creator is the trinitarian God who has revealed himself in the bible and was made a man who sacrificed himself for us in order that we may have life.

[@chad969]

In order to have absolute certainty in revelational epistemology you must have absolute certainty that god hasn't deceived you, right? Can you provide a non-question begging explanation as to how you determined that it's impossible for the creator of the universe to have fooled you into thinking you're certain about things that are false?

[@Gisbertus_Voetius]

This seems a highly complex thema. I have some questions: Gods archetypal knowledge is in a sense a form of Kants noumenal world (or vice-versa): We can't access the world how it really is. This only God can. Now, because God has created the world as it is and has given us our senses and reason we are able to experience the world exactly how God want us to experience the world. In Kant there is mere scepticism toward the noumenal word. More, to make the distinction between noumenal and phenomenal one has to know appearances as appearance. But this is already to go beyond mere appearances. What I see with the notion of Thomas' analogy: There must be a univocal core to our knowledge. In another words: Our knowledge must not only refer to the archetypal knowlede of God but must be at some point identical with it. This seems the same as saying that the noumenal world is attached to the phenomenal. Thus, in the pbenomenal world we experience also the noumenal, archetypal knowledge of God. But in what sense? What is the relationship between Gods archetypal and ektypal knoweldge and how are they related to the world?

[@cranmer1959]

Truth begins with a knowledge of Scripture, not the knowledge of God. We cannot know God apart from special revelation. Hebrews 1:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

[@cranmer1959]

Absolutely we are commanded to preach the Word. The preaching of the Word will not return void. Isaiah 55:11. Romans 10:1-17. Furthermore, without the new birth no one will believe. John 3:3-8; 6:37-44, 65. The effectual call of God is the ONLY way ANYONE will be saved. Mt. 22:12-14. Also, what I said above may not be completely accurate since Clark strives to show that all knowledge based on rationalism or reason leads only to skepticism, irrationalism, and unbelief.

[@nathanualcooper]

I need to talk to somebody about the prelude van til wrote to Benjamin b warfield inerrancy and authority of scripture. The theatre of God. Persay.

[@heresyhunters]

It's an excellent essay, though much of it was over my head.

[@beginningtosee7457]

So what about all these aborted babies- children that die in infancy- the MENTALLY impaired- the heathen in remote places - all the illiterate masses - people who lived and died before 1611 - etc. etc.- Just maybe it God is much more rich on mercy than most dare think- How much REPENTING do children? Think about it beloved - everyone is born again in the same way John 3:8 - at God's appointed time the Holy Spirit -like the wind - blows where God wills - to that beloved of God child of grace - and they are born anew from above - The child of God had no say in their natural birth - and likewise they have no say in the new birth - the gospel - brings to light the child of Gods blessed conditions- and is not the means of the new birth.

[@cranmer1959]

Right and wrong are only possible because of logic. Dogs and cats do not know right and wrong. Only man does. Good and evil are understood only as logical contradictions. Good is not evil and evil is not good.

[@cranmer1959]

rorshakks, no. The moral law is given by special revelation, not by general revelation. The idea that there is a "natural law" in general revelation is more of Van Til's inconsistency. There is no such thing as "natural" law. The moral law is given in the Scriptures, although I would agree that part of the divine image of God in man is moral but only in light of the fact that the rational soul is logical. Without logic there would be no moral law. Revelation in Scripture is logical.

[@magma2551]

Oliphint is just prejudicial and sloppy. Clark was not a "Nestorian" - something even Vantillian James Anderson admits, but VT was certainly contradictory in his Trinitarianism. FWIW Clark's theory completely mirrors Morris' two-mind theory and solves the paradox of the Incarnation -- something Oliphint and every Vantillian I've ever met is loathe to do.

[@cranmer1959]

Which God? The point of Romans 1:18-32 is that creation testifies to God's existence and that this results in idolatry because of the noetic effects of sin.

[@cranmer1959]

The atheist does not prove God's non-existence. They presuppose it.

[@HudsonBarton]

The Nicene Creed says that truth comes through two means; that the Holy Ghost (God) "spake by the prophets", and that God also demonstrates Himself in nature "according to the Scriptures". In other words, what God has created is wholly congruent with what God has spoken. It is not a mere analog. However, it does NOT teach that something must be stated in both places before it can be said to be true. Both Scripture and "the heavens declare His handiwork", congruently but not identically.

[@cranmer1959]

I would say that Clark's position is that empiricism and rationalism lead to irrationalism. Logical positivism is self-refuting and so is empiricism. Science can be applied with practical results but theoretical science is always false because it is based on inductive logic. David Hume devastated the idea of cause and effect that extends regressively to a first cause--and that applies whether you refer to creation or to evolution. Cause and effect as a universal cannot be proved inductively

[@tomgeorge7281]

Right. In _Three Types of Religious Philosophy_, Clark showed the problems with Empiricism, Rationalism, and Irrationalism. He critiqued Logical Positivism in _Language and Philosophy_. Clark explained his view of science in _The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God_.

[@cranmer1959]

Biblical epistemology competes with the Quran on the basis that Scripture claims to be the Word of God and to be God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16)

[@cranmer1959]

and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;4

[@Google_Was_My_Idea_nr.1]

Somehow he made God unintelligible, to know God's mind one is restrained and restricted to one's experience of reality based on one's perspective, soooo..... there you go!

[@jettmorgan-bourke3516]

Who are you claiming made God unintelligible

[@Google_Was_My_Idea_nr.1]

@@jettmorgan-bourke3516 Just listen to the argument and/or opinion, speaks for itself.

[@jettmorgan-bourke3516]

@@Google_Was_My_Idea_nr.1 I did, must have watched this 3 times in the last six months but having just stumbled across a Gordon Clark book at a library sold for a dollar and reading it I have become interested again. Im guessing this is something you think of Van Til but wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything.

[@Google_Was_My_Idea_nr.1]

@@jettmorgan-bourke3516 This is what I mean: 'God's knowledge from a certain tradition', here I start being skeptical, as I read the Bible I do understand what the different positions of God are, people who reinterpret God's words or intentions, implementing meaning in scripture that isn't there makes God unintelligible, saying on one hand something that doesn't really fit with the existing narrative, on the other hand clear textual references. This is how this game is played by many. The Christian presuppositional world view holds no merits if we would compare it to for instance Hinduism or Buddhism. In order to truly understand the presupposition one has first to make an assumption, this is intellectual dishonesty. If something is true then the truthfulness should be clear from the start, not requiring a certain technique for reinterpretation, won't you agree?

[@jettmorgan-bourke3516]

@@Google_Was_My_Idea_nr.1 im not sure you are being very clear, but what I hear that you are saying, is that the assertion of the presupposition, the basic idea underpinning a worldview, say for example Christianity, is no more or less verifiable or evidently true than the basic presupposition for any other worldview (like Buddhism or Hinduism, or anything else for that matter). As far as I can tell (based on presuppositionalism at least) this is not true, because the Christian presupposition alone leads to no contradictions, whereas any other presupposition will inevtiably lead to contradiction - that is to say at least two necessary conclusions derived from the presupposition which also disallow the other logically to fit within the same framework. Also I'm still not sure if this is an argument against presuppositionalism generally or either Clark or Van Tils position.