christianity is reasonable

Biblical Christianity

IS

Reasonable!

by

Jack Larrane

Sydney

© 2011

Biblical Christianity is Reasonable!

© 2001, 2007, 2011 Jack Larrane

First published: December 2001

Second edition: July 2007

Expanded edition: May 2011

FSBN X 123456 78 9 X

Graphic Design by e-Creative Concepts

and iSouthern Digital Design, Sydney.

Typeset, printed and bound at

The iLaser e-Print Publishing Company Pty. Ltd.,

Sydney, Australia.

Page - i

Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3

Analysis ............................................................................................................. 5

Clark and Van Til’s “proof” of God’s Existence .......................................................5

Clark’s 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 - ii

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

Critic’s Implicit Hostility ........................................................................................47

Critic’s own Petitio Principii ................................................................................. 48

Where to Next? ...................................................................................................... 49

The TAG Proof “fails” after all .............................................................................. 50

The Christian’s 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 - 3

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. Clark’s work for many decades now.

Dr. Clark passed away in 1984, but most of his works are available from The Trinity Foundation.1 Dr. Clark’s 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

God’s Revelation is any knowledge even possible.

As we shall see, biblical Christianity is rational and reasonable precisely

because Bible is God’s 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. Clark’s 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.

1 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/

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GHCLark_List1/

Introduction Biblical Christianity is Reasonable!

Page - 4

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. Clark’s 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 Paul’s call to critically test and examine all truth claims:

Dr. Clark’s, the present author’s or even those of an angel.

We hope that not just students of Christianity will benefit from studying Dr. Clark’s 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 - 5

Analysis

Clark and Van Til’s “proof” of God’s Existence

We can be sure it was not Clark’s intent, but in his writings he ‘defended’

Van Til’s alleged proof of God’s existence as this author understands Clark’s works. The irony here is that some of Van Til’s best-known champions, like

Greg Bahnsen, mocked in Clark’s work the very building blocks of the TAG

proof that Van Til said was possible – though Van Til never provided it.

Clark’s Objection

We do not deny that Clark objected to Van Til’s 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 Til’s contemporaries have been challenging him to produce this

reformulation he insists upon. He has not done so.2

2 Clark, The Cosmological Argument, The Trinity Review, September 1979

Analysis Biblical Christianity is Reasonable!

Page - 6

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 writer’s 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 Clark’s terms.

Any reasonably informed person about Clark’s 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.

Biblical Christianity is Reasonable! Analysis

Page - 7

Our analysis begins by quoting one of Clark’s 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

Clark’s 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 John’s 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 person’s 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 Clark, God and Logic, The Trinity Review, Nov/Dec 1980; italics in the original.

4 Clark, ibid. Or again, why should to say Christ is Wisdom or Reason be more offensive than to say Christ is the Word?


Page - 8

Key Thought: ‘Impossibility of the Contrary’

In his works Clark often explains how some claim or other is necessarily self-refuting on its own terms. That is, Clark shows the ‘impossibility of the

contrary’ as a Van Tilian would put it. Clark explained the ‘impossibility of

the contrary’ more traditionally, as we will follow Clark also. For example,

consider the following:

To claim we have NO starting principles betrays and exposes our prior commitment and proves we have a starting principle.

We all are presuppositionalists and dogmatists. It is not an issue of being

or not being one. We all are. As Clark explains,

Every philosophic or theological system must begin somewhere, for if it did

not begin it could not continue. But a beginning cannot be preceded by

anything else, or it would not be the beginning. Therefore every system must

be based on presuppositions or axioms. They may be Spinoza’s axioms; they

may be Locke’s sensory starting point, or whatever. Every system must

therefore be presuppositional.5

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.

5 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 - 9

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 person’s 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

6 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).

7 Clark, pg. 98, Language and Theology, 1993

8 For Van Til a starting point or presupposition all mean essentially the same as Clark’s

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 - 10

Key Thought: The Truth-Logic Complex

What we mean here is that in the Complex, Compound or Composite we have just the one reality and not different distinct realities. In the one reality,

it is impossible for one of its aspects to ‘exist’ without all of its other aspects

existing also. It is due to our limitations that we distinguish the Composite’s constituent aspects in order to discuss them, so that we can more fully grasp

the Composite, Compound or Complex.

It is like to speak of, say, the 3D-space reality as three dimensions. But

that is what 3D-space is. It is purely for our convenience that we speak of its

width, length and height individually.

Or consider the common salt (NaCl) as another example of a compound or complex. NaCl is what salt is, even though we speak of its constituent

elements Na and Cl separately. But salt is not merely the Na and Cl elements

mixed up together like nuts and bolts, as it were. The compound or complex

NaCl is what the common table salt is.

In other words, where we have a Truth-Logic Complex, there is Truth and

there is Logic; it is what Rationality is. Rationality comes as the one reality

just like 3D-space or the common table salt.

Rationality: ‘Impossibility of the Contrary’

The defining essence of Rationality is the Truth-Logic Complex. Without the idea of Truth, it is meaningless to speak of Rationality. Without Logic, it

is meaningless to speak of Rationality. Just as without either Na or Cl, we do

not have common table salt or without length, height, or width we do not

have 3D-space. It is an impossibility.

To argue against or deny Rationality is already to affirm its existence. It is

to make a Truth claim and it is to apply Logic.

Rational communication, proofs, language, arguments etc. all are possible

for rational beings only because the Truth-Logic Complex is a priori already

there; built into them, part of their nature and very being, so to speak.

Truth: ‘Impossibility of the contrary’

Truth is axiomatic. Truth is eternal, unchanging, conceptual, immaterial,

invisible, intangible, intellectual, fixed and so on.

Truth is about the data, content, facts, information, and claims and so on.

It is about the WHAT of thought and reasoning. Truth is the ‘noun’ of a

matter; the musical notes of a musical composition, so to speak.


Page - 11

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.

Logic: ‘Impossibility of the Contrary’

Just like Truth, broadly speaking Logic is axiomatic also. Logic, or more narrowly, deductive logic, is about the methods, processes, rules, forms and

so on of necessary inferences. It is not about Truth as such.

Logic is about the HOW of thought and reasoning. It is the ‘verb’ of a

matter; the rules of how to play a musical composition, so to speak.

At a minimum, Logic includes the Laws of Identity, Contradiction (also

called Non-contradiction) and Excluded Middle. These laws are often called the Three Laws of Thought. We must not confuse Logic in this sense with

the artificial languages of logic. There are many languages of logic.

To grasp this distinction better, consider human language. There is just

the one Language – the underlying meaning of all rational communication. But there are hundreds of very different human languages: English, Chinese,

French, Zulu, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Khmer, and Tobi and on and on. They

can use different alphabets and different grammar. They certainly can sound

vastly different and so on. But, with a little effort, all rational speakers can convey and translate their ideas and thoughts from one language to another,

even if they lived ‘000s of years apart.

Similarly, there is just the one Logic that governs all rational reasoning

and thought. But there are many languages of logic. Yet, to create any logic language (e.g. first-order logic), even one that formally does not include one

of those Laws9, its author of necessity must first embrace and apply those

Three Laws of Thought.

That is, to state even the first and most basic building block or axiom of

that logic language, its author and users alike must first accept those Laws. If they did not accept those Laws, it would be impossible to codify rationally

that language in the first place, much less to meaningfully communicate it to

anyone else. As Clark puts it,

Logic is irreplaceable. It is not an arbitrary tautology, a useful framework

among others. Various systems of cataloging books in libraries are possible,

and several are equally convenient. They are all arbitrary… But there is no

substitute for the law of contradiction. If dog is the equivalent of not-dog, and

9 For example, in intuitionistic logic, the Law of Excluded Middle is not one of its axioms.


Page - 12

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 language’s 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

Logic’s 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 - 13

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 - 14

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 Clark’s own works regarding TAG!

By “putting together” key thoughts from Clark’s works, it is this author’s

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 Clark’s 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.

13 Pg. 57, Logic


Page - 15

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 Theologian’s Besetting Sin, The Trinity Review, March/April 1992


Page - 16

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. That’s 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 Clark’s 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 - 17

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 - 18

Many of Clark’s advocates will reject the conclusion of this work, as they will not grasp psychologically what this author believes is irrefutably already

contained logically in Clark’s 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 - 19

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 - 20

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, let’s 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 - 21

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 - 22

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.

The TAG Proof: First Attempt

In the argument A1 above, we do not have to use P’s or Q’s as our signs.

We can use any token or word we want. For example, in the “If P, then Q,”

we could reword it as follows:

Given: If Ranltioaity is true, Then Dog exists.

Ranltioaity is true.

THEREFORE,

Dog exists.

There. QED. We are done. The proof of God’s existence is complete,

irrefutable, absolute and objectively true.

Not persuaded or agreed? If not, why not?

The rewording is a perfectly valid argument, which objectively proves the

existence of God.

So, why are we not convinced or persuaded by the argument?


Page - 23

Objections to the First Attempt

First, as we saw already, the formal validity of the argument is not the problem here. To attack its validity, would be to attack Logic. This would be

self-refuting.

To reiterate: We must always remember that Logic is about the validity of

deductive inferences. It is about method and form. It is about the HOW of arguments. Logic is not about psychology or brute force and much less as a

source of authoritative truths.

What then or where exactly is the problem in the TAG proof, if the Logic

of the TAG is valid and it is not the source of the problem?

The real issue is what most people intuitively will target at once. It is the

words like Dog and Ranltioaity.

“How can anyone confuse dog with God? And Ranltioaity? What the

heck is that,” they will object.

So, yet again, we immediately see that it is a dispute over the content or

data and the truth of premises. It is about the WHAT of our arguments. And

the WHAT is for an authoritative source of truth to give. It is not for Logic to decide much less to declare. Logic cannot ascertain, much less guarantee the

truth of any premise at all. The simple fact is that formally valid arguments

cannot convince or persuade anyone about the truth of anything.

Persuasion is a matter of psychology and not of Logic. It bears repeating

over and again. Psychology and Truth must not be confused and thought as being the same. And neither one should be confused with the logical validity

of a proof.

So, the answer here ultimately is not something Logic can give.

This is why all starting principles or axioms are so crucial to all. It is to

this we will turn next. We will show that Clark uses a different vocabulary to

what we find in typical TAG discussions. But, it will become abundantly clear

that the core ideas and logical structure are identical.

- o0o -

Page - 24

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 ‘Clark’s’ 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

Biblical Christianity is Reasonable! Synthesis

Page - 25

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, let’s 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.

Synthesis Biblical Christianity is Reasonable!

Page - 26

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.

Imperative: We must return to our Starting Principles

It is no secret that THE paramount concept in Clark’s views is the axiom or

starting principle or presupposition and so on. Our starting principles give us

both the data and the processes we intend to start with and use. Here Van Til and Clark have no dispute, though many try to find a difference between them.

They both are presuppositionalists or dogmatists of the Calvinistic kind.

Most know that Clark’s starting principle was the Bible. He got his data

about what God is from the Bible. Much of the Bible’s ‘theory’ is summarised in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Both Clark and Van Til affirmed its

summary. This is just what Van Til had in mind when he wrote, “I do not reject

theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as not to

compromise the Scripture.”

If there is one compromise, which Van Til would never allow or accept, it was a non-Scriptural definition of his key terms like God or objective. Biblical

Christianity defines its own terms based on its own axioms, just as everyone

else must do and demands that right for themselves to do.

Clark explicitly and repeatedly explains all this in his works. For example,

[A]xioms are never deduced. They are assumed without proof. … There is a

definite reason why not everything can be deduced. If one tried to prove the

axioms of geometry, one must refer back to prior propositions. If these too must

be deduced, there must be previous propositions, and so on back ad infinitum.

From which it follows: If everything must be demonstrated, nothing can be

demonstrated, for there would be no starting point. If you cannot start, then you surely cannot finish.

Every system of theology or philosophy must have a starting point. Logical

Positivists started with the unproved assumption that a sentence can have no meaning unless it can be tested by sensation. To speak without referring to

something that can be touched, seen, smelled, and especially measured, is to

speak nonsense. But they never deduce this principle. It is their non-

demonstrable axiom. Worse, it is self-contradictory, for it has not been seen,

smelled, or measured; therefore it is self-condemned as nonsense.


Page - 27

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 Christianity’s 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

And again, this time expanding on how axioms are to be tested,

[God’s] revelation [in the Bible] should be accepted as our axiom…

Customarily secular thinkers and prospective converts have demanded proofs

of revelation. To satisfy them, Christian believers have often made great efforts

to provide these proofs. As arguments to show that the Bible is the Word of

God, the Westminster Confession cites the testimony of the Church, the

heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style,

the consent of all the parts and many other incomparable excellencies. Yet these are insufficient to produce full persuasion and assurance of infallible truth

and divine authority. [Holy Spirit alone can produce such conviction].

But that revelation should be accepted without proofs or reasons, undeduced [sic] from something admittedly true, seems odd when first proposed. It will

not seem so odd, however, when the nature of axioms is kept in mind. Axioms,

whatever they may be and in whatever subject they are used, are never deduced

from more original principles. They are always tested in another way… So too

it should be with Christian revelation as an axiom. We must ask, Does

revelation make knowledge possible? Does revelation establish values and

25 Clark, Atheism, The Trinity Review, June/August 1983; italics in the original.

26 Clark, Classical Apologetics, The Trinity Review, September/October 1985


Page - 28

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 Clark’s 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

Or again, emphasising the ‘impossibility of the contrary’ of choice,

Even in ... trivial matters suspension of judgment is not easy to achieve. In fact

it is impossible. Whether it is toothpaste or theism, one must either accept it or

go without.

Suspension of judgment seems possible only when the practical business of

living is excluded from consideration... Suspension of judgment ... is but a

disguised, if dignified, form of unbelief. A choice therefore cannot be avoided.

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 - 29

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.

Imperative: Our Axioms Must Include All Key Concepts

So, all people ultimately start dogmatically with presuppositions they have,

whether they are aware of this or not. Even a claim of alleged “objective

neutrality” already brings with it presuppositions, which are chosen, asserted

and defended dogmatically with a bias – without exception!

The idea of “objective neutrality” sounds attractive, but it is pure fiction.

We cannot criticise Clark or Van Til’s use of the Bible as their chosen start or axiom and still claim we are consistent or do not resort to double standards.

Nor can anyone validly object and criticise Clark or Van Til that they cannot

deduce anything from their axiom, never mind what God is.

For Clark, “The Bible is the Word of God” as his Axiom is paramount,

The thousands of Biblical propositions need not be construed as an immense set

of axioms… What annoys Euclid and Spinoza is that [biblical Christian]

theology can operate on a single axiom. The single axiom is: The Bible is the

Word of God. But though single, it is fruitful because there is embedded in it

the law of contradiction, plus the nature of God … plus the thousands of

propositions thus declared true.

On this latter point the form of deduction can be maintained. From the one

axiom it follows syllogistically that such and such a sentence in Scripture is

true because it is the Word of God.

30 Clark, pg. 33-34, A Christian View of Men and Things, 1991


Page - 30

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 Clark’s 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

That is why Clark also says about the Bible,

[Earlier] I argued that Mavrodes treated [my] Axiom as if the Bible were a

mere word without content. Obviously from a word, nothing can be inferred.

But such a nominalistic procedure is clearly not intended.33

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 - 31

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?

Yet another Objection

The atheist does not accept the Bible as his authoritative source of Truth.

Many will ask: “Surely, for a discussion to advance profitably there must be some common ground?” Although the implied “Yes,” seems a very ‘common

sense’ and obvious answer, it is a wrong answer.

Since EVERY world-view ultimately reduces to a form of dogmatism, every

such world-view is an all-inclusive system. So, if there is no overlap in their respective axioms, or worse, if the systems are mutually exclusive, then there

will be no propositions in common with any other competing system.

Clark realised, as should every reasonable person who reflects critically on

the nature of axioms, that if we do not accept our opponent’s start, then there

cannot be any real agreement between the two, except to agree of sorts, that there can be no agreement. Or, any agreement is only by accident and due to

inconsistency or self-contradiction. This is a genuine problem, which we must

address and answer properly. We will revisit this topic before the end.

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 - 32

Here note what Bahnsen asserts,

The Impossibility of the Contrary

If the way in which people reason and interpret evidence is determined by their

presupposed worldviews, and if the worldviews of the believer and unbeliever

are in principle completely at odds with each other, how can the disagreement

between them over the justification of Biblical claims be resolved? It might

seem that all rational argumentation is precluded since appeals to evidence and

logic will be controlled by the respective, conflicting worldviews of the

believer and unbeliever.

However this is not the case.

Differing worldviews can be compared to each other in terms of the important

philosophical question about the “preconditions of intelligibility” for such

important assumptions as the universality of logical laws, the uniformity of

nature, and the reality of moral absolutes. We can examine a worldview and ask

whether its portrayal of nature, man, knowledge, etc. provide an outlook in terms of which logic, science and ethics can make sense.35

Certainly, this is not how Clark would say it. On the face of it, it does not seem to be Clark’s answer. When all is said and done, Clark’s answer is that Holy Spirit alone can do what neither logic nor psychology can: To change a

person’s 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 Clark’s 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 - 33

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 God’s 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 God’s truths or thoughts always come to creatures via God’s revelation in a propositional form. We see the Truth-Logic Complex

at work. Every word of God’s revelation means something, as well as it does

not mean something else, and as we shall see more under the next point.

That is, God’s 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 God’s 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 - 34

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 God’s thinking, it is dependent only in the

sense that it is the characteristic of God’s 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 God’s 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 John’s 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

God’s 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 God’s 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

39 Pgs. 70-71, Introduction to Christian Philosophy; bold emphasis added.


Page - 35

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 God’s 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 Clark’s 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.

God’s 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.

The TAG Proof: Second Attempt

As shown earlier, it is logically impossible and self-defeating to reject that

every formally valid argument ultimately and always reduces to just one big

petitio principii, without already accepting what we would wish to deny.


41 Clark, pgs. 81-82, God’s Hammer, 1987; emphasis added.


Page - 36

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.

The TAG Proof: Simplified

Let’s cut out all the-in-between details, and boil the petitio principii proof

down to its absolute basics. The TAG then reduces simply to a petitio principii

as follows (Argument A4):

Axiom: The Bible is the Word of God, which includes that,

God exists

THEREFORE,

God exists

42 Or more formally: If P is true, Then Q is true. P is true. Therefore, Q is true.


Page - 37

There; done. Our proof of God’s 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 God’s

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?

How do we Know that the Bible is True?

The immediate charge most unbelievers will advance against the Christian

at this point is, “How do you know that the Bible is true?”

Of course, to Christians also this question should be of great importance.

Unless the Bible is true, it seems useless to discuss other issues like the Bible

being the inspired Word of God.

A most direct and simplest answer to those who object in this way is to

explain again or remind them about the nature of axioms or starting principles.

Axioms are what we start with as true. We do not prove them to be true. We

believe our axioms to be true. That is why we chose them as our start. Biblical Christianity is no different here to any other system or world-view. A person

who nevertheless still demands a proof of an axiom simply has not yet grasped

what axioms and proofs are or what any proof can accomplish.

Nevertheless, Clark gives a more detailed answer, which is very pertinent

to the present discussion on where Clark really stands with TAG. It is found in

Clark’s answer of a closely related question about the Bible’s inspiration.

43 Hebrews 6:13. Note Well: All proofs and objectivity ultimately must be always understood as within-the-system proofs and within-the-system objectivity.

44 Analytical claims are true by the virtue of their meaning. Some examples of such claims are:

2+3=5. A bachelor is an unmarried man. All triangles have three sides. On Clark’s Axiom, it is analytically true that the Bible’s claims are true and that God is Truth.


Page - 38

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

Clark answers the question of inspiration as follows,

The question of … the inspiration of the Bible … must be clearly distinguished

from another question with which it might be confused: How may I know that

the Bible is true? These two questions are indeed related, but they are not the

same question. They have even been answered in opposite ways… Truth and

inspiration therefore must be distinguished...

[The Bible’s] truth, or at least its general trustworthiness, is assumed; but we

want to know whether the Bible like Churchill’s The Gathering Storm is simply

a history book that happens to be true, or whether it is the Word of God.

The first reason for believing the Bible is inspired is that the Bible claims to be

inspired. When this reason is offered to an unbeliever, almost always his

immediate reaction is derision. To him it is very much like putting a liar on the

witness stand and having him swear to tell the truth. But why a liar? Do not honest witnesses also swear to tell the truth? Yet even a Christian with a

smattering of logic may object to this procedure because it seems to beg the

question. It is circular. We believe the Bible to be inspired because it makes the

claim, and we believe the claim because it is inspired and therefore true. This

does not seem to be the right way to argue.

It must be granted that not every claim is ipso facto true.

There have been false witnesses in court, there have been false Messiahs, and

there have been fraudulent so-called revelations. But to ignore the claim of the

Bible, or of witnesses generally, is both an oversimplification and a mistake.

For example, suppose the Bible actually says that it is not inspired. Or suppose

merely that the Bible is completely silent on the subject, that it makes no more

claim to divine inspiration than did Churchill. In such a case, if the Christian

asserts that the book is inspired, the unbeliever would be sure to reply that he is

going far beyond the evidence.

This reply is certainly just. There is no reason for making assertions beyond

those that can be validly inferred from the statements of the Bible. But because

this reply is so just, it follows that the unbeliever’s derision at our first remark

45 Pg. 2, God’s Hammer


Page - 39

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, God’s Hammer; italics in the original.

47 Pg. 15, ibid


Page - 40

Does This Beg All Questions?

Clark asks this exact question in his Introduction to Christian Philosophy,

where he explains the objection and gives the Christian answer,

At once the secular opposition, and indeed a number of theologians too, will complain that this is not so much an initial axiom as an all-inclusive begging of

the question. The assumption takes in too much: there is nothing left to be

proved. Everything is swallowed at one gulp.

As an ad hominem or tu quo que reply it may be pointed out that such begging

the question is not an idiosyncrasy of Christianity. When behaviorism is

modestly put forth as a mere method of procedure in studying human behavior

— a plausible procedure because of the difficulties of introspection — and then

when it is not so modestly taken to be a method adequate for its subject matter,

all questions of mind, soul, and consciousness are ruled out ab initio. Similarly

the positivistic presupposition of sensory verifiability disposes of God and

immortality without investigation. It can hardly be otherwise: any axiom

eliminates its opposite. The Christian system is no more indefensible on this

point than any other system.

Therefore the more serious reply to the charge that the axiom of revelation begs

all questions is that the objection fails to distinguish between the status of

axioms and the status of theorems. 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… 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.48

Elsewhere Clark further explains the same point,

Christianity is often repudiated on the ground that it is circular: the Bible is

authoritative because the Bible authoritatively says so. But this objection

applies no more to Christianity than to any philosophic system or even to

geometry. Every system of organized propositions depends of necessity on

some indemonstrable premises, and every system must make an attempt to

explain how these primary premises came to be accepted.49

48 Pgs. 62-63, Introduction to Christian Philosophy; italics in the original.

49 Pgs. 1-3, ibid


Page - 41

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 Bible’s 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.

More Objections to the Second TAG attempt

1) Not Compelling?

Can we legitimately urge the TAG is not objectively absolute and

compelling?

Of course not; or at least not and still remain consistent.

It would be a self-refuting appeal. In order to use the objection we already

have to assert and accept the truth of the very thing, which the proof asserted,

50 1 Peter 3:15

51 “Good” reasons are meant in a logically weak sense, as our explanations or narrative.


Page - 42

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 critic’s 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 critic’s 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 critic’s 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 critic’s 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 - 43

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 critic’s 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 critic’s 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 - 44

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?

Yet More Objections: Return to Starting Principles

In truth, we see that the dispute returns yet again back to our terms and it

asks what we mean when we use the term God. The objection is against the

content, and so it is against the starting principles or axioms. The critics simply

reject Clark and Van Til’s axioms and their chosen start.

But everyone must choose and choose they do, if they wish to say anything.

Clark chose to start with “The Bible is the Word of God” as his axiom. The

TAG then simply follows from the axiom inexorably and compellingly for any

biblical Christian. This is because,

To try to extort knowledge of God from an unwilling God is impossible if God

is the supreme omnipotent Being… if God is supreme, as we [ed. such as Clark,

Van Til, this author and all biblical Christians] claim, there can be no higher

source than self-disclosure. God cannot be deduced from any superior

principle. Therefore the same conclusion follows: either revelation must be

accepted as an axiom or there is no knowledge of God at all.52

Note how we always return to our start and axioms.

This is because truth is determined by our start and not by logic.



Page - 45

Even more fatally, neither our nor the critic’s 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

John’s 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 critic’s 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 critic’s 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,

53 Pgs. 69-71, ibid; emphasis added.


Page - 46

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.

Biases and Neutrality

All such allegedly reasonable requests hide a commitment to prior choices and the fact that they already hold a particular world-view. The simple fact is

there is NO such thing as neutrality. Everyone is biased. Even God is biased

and of necessity cannot be neutral! No one can.

In Christ’s words, “He that is not with me is against me.”54

It is not a question of being or not being biased, but to admit to what biases we actually have. No one is neutral, especially not the critic. Neutrality is pure

and utter fiction for all.

Indeed, for a critic to ask that in the TAG we provide a “philosophically

objective and certain claim”, or even to suggest that:

philosophically objective and certain claim must be absolute;

philosophically objective and certain claim must be impossible to be otherwise; i.e. there is no possibility of the contradictory;

philosophically objective and certain claim must go beyond the very likely in order to legitimately claim philosophically objective

certainty for our conclusions;

philosophically objective certainty is required in order for us to

have an absolutely sure, dead certain knowledge of the truth of the matter at hand and in dispute etc. etc. etc.

... all these and other such criticisms of the TAG already are biased towards the critic’s or some other opposing view. They indirectly reveal the critic’s

prior commitment to specific starting principles and to what they accept (as

well as reject) as a source of authoritative truth, what is objective and so on.

Even the present work cannot escape this prior commitment. It too shows

its bias. It too reveals a particular world-view, with its examples of the

‘impossibility of the contrary’ and attendant explanations.

The real question is: Are the respective objections, requests, world-views,

axioms, claims etc. incoherent, inconsistent and / or self-refuting or not?

54 Matthew 12:30. As noted, this is essentially to assert the Law of Excluded Middle; there is no third or middle option: logically it is impossible to be neither for nor against God.


Page - 47

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.

Critic’s Implicit Hostility

At best, the critic’s view is inconsistent regarding the petitio principii and

validity. Many Christians fall into this group. Indeed, many Christians that

should know better charge the TAG proof with circularity, as if that disposed of

the argument.

Ironically, what they demand in turn is either that we accept the conclusion of their circular argument as truth or we accept their mere “say-so” as absolute,

neutral and objective!

At worst, the critic’s system is implicitly hostile to and rejects a priori as

true the principles, which Clark and Van Til accept as their start. So much for

the critic’s alleged neutrality and objective impartiality!

For many critics (not all, of course), their most notable inconsistencies

include the assumptions that absolute objectivity and neutrality are possible

and that autonomy of the creature is real and a fact. To note their performative

self-contradiction should be sufficient to dispose of their objections here.

But, we can do even better.

We can show that their assumptions, examined in their most essential form, are in fact hostile to the Bible’s claims. That is, its claims that no fallen man is

neutral and that nothing whatever in creation is autonomous, especially not

man. Pushing beyond this, we discover the critic’s most cherished and the

ultimate ruling presupposition, which is...

... the God of the Bible does not exist!

All the rest of the critic’s objections are just details by which they disguise

and misdirect others less attentive from realising how the critic’s argument

also is just one long petitio principii – the very thing they accuse the TAG proof

of and claim as their basis on which they reject the proof.What irony.

If to be a petitio principii was a sufficient and legitimate basis on which we must reject an argument, then the critic’s claim is self-refuting. We grant the

critic’s argument only when it is valid. If it is invalid, it is useless. If it is valid,

the critic proves his argument is a petitio principii! Therefore, on his terms we

must reject it. He loses if he is right, and he loses if he is wrong.

In fact, if the critic’s claims were true, this would be the death knoll for

every single deductively valid argument, not just the TAG proof. It would mean


Page - 48

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.

Critic’s own Petitio Principii

Reduced to its purest and simplest, on Clark’s definition of God, the critic’s

petitio principii is as follows (Argument A5):

Axiom: God does not exist;

THEREFORE,

God does not exist!

It is especially disturbing to see that the critics include many self-professed biblical Christians. By attacking and rejecting a TAG formulated in a way that

does not compromise the Bible, these Christians do not realise just exactly

what it is they adopted against their fellow Christians. These Christians do not

seem to realise that their rejection of the TAG relies on an implicit claim that the God of the Bible does not exist. This seems to be a very odd view for self-

professed biblical Christians to adopt.

For Clark, the Triune God of the Bible is the Truth-Logic Complex. This is

the essence of Clark’s version of the TAG proof when formulated in such a way

so as not to compromise the Bible, and where the Bible is Clark’s Axiom.

The critics in turn argue Truth-Logic Complex does not exist... and they use

Logic to persuade others to accept the Truth of their claims – thereby already

relying on and proving that we cannot deny the Truth-Logic Complex without

first affirming it exists. Oh, again, what irony!

Clark chose the Bible as his start and as his authoritative source of truth. That is, Clark starts with God’s self-attesting self-revelation. The critics reject

the truth of that start or axiom. The critics choose another principle or axiom

as their start instead.


Page - 49

But, if the Truth-Logic Complex did not exist, if in Clark’s 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 Clark’s 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 critic’s 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

critic’s 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 - 50

The TAG Proof “fails” after all

The actual reason why and where the TAG proof fails is two-fold:

1) Persuasion and proof are not synonymous.

Persuasion is in the realm of psychology, and Logic is about the validity of

proofs. And neither can prove the TRUTH of any claim or conclusion!

2) Why should anyone choose the Triune God of the Christian Bible, and

not the Allah of Koran in the Moslem faith or the Quadrinity God of the Boise

Bible in the Fristian faith, or the God of Santa Clause etc.?55

As Clark admits, different gods might be made axioms of other systems.56

We are right back to our starting points and to our choices, axioms, biases

etc. again. Here consider Bahnsen’s claim in his debate with Stein,

[W]e 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.57

But here is a second, formally identical claim, different only in content,

The transcendental proof for [Allah, Buddha, Frist, Santa’s etc.] existence is

that without [him/her/it], it is impossible to prove anything.

Why is it that we must accept Bahnsen’s 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 Bahnsen’s 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 Christianity’s and not Fristianity’s God?

Fristianity’s 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 It seems Quadrinity, Frist and Boise Bible originated in 1990’s with David Byron, Yale.


57 Taped public debate held at the University of California (Irvine) in 1985.

58 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 - 51

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 Bahnsen’s. They differ only as to their authoritative source of truth and so in their

respective choice of their starting axioms.

Bahnsen’s claim is self-serving and smacks of double standards, especially

when he mocks Clark’s 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 - 52

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.

The Christian’s Final Answer

In the ultimate sense, the biblical Christian’s final answer here can only be

as is Clark’s answer from the Bible, “The just shall live by faith” and,

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,

so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear... But

without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must

believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.59

After Christ’s resurrection, we are told faith – and specifically believing the

Bible’s 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 Bible’s 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 - 53

A biblical Christian simply believes the above claims to be true – that’s 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

Fideism and Irrationalism?

As already noted earlier, the above does not mean that we should believe

without having any reasons to believe what we believe (so-called fideism) or

even to believe against reason (so-called irrationalism).

Biblical Christianity is not irrational or fideistic. Biblical Christianity is

fully rational and reasonable. Clark and biblical Christians have many “good”

reasons to explain why they believe what they believe.

In addition, biblical Christianity is critical in the full technical sense of this

word precisely because God’s Revelation is Christianity’s source of truths, where the Bible is axiomatically God’s Word. Not only we can test claims

critically to see if we can falsify them, but the Bible commands us to test

claims even if of angels to see if they are false.63

The Bible is Truth because of who God is and what the Bible claims for itself. The Bible as God’s revealed Word is our highest, self-attesting authority,

which we are unable to prove in the strongest sense of the word to be true, but

which all genuine biblical Christians will therefore believe to be consistent in

all its parts and to be infallibly true.

Clark explicitly and repeatedly affirmed,

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 - 54

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 God’s 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, Clark’s 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 God’s 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 Til’s Apologetic, 1998


Page - 55

As Clark explains yet again,

[A]dherence to Scripture is not a deduction from sensory experience, neither is

it the result of anticipations of decency, nor even of archaeological confirmation. Confidence in Scripture is the result of the inward working of the

Holy Ghost. Note particularly that this illumination of the Spirit is not an

additional revelation. He does not give us any additional information. He does

not witness to our spirits, but with our spirits (Romans 8:16), and here

explicitly by and with the word...

When ... humanists are convinced also that the Bible is historically inaccurate

and is full of contradictions, it is clear that “the consent of the parts and the

heavenliness of the matter” cannot be made into convincing arguments. Neither

argument nor (what is the same thing) preaching can produce faith ... God

changes our minds and causes us to believe.

This work of the Holy Spirit does not occur without preaching and argument.

Though belief is caused by the Holy Spirit alone, the content of the belief is

presented by human messengers. Abstractly God might have used some other

method of propagating the Gospel; to say this is the way it is done is not to

limit God’s power – it merely describes his method.66

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, Bahnsen’s 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 Bible’s 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 Bahnsen’s

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.

66 Pgs. 450-451, The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark


Page - 56

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.

Man’s 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 Clark’s 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, God’s Revelation is and always must be first. If it were not for God’s 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 God’s 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 Miller’s 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 - 57

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.

The TAG Proof in Apologetics

[I]t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For

the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach

Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks

foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the

power of God, and the wisdom of God.70

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 Bible’s 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.

70 John 5:46

71 1 Corinthians 1:21


Page - 58

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 God’s Truth.

For example, consider the Bible’s, “Neither is there salvation in any other:

for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we

must be saved…”72 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 - 59

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.

Old Objection Revisited: Why bother?!

Alas, although many of the above kinds of objections at first look seem to

be reasonable, even so, in many cases they rely on serious misconceptions and

misunderstanding. In other cases they simply presuppose as true, what is

antagonistic to the Bible’s claims, never mind that they unwittingly demand

double standards: One standard for the critic and another for the Christian.

Let us first explain the last observation: The double standards.

It is simply an irrefutable and inescapable fact that the critics cannot meet

their own demands. Critics are just as unable to prove their own starting point

in any absolute, objective or the strongest sense of the word, as are Christians.

Yet many critics then demand such a proof from the biblical Christian.

The critics too simply assert their start to be true and accept their axioms as

self-evident and self-authenticating, just like those whom they oppose and

whose starting point they reject.

Second, the critics present their opinions as if these were objective, neutral,

and rational, established by compelling proofs, whereas biblical Christians are

just biased, irrational, rely on fallacies and cannot ‘prove’ any of their claims.

We will not belabour what we have already explained that this is an entirely

false picture, which borders on an outright deception at worst.

At the very least, the critics are simply deluding themselves, if they believe

this to be the case about their arguments and those of the biblical Christians. The only way to address adequately their self-delusion is to explain yet again


Page - 60

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 God’s 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 - 61

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 another’s 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 God’s

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 God’s 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, let’s agree that on your, Clark and Van Til’s 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.

Let’s also agree that unregenerate people are spiritually deaf and blind;

they cannot hear and they cannot see. Let’s 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.

Let’s 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 - 62

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 Til’s take, Holy Spirit’s 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 unbeliever’s 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 God’s plans;

that God is the Divine Potter and all men and women are but like clay in

God’s 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 - 63

What kind of love is it to scold and punish unbelievers for not believing what by God’s 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 Bible’s 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 - 64

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 Christ’s commanding a dead Lazarus to rise was Christ’s means or way through which Christ caused the dead Lazarus

to become alive and so able to hear and obey. Christ’s 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 Bible’s

claims, there are many such items. God does not exist; if God exists, he is not

sovereign; man is autonomous, unbiased; man’s nature is not sinful or fallen

and he has a free will; the Bible is not God’s 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

80 John 11:17, 39

81 Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24


Page - 65

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 Bible’s 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,

82 1 Peter 3:15; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

83 Proverbs 26:5

84 Romans 1:18-25


Page - 66

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 - 67

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 non-

existent 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, non-

Christian material. There is an appeal—it 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

God’s – a power to convince and persuade. Clark’s “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 - 68

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 God’s 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 - 69

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 Caesar’s Gallic War contains no claim

of Caesarian authorship and that in 1962 the archaeologists dug up a seven-

stemmed 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 dogmatist’s 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

Caesar’s? 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 Abraham’s 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 - 70

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

Elsewhere Clark summarises all this as follows:

[The] work of the Holy Spirit does not occur without preaching and argument.

Though belief is caused by the Holy Spirit alone, the content of the belief is

presented by human messengers. Abstractly God might have used some other

method of propagating the Gospel; to say this is the way it is done is not to

limit God’s power – it merely describes his method.

This method, which becomes the method of the preacher, needs one final

clarification before the concluding paragraph is reached. The difficulties with

the canon are well known; destructive criticism is our daily enemy; archaeology

gives us cause for rejoicing. But if we depend on the testimony of the Spirit,

can we discuss these details with non-Christians, or must we ignore the

objections? Does not Reformed theology cut the lines of communication?

To which my reply is: Let us use as much archaeological evidence as we can

find. Let us go into great detail on J, E, D, and P. We shall discuss the presence

of camels in Egypt in 2000 B.C., and the hypothetical council of Jamnia. But our arguments will be entirely ad hominem. We shall show that the principles

our opponents use destroy their own conclusions; that their critical procedures

on Genesis cannot be applied to Homer’s Iliad; that their historiography ruins

Caesar’s Gallic Wars. The argument is ad hominem and elenctic*. When finally

the opponent is reduced to silence and we can get in a word edgewise, we

present the word of God and pray that God cause him to believe.86

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 Clark’s works.

The claim ‘The Truth-Logic Composite exists’ is true necessarily, on the pain of self-contradiction. It follows inevitably and inexorably from Clark’s

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 - 71

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 Til’s 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 God’s Word as Clark’s 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 self-revelation, which we believe today to be the Bible. In the Bible, God’s Word

bears the hallmark of coherent rationality, precisely because God is Truth and

Wisdom or the eternal Rational Mind. It is part of God’s very nature.

Moreover, Van Til’s,

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

… for Bahnsen this is not “rationalistic”?

Or consider Frame’s summary of terms,

Reductio ad absurdum: A form of argument in which, rather than directly prove

a conclusion, the arguer reduces the contrary conclusion to an absurdity. Hence

it is also called “indirect argument” or “argument from the impossibility of the

contrary,” [Van Til] believed that all transcendental arguments must take this form. I [Frame] disagree.89

… for Bahnsen this is not “rationalistic”?

Or Bahnsen’s own,

Because of the antithetical nature of Christianity, only a presuppositional

method of argument is able to press home that transcendental challenge with

consistency and clarity (arguing from the philosophical impossibility of the

contrary position)... When we go to look at the different world-views that

87 PA072, Journey 3:1, Jan.-Feb., 1988

88 Van Til, pg. 49, Common Grace

89 Frame, A Van Til Glossary, http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles


Page - 72

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 Til’s 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 Til’s 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 - 73

Postscript

Noetic effect of the Fall

There is one final, but utterly crucial idea that Clark always required.

Clark always insisted that Adam’s 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 Spirit’s 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.

Postscript Biblical Christianity is Reasonable!

Page - 74

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 let’s 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 Clark’s 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 -

christianity is reasonable

Documents

truthlogic complex

tag proof

tag attempt

key concepts

key thought

jack larrane sydney

ecreative concepts

biblical christianity