[Continued from Pt. 3]

While it cannot be said that Paul the apostle was a non-expert in theology, it is plain to see that the church at Corinth was saturated with theological non-experts. Yet Paul does not shy away from teaching the Corinthians, and every subsequent Christian who would read his epistles, to logically scrutinize the heretical claim made by some professing Christians that “the dead are not raised.” He does this via demonstration by first reminding the Corinthians that anyone who professes faith in Christ necessarily believes that at least one dead man has been raised to life by God, viz. Jesus Christ. He writes –

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.1

The Corinthians professed faith in the Gospel Paul and the others preached. The content of that Gospel explicitly states that the Lord Jesus Christ died, was buried, rose from the dead on the third day, and appeared to over five hundred witnesses. To believe the Gospel is to believe that one has already been raised from the dead, namely Christ. Paul, therefore, asks the Corinthians –

…if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?2

The apostle places the proclamation of Christ as raised from the dead alongside the proclamation that “there is no resurrection of the dead,” drawing our attention to the fact that the resurrection of Christ disproves the universal negative proposition “There is no resurrection of the dead.” As he goes on to explain –

…if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.3

If there is an exception to the universal proposition, then the universal proposition is not true. Christ has been raised from the dead; therefore, the heretics’ proclamation is demonstrably false.

This would be enough for Paul to make his point, but he continues to draw out the logical consequences of the heretics’ belief that “there is no resurrection of the dead.” He writes –

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

We can translate Paul’s argument from its conversational form into the following –

If “there is no resurrection of the dead,”
then Christ was not raised from the dead.
If Christ was not raised from the dead,
then the Gospel is false.
If the Gospel is false,
then those who believe it are still in their sins.
If believers in the Gospel are still in their sins,
then their faith is in vain.
If faith in the Gospel is in vain,
then preaching the Gospel is in vain.

But Christ has been raised from the dead.
Therefore, none of the above consequences follow.

Note how significant a single proposition is in relation to the entirety of the Christian system. The heretics’ proclamation leads to the destruction of the Christian faith. Inversely, the Christian’s single instance of a resurrection in the Gospel proclamation decimates the heretics’ false proclamation.

Concluding Remarks

As we conclude this series, let us take note of some important truths. Firstly, individual propositions are not insignificant parts of the Christian faith which we can take or leave as we see fit. Every proposition has logical consequences for which we are held accountable. Secondly, therefore, we see from Scripture that if we assent to a proposition, we implicitly assent to what that proposition necessarily implies. Sadly, today there are many who identify this action as “uncharitable,” without realizing what that belief itself implies. In a word, the end result of such thinking is utter blasphemy, as is demonstrable from the following argument –

Anyone who attributes their opponent’s implied beliefs to them is acting uncharitably.
To act uncharitably is to act sinfully.
Therefore, anyone who attributes their opponent’s implied beliefs to them is acting sinfully.
Now, anyone who attributes their opponent’s implied beliefs to them is acting sinfully.
And God attributes his opponent’s implied beliefs to them.
Therefore, God is acting sinfully.

It is true that God alone is omniscient and, therefore, is infallible in any of his declarations that x implies y. However, it is equally true that the blind man of John 9 was not omniscient and yet followed the same pattern of logical scrutiny and subsequent moral criticism practiced by God the Son.

Our contemporary socio-political climate is one in which logic has fallen upon hard times, but that does not mean it is inefficient, or that it is inappropriate for every Christian’s use – whether in apologetic battle or personal meditation of the Word of God and its authoritative statements about the whole of life. We are not experts in every area of life, but we do not need to be in order to address the issues of our day. If we have a basic grasp of the elementary principles of logic, then we are capable of answering others when they ask us “What do you think?”

1 1st Cor 15:1-11.

2 1st Cor 15:12.

3 1st Cor 15:13.

On 11/10/2019, the sermon preached by Pastor Joe Rosales continued from Romans 9:14-29.

The doctrine of predestination has always been controversial, especially in our democratic and increasingly socialist nation, which demands equality of outcome for all, so God is obligated to save everyone. Romans 9 disposes of such unbiblical views. And if you have a problem with what Paul wrote, you have a problem with God Himself: “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭14:37‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). We should expect objections when explaining the doctrine of election:

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. (Romans‬ ‭9:14-16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

So what does it mean that “the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go”? (Exodus‬ ‭10:20‬ ‭NKJV‬‬) Does it mean that God abandoned pharaoh to his already hardened heart? That God removed his hand of restraint from pharaoh and left him to his destruction? Is it the mere wrath of abandonment? If God actively hardened pharaoh’s heart, would that make him the author of sin? Does not God say that “the king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes”? (Proverbs‬ ‭21:1‬ ‭NKJV).‬‬ Does the Potter form jars of dishonor in an indirect manner? Who is the One who forms/makes (Romans 9:21 (Byz): ποιῆσαι) and prepares (Romans 9:22 (Byz): κατηρτισμένα) the vessels of wrath? The clay or the Potter?

But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans‬ ‭9:20-24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

According to God, “I form light and I create darkness; I make peace and I create evil; I am Yahweh; I do all these things” (Isaiah‬ ‭45:7‬ ‭LEB‬‬). Gordon Clark explains:

This is a verse that many people do not know is in the Bible. Its sentiment shocks them. They think that God could not have created evil. But this is precisely what the Bible says, and it has a direct bearing on the doctrine of predestination.

Some people who do not wish to extend God’s power over evil things, and particularly over moral evils, try to say that the word evil here means such natural evils as earthquakes and storms. The Scofield Bible notes that the Hebrew word here, ra, is never translated sin. This is true. The editors of that Bible must have looked at every instance of ra in the Old Testament and must have seen that it is never translated sin in the King James Version. But what the note does not say is that it is often translated wickedness, as in Genesis 6:5, “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the Earth.” In fact, ra is translated wickedness at least fifty times in the Old Testament; and it refers to a variety of ugly sins. The Bible therefore explicitly teaches that God creates sin. This may be an unpalatable thought to a good many people. But there it is, and everyone may read it for himself. As this becomes a major point in predestination, and forms one of the main objections to the doctrine, we shall discuss it later. But let no one limit God in his creation. There is nothing independent of him. (Predestination, http://www.trinitylectures.org/predestination-p-128.html)

And Gary Crampton:

Standing on the “rock foundation” of the Word of God as our axiomatic starting point (Matthew 7:24-25), we have an answer to the problem of evil. God, who is altogether holy and can do no wrong, sovereignly decrees evil things to take place for his own good purposes (Isaiah 45:7). Just because He has decreed it, his action is right. As Jerome Zanchius wrote: “The will of God is so the cause of all things, as to be, itself without cause, for nothing can be the cause of that which is the cause of everything. Hence we find every matter resolved ultimately into the mere sovereign pleasure of God. God has no other motive for what He does than ipsa voluntas, His mere will, which will itself is so far from being unrighteous that it is justice itself.”

Sin and evil therefore exist for good reasons: God has decreed them as part of His eternal plan, and they work not only for His own glory, but also for the good of his people. With this Biblical premise in mind, it is easy to answer anti-theists, such as David Hume, who argue that the pervasiveness of evil in the world militates against the existence of the Christian God. (“A Biblical Theodicy,” http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=141)

And Clark again:

…God [is] the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. There is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent. He alone is sovereign. Not only is Satan his creature, but every detail of history was eternally in his plan before the world began; and he willed that it should all come to pass. The men and angels predestined to eternal life and those foreordained to everlasting death are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Election and reprobation are equally ultimate….

The secondary causes in history are not eliminated by divine causality, but rather they are made certain. And the acts of these secondary causes, whether they be righteous acts or sinful acts, are to be immediately referred to the agents; and it is these agents who are responsible.

God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact that he does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Judas to betray Christ, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition God cannot sin. At this point it must me particularly pointed out that God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. But God is “Ex-lex.” (Religion, Reason, and Revelation, in The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark: Christian Philosophy, Vol. 4, pp. 267, 268-69, http://www.trinitylectures.org/christian-philosophy-the-works-of-gordon-haddon-clark-volume-paperback-p-145.html).

“The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom” (Proverbs‬ ‭16:4‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

On 11/3/2019, the sermon preached by Pastor Joe Rosales was based on Romans 9:14-29.

The pastor commented on the use of creeds and confessions, which reflect order and consistency. Some don’t like order or being tied down by a coherent system of doctrine, but when you ask them what they believe about the Bible or the doctrines it teaches, they will inevitably recite to you a statement of faith, likely an incomplete and inconsistent one.

The doctrine of predestination, of sovereign election, is offensive to many today, including church folk. And there are many perverted notions of fairness, ranging from socialism, communism, and Marxism, to Arminianism or synergism and the doctrine of free will, that are completely at odds with Scripture.

Many have trouble with the doctrine of hell too. How can a good God predestine people to hell? That’s like asking, How can a good judge send criminals to prison? The amazing thing about God is not that he sends people to hell, for we’re all natural-born sinners in rebellion against a thrice holy and just God who deserve nothing but hell; it is that He, out of his sheer grace and mercy, decided to save any of us!

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (‭‭Romans‬ ‭5:6-10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

The pastor also clarified the meaning of an often misinterpreted passage: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (II Peter‬ ‭3:9‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). This does not mean that God desires all men to come to repentance, but that He “is longsuffering toward us”—toward believers, and desires believers to come to repentance. Even so, “these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead”” (‭‭Acts‬ ‭17:30-31‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

But just because God commands all men to repent doesn’t necessarily mean He desires all men to repent. God ultimately neither loves nor desires all men to repent because He hates and hardens the reprobate:

For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? ‭‭(Romans‬ ‭9:17-24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

The pastor warned against people who attempt to reconcile difficult doctrines prematurely, like the Trinity or Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, since these doctrines are often considered “mysteries.” He admonished us to stick to the Scriptures, and if the person you’re discussing this with continues to object, then use Paul’s retort: “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?” (Romans 9:20). A biblical mystery, however, is something that God obscured in the Old Testament but reveals or explains in the New:

Unbeknownst to the people of Moses' day (it was a "mystery"), marriage was designed by God from the beginning to be a picture or parable of the relationship between Christ and the church. Back when God was planning what marriage would be like, He planned it for this great purpose: it would give a beautiful earthly picture of the relationship that would someday come about between Christ and His church. This was not known to people for many generations, and that is why Paul can call it a "mystery." But now in the New Testament age Paul reveals this mystery, and it is amazing. (George Knight, qtd. in https://thorncrownministries.com/blog/2017/08/08/review-of-when-sinners-say-i-do)

And while Paul does rebuke his opponents, he continues to demolish their objections in verses 21 and following. He answers them squarely with some of the strongest statements in the Bible. I appreciate the wisdom of men like Gordon Clark, who unabashedly deals with the problem of evil, and A.W. Pink when it comes to harmonizing difficult doctrines, which is why their writings are classic contributions that build up the church:

This is, admittedly, the most difficult branch of our subject. Those who have ever devoted much study to this theme have uniformly recognized that the harmonizing of God's Sovereignty with Man's Responsibility is the gordian knot of theology.

The main difficulty encountered is to define the relationship between God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility. Many have summarily disposed of the difficulty by denying its existence. A certain class of theologians, in their anxiety to maintain man's responsibility, have magnified it beyond all due proportions until God's Sovereignty has been lost sight of, and in not a few instances flatly denied. Others have acknowledged that the Scriptures present both the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man but affirm that in our present finite condition and with our limited knowledge it is impossible to reconcile the two truths, though it is the bounden duty of the believer to receive both. The present writer believes that it has been too readily assumed that the Scriptures themselves do not reveal the several points which show the conciliation of God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility. While perhaps the Word of God does not clear up all the mystery (and this is said with reserve), it does throw much light upon the problem, and it seems to us more honoring to God and His Word to prayerfully search the Scriptures for the completer solution of the difficulty, and even though others have thus far searched in vain that ought only to drive us more and more to our knees. God has been pleased to reveal many things out of His Word during the last century which were hidden from earlier students. Who then dare affirm that there is not much to be learned yet respecting our inquiry! (The Sovereignty of God, https://reformed.org/books/pink/index.html?mainframe=/books/pink/pink_sov_08.html)

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.

- Romans 1:20

If you've ever read a book or heard a lecture on Christian apologetics, there's a good chance Romans 1:19-20 were brought up.  Perhaps these verses were cited as proof that all men know God, so that no one could claim ignorance of God on judgment day.  That, of course, is true.  Responsibility is based on knowledge, and since God has revealed himself to all men, all men are accountable to him. 

Bible commentators, as well as the authors of the Westminster Confession, have identified two ways in which God reveals himself to men:  general revelation and special revelation.

Special revelation is identical with the 66 books of the Bible.  The Scriptures are God's written, propositional revelation, which principally teach us, "What man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man," in the words of the Shorter Catechism.    

But what about general revelation?  Just what is it that is meant by this term?  The most common answer is that general revelation is identical with nature.  We are told that when men look to the heavens and see the stars, or cast their eyes upon the majestic mountains they behold God's attributes and, to that extent, know him and are therefore rightfully held responsible by him, even if they have never so much as heard the name of Jesus Christ.

Here's one example of this line of reasoning.

Paul stresses the reality and universality of divine revelation, which is perpetual ("since the creation," v.20) and perspicuous ("clearly seen," v.20).  Divine invisibility, eternity, and power are all expressed in and through the created order...The invisible God is revealed through the visible medium of creation.  This revelation is manifest; it is not obscured but clearly seen (New Geneva Study Bible).    

The commentators manifestly argue that one can reason from visible creation to an invisible God, but does this really make sense?   On one hand, such an argument is appealing to Christians.  We believe in God and rightfully want others to share that belief.  But simply because we like the conclusion of an argument does not mean that it is a good argument.  This is the case even if the conclusion of argument - that there is an immortal, invisible all wise God who created and sustains the world - is true.

So what is the problem of reasoning to an invisible God from the visible world?  One of the most basic concepts in logic is that the conclusion of an argument cannot contain an idea that was not present in its premises.  In logic textbooks students often run across a model argument that runs like this:

Major Premise:  All men are mortal. 

Minor Premise: Socrates is a man. 

Conclusion:  Therefore, Socrates is mortal.    

Notice that the conclusion "Therefore, Socrates is mortal" contains the same terms - here we're talking about "Socrates" and "mortal" - that are found in the premises.  Logicians call this a valid argument.

But let's suppose someone made this argument,

Major Premise:  All men are mortal.

Minor Premise:  Socrates is a man. 

Conclusion:  Therefore, Socrates won a gold medal in Curling during the Winter Olympics.

The problem with this second argument is clearly seen, such that you probably don't need me to point it out to you.  Although neither of the argument's premises says anything about an Olympic gold medal in Curling, it shows up in the conclusion anyway.  This is an example of an invalid argument.  And it is an invalid argument, because the conclusion contains a term - won a gold medal in Curling during the Winter Olympics - that is nowhere found in the premises.  

This is the same problem with the argument that an invisible God can be deduced from visible creation.  We cannot reason from rocks, trees and oceans - all things which are visible to the eyes - to an invisible God.  To do so would be to violate the logical principle established above that an argument cannot contain terms not found in the premises. 

The same could be said for the claim that God's eternity can be clearly seen in creation.  Lakes dry up, living creatures die, and, at least is you listen to Al Gore, polar ice caps melt away to nothing.  Scientists even claim that stars have a life cycle, some ending up as supernovas, and others becoming white dwarfs.  If anything, the observation of nature could lead one to conclude that the god who created it, if indeed there is a god at all, is of limited power and may him/her/itself be mortal.   

But even though there are significant, manifest problems with the standard explanation of Romans 1:19-20,  it largely goes unchallenged by theologians.

John Robbins was one scholar who did challenge the standard explanation of Romans 1.  For him, the key was arriving at a correct definition of the term "the things that are made."  In the quotation from the New Geneva Study Bible cited above, the commentators take the line that the term "the things that are made" refers to the creation. 

But Robbins does not accept this.  He argues, persuasively I would add, that "the things that are made" does not refer to the heavens or to mountains or trees or whales, but to men themselves.  Men are "the things that are made," not general creation.  This is another way of saying that all men have innate knowledge of God. 

For your consideration, please see the transcript below, which I made this myself from the Trinity Foundation lecture "How Not to Do Apologetics:  Evidentialism" by John Robbins.   The excerpted portion begins at the 34:04 mark.

John Robbins on Romans 1:19-20

Please turn to the first chapter of Romans.  Romans 1, and I will begin reading, I believe it's verse 16, I don't have the citation down here.  Paul writes, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.  For in it t he righteousness of God is 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 suppress the truth in unrighteousness; because what may be know of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.   For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man - and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things...who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen "

It is common to be told that this passage endorses the proofs for the existence of God, but if one reads it closely, one will see that that is not the case at all.  First, Paul wrote of the special revelation of the Gospel in verses 16-18.  Then in verse 19, he wrote that what may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them.  Again he wrote of revelation, no longer special, but a general revelation to all men.  Furthermore, this revelation is manifest in us, that is, it is innate knowledge.  It is not something we learn.  It is not something we discover by observation or reading Aristotle's philosophy.   

Paul agreed with John, who wrote in the first chapter of his Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...In Him was life, and that life was the light of men..That was the true Light, which gives light to every man who comes into the world."

Paul continued in verse 20, "For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen."  Now think about that for a moment.  Was Paul talking about sense experience?  Can invisible attributes be seen with the eyes, let alone clearly seen?  Of course not.  Paul immediately explained what he meant in the next phrase, "and are clearly seen being understood."  Seeing here, as it frequently does in Scripture, means intellectual understanding, not sense experience.  God's invisible attributes are understood, they are not red or green or blue.  Moreover, they are understood by the things that are made. 

And here we come to a word, a phrase in English, of things that are made, that the standard understanding of these verses requires us to interpret as the physical things around us, what Thomas called the sensibles, the sensibles.  But this is the same word in Greek, translated here as the things that are made, that Paul used in Romans 9:20, "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?  Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' " And in Ephesians 2:10, "For we are his workmanship." The Greek word is of general extension and can refer to anything made.  It need not refer only to sensible objects.  And Paul actually uses it to refer specifically to human beings in this case.  We are the things that are made.  We understand for God has shown it to us, it is manifest in us, we are without excuse because we know the eternal power and Godhead, not by observing, inferring, arguing, and inducing, but simply because we're made in the image of God.

If the standard interpretation of this passage were true, it would overturn Paul's argument in Romans 1-3, that all men are without excuse.  If our knowledge of God and moral responsibility for sin depends and sense experience, then blind and deaf people would have neither knowledge of God nor actual guilt. If we gain our knowledge of God by looking at the heavens, then those who cannot see the heavens have no knowledge of God.  But Paul wrote that all men know God, and all men are sinners, because they deny and suppress that inescapable, innate knowledge.

Furthermore, if our knowledge of God, and hence our responsibility, depended on our ability to follow Thomas's and Aristotle's arguments for the existence of God, then few there be who know God, and few there be who are sinners.  Notice that in this passage Paul does not say anything about an argument for the existence of God.  He declares that all men know God innately and immediately.  It is knowledge that they are born with.  No, even before that.  If David was conceived in sin, and if sin presupposes knowledge of right and wrong, then David had knowledge in his mother's womb, even before he had eyes and ears.  Contrary to the standard Thomistic understanding of these verses, it does not matter that some people cannot see or hear.  It does not matter than they cannot follow an intricate metaphysical argument.  They all know God.  Therefore, that knowledge of God does not come as a result of sense experience or as the conclusion of an argument.

Closing Thoughts

This is a brilliant argument by Robbins, one that convincingly shows the term "things that are made" refers to men, not inanimate objects of creation.  Men have innate knowledge of God, not as a result of looking at the physical universe, but because Christ has enlightened the minds of all men with this knowledge. 

Some may think this is a small point.  But if Robbins is right, then the empirical apologetics of Thomas Aquinas, which is also the apologetics method of many folks in the Reformed camp, is without foundation in Scripture.

And at the same time the door is closed on empirical apologetics, Robbins' argument provides strong support for Scripturalist apologetics, namely the idea that we defend Christianity, not by proving the existence of God from an appeal to the physical creation, but with the Scriptures themselves. 

The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the starting point for the Christian system of thought.  As Robbins taught elsewhere, the 66 books of the Bible are the starting point of all knowledge and the axiom of Christianity. 

The Bible alone in the Word of God. 

Many times, when we think of apologetics we think of defending the faith against unbelieving atheists. The reality is however, there are many religious unbelievers who are just as relentless in their attacks against biblical Christianity. We must remember that the disciples had to defend the faith against the religious unbelieving Jews. Therefore, it is important to understand that though our opponents might change, our method of defense stays the same. In a previous article we offered an explanation of the Scripturalist Ad Hominem reply as our presuppositional method and we gave some examples that pertained to atheism. Here we want to explore another example and deal with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Just as atheists attack the Christian worldview by claiming there is no God so too Jehovah’s Witnesses attack the Christian worldview by claiming that Jesus is not God, the second person of the Trinity. Their attacks on the deity of Christ are unrelenting and so we shall provide an internal critique of their theological position by using an ad hominem reply.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was created by Jehovah and then Jehovah used him to create everything else. For the sake of argument, let’s accept their theological position that Jesus is a created being and compare it to their own Bible translation so that we may reduce it to absurdity by deducing from it contradictory propositions. In order to do this let’s review their primary source material and from that we shall construct a categorical syllogism.

According to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract society Jesus is not eternal but had a beginning.  According to them, “The Bible says that Jesus was created, which means that Jesus had a beginning.”[i] In other words, Jesus is not eternal and did not always exist. Although the Jehovah’s Witnesses will attempt to cite passages of scripture in support of this claim, it stands merely as an unsupported assertion which leads directly to a self-contradiction. From this theological position however, we shall construct our minor premise “Jesus is a being that came into existence.”

This should be easy to establish because the Jehovah’s Witnesses readily admit that they believe Jesus came into existence.  However, according to the New World Translation, the official Bible translation of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, speaking of Jesus it reads, “All things came into existence through him and apart from him not even one thing came into existence” (John 1:3). Notice that the first proposition in the verse “all things came into existence through him” is converted to its logical equivalent “apart from him not even one thing came into existence” by changing the quality from “all things” to “one thing” and negating the predicate. In formal logic this is referred to as an obversion and it not only affirms Jesus as Creator in the strongest way possible but it also demonstrates once again that the scriptures exhibit logical form. The translators of the NWT Bible did not fundamentally alter this verse and so we can agree with its plain teaching. We should also notice that the passage says, “all things” and not “all other things.” This will become important later when we look at Colossians 1:15-17 for comparison. For now, though, we can simply infer that if Jesus was a created being who came into existence then he must have come into existence through himself since all things came into existence through him. This verse will serve to construct our major premise “all things that came into existence are created through Jesus.” Now let’s construct our categorical syllogism.

Major Premise: All things that came into existence are created through Jesus

Minor Premise: Jesus is a being that came into existence  

Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is created through Jesus.

In this categorical syllogism we have a valid deduction, but the conclusion is necessarily false because it is self-contradictory. In order for Jesus to be created through himself he would have to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect. This however, is a clear violation of the law of contradiction because “the same attribute [in this case existence] cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject [Jesus] and in the same respect.”[ii] This is a prime example of making a valid deduction from a false premise. We know that one of the premises is false because the conclusion is self-contradictory, and contradictions are false. It is very important to point out that in spite of the conclusion being false it is the inevitable consequence of their theological position.  

Despite this being a valid deduction that Jesus was created through himself the Jehovah's Witnesses flatly denied this conclusion, as they should. Unfortunately, they don’t deny the conclusion for the right reason; that is Jesus was not created because his is the Creator of all things.  Instead, they propose that Jesus was created by Jehovah as the first of his works and then Jehovah created every else through him. They write,

“Jesus is Jehovah’s most precious Son—and for good reason. He is called “the firstborn of all creation,” for he was God’s first creation. (Colossians 1:15) ... This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Jesus is also the only one whom God used when He created all other things. (Colossians 1:16).”[iii]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses often cite Colossians 1:15-17 in support of this view so let’s consider what their Bible says. The New World Translation reads,

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things, and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,

First, let’s address Colossians 1:15 and the notion that Jesus was God’s first creation because he is called “the firstborn of all creation.” This is one of the most egregious instances of twisting scripture since the Devil quoted Psalms 91:11,12 to Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:6). In that narrative we notice that Jesus’ response was to quote scripture in order to correct his opponent the Devil and so we are apt to do the same. We ought to ask the Jehovah’s Witnesses, “have you not read that it is said of David, the youngest or last born of Jesse, ‘Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn.’ (Psalm 89:27 NWT)? Or have you not read that the Lord God said, ‘as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn,’(Jeremiah 31:9 NWT), although he was the younger brother to Manasseh (Genesis 41:50,51)?” Clearly then, this is a title that does not literally mean first to be born.

When the term firstborn is used in Colossians it does not mean first to be born and it certainly does not mean first created. This is a title given to signify a position of prominence or preeminence. The passage is saying he is the “firstborn” of all creation in the sense that he is preeminent over all of creation because all things were created for him and through him and all things are held together by him. He is before all thing because he existed before all created things. To cite this passage in order to support the Watchtowers teaching that Jesus was created directly by Jehovah and then used to create all other things is nothing short of eisegesis.

However, the Jehovah’s Witness might object and appeal to the fact that the New World Translation actually says, “all other things.” Therefore, we need to point out that the translators of the New World Translation have added the word “other” four times to verses 16 and 17 in order to support the teaching that Jesus was created. The readers need to be informed that the word “other” does not appear in the John 1:3 passage nor should it appear in this passage. That is because the word does not appear in the original Greek text and its addition to the New World Translation Bible changes the original meaning of the passage.

Ron Rhodes, former Jehovah’s Witnesses and author of the book Reasoning from The Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses points out that, “when speaking with a Jehovah’s Witness about Colossians 1:16-17, you might want to point out that the Watchtower’s own Greek interlinear version of the Bible shows that the Greek word panta means ‘all’ things and not ‘all other’ things.”[iv]

Readers should also be informed about the Watchtower’s efforts to further mislead its members by taking the word “other” out of brackets in their latest editions of the New World Translation. In the original copies of the 1984 edition of the New World Translation the word “other” is in brackets, indicating to its readers that it has been added by the translators.

View fullsize

Since its original publication however they have taken the word “other” out of brackets in the latest copies thereby giving the impression that the word is part of the original Greek text of scripture.

Rhodes writes,

It is highly revealing of the Watchtower Society’s dishonesty that the 1950 version of the New World Translation did not put brackets around the four insertions of “other” in the text of Colossians 1:16-17. This made it appear that the word was actually translated from the original Greek text. The Watchtower Society was pressured into putting the brackets around these words in all editions of the New World Translation since 1961 as a result of evangelical scholars openly exposing this perversion of the text of scripture.[v]

It would appear then that the Watchtower Society is using the same old tricks in order to deceive its members. This is certainly not the first and only time that the translators of the New World Translation have altered the Bible in order to support their heretical teachings. Changes within the New World Translation could be listed at great length and the reader should familiarize themselves with as many of the changes as possible. What Christians need to understand is that the NWT is not to be trusted.

The benefit with this particular case of scripture twisting is that by putting the word “other” in brackets in some of the 1984 and earlier editions of the New World Translation, they essentially acknowledged to their members and the rest of the world that it was not part of the original Greek text. This needs to be pointed out to the individual members of the Watchtower Society.

The motive for adding the word “other” should be obvious. It is to support the doctrine that Jesus was created directly by Jehovah and then used to create all other things, which is why this particular passage is cited in their literature. This is why the Jehovah’s Witness will claim that Jesus did not come into existence through himself but was instead created directly by Jehovah.

However, their Bible clearly states in John 1:3, that all things came into existence through Jesus and the passage in Colossians would concur if the word “other” was not added by their translators. We should therefore insist that they read the passage in Colossians without inserting the word “other.” We can ask, “what does the passage actually say, not what do you want it to say?” The passage would read, “16 by means of him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist.”

Now that we have harmonized these two passages we can make the categorical proposition “all created things are created through Jesus” (All S are P). This is based off the plain teaching of the New World Translation Bible. The problem however is that the Watchtower teaches that it is all “other” things that came into existence through Jesus and that he was created directly by Jehovah. In other words, Jesus is something that came into existence but not through himself. Therefore, we can make the categorical proposition that “some created thing is not created through Jesus” (Some S are not P).

To say that “all created things are created through Jesus” and “some created thing is not created through Jesus” is to say that (All S are P) and (Some S are not P). These are contradictory propositions. This should be obvious but for the sake of clarity we shall explain why.

In formal or traditional logic there are 4 basic types of categorical propositions.

A: All S are P

I: Some S are P

E: No S are P

O: Some S are not P[vi]

In each of these categorical propositions we must identify both the quality and quantity in order to determine their relationships to one another. The quality of the proposition has to do with whether it is affirmative or negative and the quantity of a proposition has to do with whether it is universal or particular. We notice that the quality of the A and I propositions are affirmative while the quality of the E and O propositions are negative. Likewise, we notice that the quantity of the A and E propositions are universal while the quantity of the I and O propositions are particular. Now the rule of contradiction holds that “contradictory statements are statements that differ in both quality and quantity.”[vii] Here we can illustrate this with the square of opposition.

It is clear then, that A: All S are P or “all created things are created through Jesus” is a universal, and affirmative proposition and O: Some S are not P or “some created thing is not created through Jesus” is a particular, and negative proposition. Therefore, A and O are contradictory propositions because they differ in both quality and quantity.

The first law of Opposition holds that “Contradictories cannot at the same time be true nor at the same time be false.”[viii] This means that one of these propositions must be true and the other must be false. If “All S are P” is true, then “Some S are not P” is necessarily false. In other words, if John 1:3 in the New World Translation is true then the Watchtower’s teaching that Jesus was created by Jehovah is wrong. We should ask the Jehovah’s Witness “Is it true that all things came into existence through him and that apart from him not even one thing came into existence?” If they profess to believe this is true, then they have no rational justification for believing what the Watchtower teaches.

To drive the point home, if Jesus was created then either he was created through himself or he was not created through himself. These are only the only two options. If they say that Jesus was created through himself then they violate the law of contradiction because he would have to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect. However, if they say he was not created through himself then they still violate the law of contradiction because their Bible states that “all created things are created through Jesus” (A: All S are P) and the Watchtower organization claims “some created thing is not created through Jesus” (O: Some S are not P).

The only remedy for this charley horse between the ears is to acknowledge that Jesus was not created at all. If the Jehovah’s Witness wish to disregard the law of contradiction in order to maintain their heretical view of Christ, then they are most likely ignorant of the fact that they must first assume the law of contradiction in order to make a counter argument intelligible. We would remind our reader that “the opponents of logic must use the law of contradiction in order to denounce it. They must assume its legitimacy, in order to declare it illegitimate. They must assume its truth, in order to declare it false. They must present arguments if they wish to persuade us that argumentation is invalid. Wherever they turn, they are boxed in.”[ix]

[i] "Who Is Jesus Christ? Is Jesus God or God's Son?" JW.ORG. Accessed April 11, 2018. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-study/who-is-jesus-christ/.

[ii] John W. Robbins, “Why Study Logic?”, The Trinity Review (July/August, 1985)

[iii] "Who Is Jesus Christ? Is Jesus God or God's Son? | Bible Teach." JW.ORG. Accessed April 11, 2018. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-jesus-christ/.

[iv] Rhodes, R. (2009). Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers, p.74 (Kindle version).

[v] Rhodes, R. (2009). Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers, p.72 (Kindle version).

[vi] “Chapter 5 The Four Statements of Logic.” Traditional Logic, by Martin Cothran, 2nd ed., Memoria Press, 2017, p. 31.

[vii] “Chapter 6 Contradictory and Contrary Statements.” Traditional Logic, by Martin Cothran, 2nd ed., Memoria Press, 2017, p. 40.

[viii] “Chapter 6 Contradictory and Contrary Statements.” Traditional Logic, by Martin Cothran, 2nd ed., Memoria Press, 2017, p. 42.

[ix] John W. Robbins, “Why Study Logic?”, The Trinity Review (July/August, 1985)

Recently, actor James Franco and Dr. Eliot Michaelson, Lecturer of Philosophy at King’s College London, both of whom are hosts of the YouTube channel Philosophy Time, interviewed Professor Liz Harman of Princeton University on abortion. Professor Harman defends the liberal position that “there is nothing morally bad about early abortion.” One might suspect that with such a high pedigree of intellectuals engaging in the conversation there would have been a robust argument put forward for the pro-choice position on abortion. However, if one is able to ignore and move past the vocal fry of Professor Harman they will soon realize that this conversation and the position put forward by the Princeton Professor amounts to nothing more than an irrational, absurd pile of nonsense.[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5SQnQjryzI[/embedyt]

At approximately 3 minutes and 4 seconds into the video Professor Harman attempts to explain away the confusion of her position by stating the following:

Right, so it might look like on my view abortion is permissible because you had the abortion but that abortion wouldn’t have been permissible if you didn’t have the abortion. That’s not quite the view, for I think two different reasons. So one reason is that, um, even you have moral status—and in my view back when you were an early fetus you had moral status—but it’s not that aborting you would have been wrong because if your mother had chosen to abort her pregnancy, then it wouldn’t have been the case that you would have had moral status because you would have died as an early fetus [which she already said had moral status], so she would have been aborting something that didn’t have moral status.”

There are two main problems when adopting this view. The first is the Fallacy of Begging the Question and the second is the Law of Contradiction.

Begging the Question

Professor Harman is suggesting that the moral compass points in whichever direction a person acts. There is no true north or absolute moral standard. Her view leads her to commit the fallacy of begging the question. Whether or not the abortion of an early fetus is wrong is contingent upon whether or not the early fetus has moral status, and whether or not the early fetus has moral status is contingent upon whether or not the early fetus is aborted.

Rejecting the Law of Contradiction

Professor Harman first grants that the early fetus has moral status when she states, “in my view back when you were an early fetus you had moral status.”  Then, she grants the mother permission to murder (abortion is murder) the early fetus on the grounds that “she would have been aborting [murdering] something [an early fetus] that didn’t have moral status.”

She states, “in my view back when you were an early fetus you had moral status—but it’s not that aborting you would have been wrong… because you would have died as an early fetus, so she [your mother] would have been aborting something that didn’t have moral status.”

Here we have a clear violation of the Law of Contradiction because “the same attribute [in this case moral status] cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject [an early fetus] and in the same respect” (John W. Robbins, “Why Study Logic?” The Trinity Review, July/August 1985, http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=39). One should keep in mind that the state of having moral status has already been determined prior to the act of aborting. In order to advance such a position, Professor Harman must reject the Law of Contradiction, but it is impossible for her to make her argument intelligible without first presupposing Law of Contradiction. As Dr. John Robbins notes, “The opponents of logic must use the Law of Contradiction in order to denounce it. They must assume its legitimacy, in order to declare it illegitimate. They must assume its truth, in order to declare it false. They must present arguments if they wish to persuade us that argumentation is invalid. Wherever they turn, they are boxed in” (“Why Study Logic?”).

Make no mistake, this Professor and the two hosts of Philosophy Time know God and are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-19). Consequently they have become “futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts [have become] darkened. Claiming to be wise, they [have become] fools” (Romans 1:21-22).

Updated 11/30/2020

What makes a true Clarkian? How much and what do you have to agree with Clark on? Which of Clark’s protégés carries the truest banner of his legacy? These questions have stirred much controversy and division amongst those who follow the teachings of Reformed philosopher-theologian Gordon Haddon Clark.

But such questions are distractions. What’s far more important than identifying “true” Clarkians is to understand what Clark himself taught, know how to evaluate secondary sources, and develop the maturity to disagree biblically, whether it’s with Clark, Clarkians, or other Christians, without unnecessary denouncements. It's foolish to judge who is or isn't a "true" Clarkian; it only damages Clark's legacy and breeds unnecessary infighting, and the history of some of Clark's followers sadly attests to this even now. All of us who value Clark—especially the coming generation of pastors, preachers, teachers—would do well to get along. There's already too much internal strife as it is, and while Clark’s influence is slowly growing, we’re still a small piece of the Reformed pie.

This isn’t the worst-case scenario we’ve witnessed, but Jason Petersen, a student at Whitefield Theological Seminary, recently denounced Luke Miner, a Scripturalism.com contributor (Jason is also a contributor), as a self-deceived Clarkian. Jason recounts in his blog:

While I have no doubt that Luke believes he is a Clarkian, he is not a Clarkian. Clark never defined knowledge as justified-true belief, yet Luke attempted to articulate (in a different thread) that notion in the Clarkian Apologetics [Facebook] Group (or at the very least, that “true belief” is not enough and that a qualifier is needed. Clark would never agree with this).  Clark instead defined knowledge as true belief, or more specifically, possession of the truth by a mind. This, and my conversation with Luke, is exactly why I proclaimed that he is not a Clarkian. Perhaps he respects Clark and agrees with him on many aspects (such as Clark’s rejection of metaphysics), but he should not call himself a Clarkian.[1]

According to Jason, a "true" Clarkian must at least agree with Clark's epistemology and maintain key terms as Clark defined them, that is, according to Jason's interpretation. Jason is making amends with Luke and others involved, though Luke "and Cjay will remain out of the [Clarkian Apologetics Facebook] group."[2]

We don’t care for petty conflicts, but this illustrates a growing tendency in some. If these little foxes are left unchecked, they will ruin their vineyard. The biblical and productive approach is to simply correct misunderstandings or misrepresentations of Clark, without pronouncements as to who the "real" Clarkian is. Especially because the accuser could be wrong. Those who denounce fellow Clarkians this way resemble Diotrephes,

who likes to put himself first, [and] does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.  (3 John 9-10)

Does Jason "like to put himself first"? Judge for yourselves:

Imagine being a professor and then having a student try to take over the class. Anyone who knows me is aware that I have little tolerance for such antics. It is also worthy to note that the Clarkian Apologetics Group is a direct product of the Gordon Clark Foundation, which, by the way, endorses this [Jason's] website.[3]

Isn’t this the carnal sectarianism that Paul warned against in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, 3:1-4? For when one says, "I am of Clark and you are not," are you not carnal? Is Christ divided? It is a sad but common practice in our day for immature believers to seek online platforms and tout spiritual influence and authority when they’re neither ready nor qualified nor called by God to do so. “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).

A Justified True Clarkian

In any case, is Jason's claim true, that Clark rejected justified true belief (JTB) and "instead defined knowledge as true belief, or more specifically, possession of the truth by a mind"? Not according to Clark himself:

A systematic philosophy must take care of epistemology. Knowledge must be accounted for. It may be that the a priori forms cannot be listed; it may be that botany or some other subject remains obscure; but knowledge of some sort must be provided.[4] ..................................................

What account shall be given of everyday “knowledge” that common sense thinks it silly to doubt? Don’t I know when I am hungry? Can’t I use road maps to drive to Boston to Los Angeles? Indeed, how can I know what the Bible says without reading its pages with my own eyes? It was one secular philosopher criticizing another, who said that knowledge is a fact and that any theory that did not account for it should be abandoned. But all such criticisms miss the point. The status of common opinion is not fixed until a theory has been accepted. One may admit that a number of propositions commonly believed are true; but no one can deny that many such are false. The problem is to elaborate a method by which the two classes can be distinguished. Plato, too, granted a place to opinion as distinct from knowledge; he even admitted that in some circumstances opinion was as useful as knowledge with a capital K. But to dispose of the whole matter by an appeal to road maps that we can see with our own eyes is to ignore everything said above about Aristotle.[5]

Clark then proceeds by arguing that there is no account of this common sense “knowledge,” and is thus not knowledge but opinion. For an opinion to be knowledge it must be both true and accounted for. Clark's unpublished paper on Plato’s theory of knowledge from the Gordon H. Clark Foundation runs along the same lines:

The term “knowledge” is very ambiguous, and, until all its meanings have been revealed, false judgment cannot really be explained. Socrates’ discussion has pointed out some of its meaning. Plato’s analysis of false judgment is included in the Sophist when the Forms have been introduced.

The “pieces of knowledge” stored in the mind are no more than true beliefs. Our attitude toward a false belief is the same as it is toward a true one. Our confidence in belief is not based on reason. Socrates contrasts a jury’s second-hand belief when convinced of the facts to the direct knowledge of the eye-witness who has seen the fact. Even if the jury finds the right verdict, they are still judging without knowledge, only belief. If true belief and knowledge were the same, a juryman could never have a correct belief without knowledge. Therefore, knowledge cannot be defined as true belief.

True belief lacked something which was necessary in order to call it knowledge. So Theaetetus suggests that knowledge is true belief accompanied by an account or explanation. Plato considers the various possible meanings of “account” and finally rejects the suggestion. The account is not enough to raise correct opinion to the level of knowledge.[6]

In Lord God of Truth Clark again concurs with Plato:

Accordingly the knowledge possible for human beings consists of the axioms of and the deductions from Scripture. We can indeed entertain opinions about Columbus, and by accident or good luck they may be true; but we could not know it. Our dear pagan Plato, at the end of his Meno (98b) declared, "That there is a difference between right opinion and knowledge (ōrtheme) is not at all a conjecture with me, but something I would particularly assert that I knew."[7]

While Clark doesn't necessarily use the term justified true belief—likely because it didn’t gain traction til the late 1970’s,[8] and he died in 1985—he clearly affirms the concept. He agrees with Plato on the distinction between belief/opinion and knowledge, as do many of his pupils. So according to his standard of "true" Clarkianism, Jason would also have to denounce Clark himself, as well as Clarkians who are more knowledgeable such as Sean Gerety, Robert Reymond, John Robbins, Gary Crampton, and even his mentor Kenneth Talbot. While Jason claims that "Clark never defined knowledge as justified-true belief,” Sean Gerety

find[s] it strange how many who claim to hold to the biblical epistemology of Gordon Clark fail to understand even the first principles of his theory. For Clark knowledge requires an account. That is, for a proposition to rise to the level of knowledge it has to be justified.[9]

Gerety explains that "knowledge, which is true belief with an account of its truth, or, simply, justified true belief (belief being the operative word), is the gift of God."[10]  In The Justification of Knowledge—the title itself is a dead giveaway—Robert Reymond argues that

Clark is a brilliant Reformed philosopher–theologian. I deeply appreciate the reflection of the Reformed view of Scripture in his assumption, on dogmatic grounds, of the self–authenticating Word of God as his axiom for knowing God or anything else as it ought to be known. I concur with him that unless one begins with God he will not arrive at a knowledge of God, nor will he be able to justify any knowledge claim.[11]

Reymond moreover "would agree that, without innate self–evident truths and without a revelational pou sto as a given, the justification of knowledge is impossible,"[12] and thus concludes:

The Church cannot expect to know the fullest blessing of God upon its evangelistic endeavors until it sets aside all accommodations to the autonomy of unbelieving man and insists, in conjunction with the proclamation of the Reformed gospel, that the authority of the word of the self–attesting Christ of Scripture is the only ground sufficiently ultimate to justify human truth claims, and that until His word is acknowledged as authoritative and placed at the basis of a given human knowledge system, that system remains unjustified and no truth assertion within it can be shown to have any meaning at all.[13]

John Robbins also makes important distinctions regarding knowledge:

There are three sorts of cognitive states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. Ignorance is simply the lack of ideas. Complete ignorance is the state of mind that empiricists say we are born with: We are all born with blank minds, tabula rasa, to use John Locke's phrase. (Incidentally, a tabula rasa mind - a blank mind - is an impossibility. A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Empiricism rests on a contradiction.) At the other extreme from ignorance is knowledge. Knowledge is not simply possessing thoughts or ideas, as some think. Knowledge is possessing true ideas and knowing them to be true. Knowledge is, by definition, knowledge of the truth. We do not say that a person "knows" that 2 plus 2 is 5. We may say he thinks it, but he does not know it. It would be better to say that he opines it.

Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion: We "know" that we are in Pennsylvania; we "know" that Clinton - either Bill or Hillary - is President of the United States, and so forth. Opinions can be true or false; we just don't know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, "I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets." Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth.[14]

In order to possess the truth, you have to know that your belief is true. That is Justified True Belief, and that is why Gary Crampton, a professor at Whitefield Theological Seminary, argues that

An important part of the Scripturalist worldview is the epistemological distinction between knowledge and opinion. Throughout the history of Western thought, philosophers such as Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle, have correctly differentiated between these two. Augustine and Gordon Clark are just two examples of Christian philosophers who have done the same. There is a difference between that which we “know” and that about which we may have opinions.

In the Scripturalist worldview, knowledge is not only possessing ideas or thoughts; it is possessing true ideas or thoughts. Knowledge is knowledge of the truth. It is justified true belief. Only the Word of God (that which, as the Westminster Confession [1:6] says, “is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”) gives us such knowledge.

Opinions, on the other hand, may be true or false. Natural science is opinion; archaeology is opinion; history (with the exception of Biblical history) is opinion. In these disciplines we are not dealing with “facts.” In them there is no justified true belief. To “opine” something is not to “know” it. Justified truth is found only in the Word of God.[15]

Crampton also highlights what Jason misconstrues: that Clark's definition of knowledge as a mind's possession of truth is JTB, because possessing the truth requires not just a true belief/opinion, as Jason claims, but also an account of its truth from Scripture. Otherwise it's just an opinion that happens to be true.

Jason claims that Clark defined knowledge as only true belief because he equates “true belief” with “possession of truth by a mind”—which Clark never did. Jason fails to cite where Clark rejected JTB or defined knowledge as true belief; the only source he gives is one of Clark’s obscure encyclopedic articles on knowledge[16] whom hardly anyone knows about, much less read, and the article itself makes no such claim. And from this foundation built on sand he denounces those who disagree, but not without sinking himself. Clark and many of his most prominent followers clearly affirm JTB, so is he ready to denounce Sean Gerety, Robert Reymond, John Robbins, Gary Crampton, and Clark himself as self-deceived Clarkians?

Notitia, Assensus, and…Faith?

There's yet another issue, more theological than philosophical. Throughout many of his writings, Clark emphasizes faith as an important doctrine, biblically clarifies what it means, and refutes deficient views. That’s why he wrote two treatises on it, Fa­­ith and Saving Faith and The Johannine Logos. In Faith and Saving Faith, Clark writes: "Faith and belief have been emphasized. Even apart from these introductory inducements the nature of saving faith is an important division of theology."[17] Clark’s treatment of faith is one of his major theological contributions. To disagree with his view of faith is significant, so much so that, if we follow Jason’s logic, it surely would not make you a “true” Clarkian.

Clark’s definition of faith is simple and biblical. In What Is Saving Faith? he explains that “Faith, by definition, is assent to understood propositions. Not all cases of assent, even assent to Biblical propositions, are saving faith, but all saving faith is assent to one or more Biblical propositions.”[18]

Clark consistently defines faith as understanding (notitia) with assent (assensus) throughout his writings, both published and unpublished. Note the complete absence of “trust” (fiducia). Some groundlessly accuse John Robbins of dishonestly altering Clark’s books—including Jason himself, who unfortunately parrots the views of his mentors from Whitefield Seminary, the president of which is Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot, and they have poisoned the well in Facebook groups to dissuade people from trusting Robbins and The Trinity Foundation,[19] which is by far the best and most reliable source of Gordon Clark’s thought and work. But in one of his unpublished papers on faith from the Gordon H. Clark Foundation—“a ministry of Whitefield College & Theological Seminary”—Clark cites Augustine’s definition of faith:

Augustine was probably the first to define faith. In his treatise Concerning the Predestination of the Saints he said, “Thinking is prior to believing… To believe is nothing other than to think with assent. For not all who think believe… but all who believe think; and they think believing and believe thinking.”[20]

And then agrees with him: “A person may know or understand a proposition and yet not believe it. To believe is to think with assent. Assent is an act of will: it is the voluntary acceptance of the proposition as true.”[21]

Even so, both Drs. Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton diverge from Clark's view of faith. Not only that, but in their book Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism they claim that the “historical” view of faith which Clark believed and taught cannot justify:

First, not all faith is justifying faith. The Bible speaks of several kinds of faith, only one of which is genuine, justifying faith. Historical faith is one kind of non-justifying faith. All that is involved here is an historical assent to the truth claims of the gospel. As taught in James 2:19, even the demons have this kind of faith: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe — and tremble!”[22]

But how is it that demons “assenting to the truth claims of the gospel” invalidates saving faith as believing—understanding and agreeing with—the gospel? Whether demons believe the gospel or not (they don’t) is irrelevant, because Christ died only for fallen man, not demons. Or is it because Talbot and Crampton debase it as a “non-justifying,” “historical” faith? The verse only says that the demons believe in one God, not that they believe the gospel. Clark repeatedly refuted this misapplication of James 2:19:

[The] argument here is that since the devils assent and true believers also assent, something other than assent is needed for saving faith [e.g. trust or fiducia]. This is a logical blunder. The text says the devils believe in monotheism. Why cannot the difference between the devils and Christians be the different propositions believed, rather than a psychological element in belief? [This] assumes a different psychology is needed. It is better to say a different object of belief is needed….[23]

It is illogical to conclude that belief is not assent just because belief in monotheism does not save. The clearer inference is that if belief in monotheism does not save, then one ought to believe something else in addition. Not assent, but monotheism is inadequate.[24]

And if Talbot’s and Crampton’s “historical” faith and “gospel-assenting” demons weren’t bad enough, they stray further still:

In justifying faith the believer appropriates and rests on Christ alone as Mediator in all his offices, based upon the divine testimony of God’s Word. Therefore, orthodox Christianity teaches that justifying faith involves three elements: knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia). It is not enough to know the truth about Jesus Christ; nor is it sufficient merely to assent to the truth claims of the gospel (as in historical faith), as essential as these are. Saving faith is that which also whole-heartedly acquiesces to the Christ revealed in Scripture. Biblical conversion entails a whole-souled commitment. Justifying faith is a faith that makes a fiducial (i.e., a trusting) response to the gospel promises.[25]

But does not “whole-heartedly acquiesce” mean to “whole-heartedly” accept as true? How is this any different from assent? Merriam-Webster defines acquiesce as “to accept, comply, or submit tacitly or passively.” This is why Clark stressed that adding fiducia to faith is a tautology: “The crux of the difficulty with the popular analysis of faith into notitia (understanding), assensus (assent), and fiducia (trust), is that fiducia comes from the same root as fides (faith). Hence this popular analysis reduces to the obviously absurd definition that faith consists of understanding, assent, and faith. Something better than this tautology must be found.”[26]

Clark is one of very few theologians who tirelessly refuted the “necessity” of fiducia, the extra psychological element that many Protestants add to faith, as confused, meaningless, and redundant. Yet Crampton wrote an article called “Justification by Faith Alone” where he makes the same arguments listed above and heartily approves Jonathan Edwards’ discussion of trust (fiducia):

And clearly for Edwards, saving faith is one that involves trust (fiducia). Saving faith, he wrote, “is the whole soul’s active agreeing, according, and symphonizing with this truth [of the gospel].” It is an “adhering to the truth, and acquiescing in it.” It is an “embracing the promises of God, and fiducial relying on them, through Christ for salvation.” “There is a difference,” preached Edwards, in a sermon on Matthew 16:17, “between having a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense [taste] of its sweetness.” The same is true regarding saving faith: There is “a true sense of the divine and superlative excellency of God and Jesus Christ, and of the work of redemption, and the ways and works of God.” There is “a true sense of the divine excellency of the things of God’s Word [which] does more directly and immediately convince us of their truth.” When one has this “sense,” he acquiesces to the “light of the glorious gospel of Christ.”[27]

Clark also chided theologians who use analogies involving physical actions to represent “trust,” because faith is a purely internal, mental act of understanding and assenting to propositions. If it were a physical or external act, it would be a work. Here are more examples from Clark’s articles on faith, reason, and knowledge posted on the Gordon H. Clark Foundation:

The element of trust [fiducia], which Protestants emphasize, defies all explanation and remains in utter confusion. Illustrations, such as actually depositing money in a bank rather than merely believing that the bank is sound, depend on a physical action, in addition to the mental act of believing. Such additional external action is inappropriate to represent the thoroughly inner mental act of faith. Knowledge is an integral part of faith, and not its antithesis.[28]

………………………………………………………..

In describing the nature of faith, fundamentalists, evangelicals and even modernists in a certain way stress the element of trust. A preacher may draw a parallel between trusting in Christ and trusting in a chair. Belief that the chair is solid and comfortable, mere intellectual assent to such a proposition, will not rest your weary bones. You must, the preacher insists, actually sit in the chair. Similarly, so goes the argument, you can believe all that the Bible says about Christ and it will do you no good. Such illustrations as these are constantly used, in spite of the fact that the Bible says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”[29]

………………………………………………………..

Is there such a thing as “mere belief,” or “mere intellectual assent?” Indeed, is there such a distinguishable phenomenon as a “mere” act of will? Intellectual assent is itself an act of will; and conversely, no volitional action could possibly take place without belief. If you will to eat ice cream, you must believe at least that there is some ice cream to be eaten. Intellect and will are not two separate “faculties”; rather they so interpenetrate in a single mental state that it is difficult and perhaps impossible not only to separate them in time but even in definition.[30]

Keep in mind that Clark’s published writings are weightier than his unpublished papers; there could be many reasons as to why he didn’t publish them. Nevertheless, Clark’s published material from The Trinity Foundation and unpublished papers from The Gordon H. Clark Foundation reveal the same mind at work—the exact same view of faith as understanding with assent and rejection of tautological trust. Talbot and Crampton have almost completely disregarded their mentor here. So if Jason will denounce Clarkians who affirm JTB and who attribute it to Clark, what’s to stop him from denouncing Drs. Talbot and Crampton who disregard Clark on such a vital issue as faith, and go as far as degrading Clark’s view to a “historical” faith that cannot justify?

Can the Blind Lead the Blind?

Our point is not to denounce Talbot, Crampton, and Jason as pseudo-Clarkians; our point is that Jason’s Diotrephesian demeaner betrays him. Not only did he denounce someone who didn’t accord with his own misrepresentations of Clark—exposing his own ignorance in the process—he has shown himself to be an unreliable source who’s not nearly as familiar with Clark as he claims to be. Jason evidently hasn't read much of Clark because he seems unfamiliar with a basic catalog of his publications. In his response to Luke Miner, for example, he claims that “there is a nature of man, and Clark wrote about this at length in many books, but perhaps most in depth, in his book, “What do Presbyterians Believe?” If one makes ontological statements, one cannot dismiss the term, ‘ontology.’ ”[31]

Jason refers to a 13-page chapter as "perhaps [Clark's] most in depth" discussion on man, even though Clark also wrote a 130-page treatise called The Biblical Doctrine of Man.[32] He rarely quotes Clark directly and misleadingly presents his own views as Clark’s. It’s hard to find primary source treatment of Clark’s works on his website or Facebook posts other than excuses as to why he can’t furnish citations. Jason has much to learn from men like John Robbins, whom he would do well to read rather than malign: “One of the characteristics of a competent historian [and teacher, scholar, etc.] is his practice of citing primary sources for his statements. If he makes an assertion about a person's views, for example, he quotes the words of that person. He does not merely quote or cite someone else, especially an opponent or critic of that person.”[33]

Instead of self-aggrandizing our platforms to lord it over others, and making false, unjustified (pun intended) assertions without substantiating references to push self-promoting agendas and those of schismatic seminary faculties—we need humility to sharpen and be sharpened by our peers.

There’s more to this than a petty Facebook scuffle. It’s about the damage being done to Clark and his followers by self-proclaimed experts who misrepresent and promote factious agendas that slander, defame, and undermine the valuable, edifying work of other Clarkians and their ministries. We can and should seek to be of one mind as Christians, especially if we share similar Reformed convictions and appreciation for one of the greatest Christian philosophers and theologians of all time. But it will not happen until Jason and those like him take heed and repent.

Imperious Presbyterians [and Christians from any denomination] seriously err in their emphasis by behaving as if authority is the essence of ecclesiastical office, rather than service.

Sadly, there is a Scriptural example pertaining to the distorted outlook of the Imperious Presbyterians. It is Diotrephes, who loved “to have the preeminence” (3 John 9) and abused his position to thwart the Apostle John. It is a tragic case when men in our day, professing to be Presbyterian pastors, exhibit more of the spirit of Diotrephes than of the Spirit of Christ and Paul.[34]

Semper Reformanda,

Carlos Montijo and Tim Shaughnessy

Postscript

1/10/2016 - Last night, Jason posted the following on the Clarkian Apologetics Facebook group:

Jason L. Petersen 10 hrs · Pensacola, FL

Thank you all for your support in this group. We are very, very, appreciative of your participation and understanding concerning the rules that we have laid out. At some parts of this post, I will be repeating what has been told to me by the Foundation, and at other parts, I will be speaking for myself.

Unfortunately, the Gordon Clark Foundation has concluded that the format we have chosen for this group will not work either. At first, we allowed for a discussion group that also would allow the admins to post content that we think is informative and edifying for the group. Unfortunately, there were some who just wanted to pick a fight.

After having issues with people who wanted to pick a fight on social media, we decided to change the format so that some discussion would be had. We laid out a very specific and strict set of rules. Unfortunately, some did not wish to adhere to the rules, and instead of respecting the intentions and rules of the group, they sought to teach everyone that the information we provided was not trustworthy. This was set to be a sort of classroom-like setting, but the tools given to us on Facebook is not enough to support such a format.

Now, I personally have made some mistakes in this group. First, I blocked two people that I still maintain respect for when it was not necessary. Second, I publicly stated that John Robbins edited Dr. Clark's work on faith without having the resources immediately at the ready. I personally apologize and repent for both of these things.

I'd also like to say that I am not one that is officially a part of the Gordon Clark foundation. I am endorsed by the foundation, but I simply help out. With all of the feuds that has started with some individuals from the Gordon Clark Discussion Group, it has been determined that a format such as this is not appropriate for the foundation.

At this time, we plan to start a new group. There will be no members (except for admins) allowed in this group. The group will be open to the public. The public may choose to read the content that we post or ignore it. The goal of the Gordon Clark Foundation is to get Clark's writings, published and unpublished out into the open. One issue that surfaces when one is trying to achieve this goal is that there may be some who may add a thought (be it in an apparent agreement or disagreement) that is not exactly what Dr. Clark believed. The main goal of the foundation in starting a group like this was to get the content from the Foundation out there. Ricky W. Roldan and I were the main participants, but the actual members of the Foundation did not participate very much because they did not like the way the format was working out. There are a few very qualified individuals that have expressed a willingness to help out in producing content for the Foundation, but some have held back because they do not want to risk getting involved in a time-wasting social media debate.

Therefore, we will start a new group where people can either choose to read Dr. Clark's articles and our own musings, or ignore us entirely.

As for this group, I will either take it over myself from the Foundation, or I will remove it from Facebook. I am not entirely sure of what I wish to do with it yet (I would appreciate some feedback on it).

Although there have been a lot of people who have speculated that our intention is to censor the ideas of others, and that we are "not teachable," and other bad things, many of you have been very supportive and expressed a desire for the type of format that we have now. I am very sorry that it did not work out. The choice we faced was either to let the group spin out of control and undermine the intentions that we had when we started the group, or to remove people (as we did) for violating the rules, and then allow them to speculate about and misconstrue our intent for removing them. For us, this is truly a no-win situation. The only thing to do is to create a new group and go from there.

I thank you all again. You have been a great encouragement. I will post more information in this group when I have it. Blessings.

Jason’s prompt response appears to be a step in the right direction; we look forward to working things out with him.

4/1/2017 - Jason has reached out to us and made amends, and we're discussing these matters with him in a spirit of brotherly love and hope to interview him on Semper Reformanda Radio soon. He no longer believes that John Robbins altered Gordon Clark’s books and appears to lean towards knowledge as Justified True Belief as well (see http://answersforhope.org/39-distinguish-knowledge-opinion/).

Notes

[1] Jason Petersen, "A Conversation with Luke Miner," Answers for Hope, 30 Dec 2015, accessed 1 Jan 2016, http://answersforhope.org/a-conversation-with-luke-miner/

[2] Petersen, http://answersforhope.org/a-conversation-with-luke-miner/. Jason eventually kicked out Tim Shaughnessy from the Facebook group for questioning his unfounded claim that Robbins allegedly altered Clark’s books.

[3] Petersen, http://answersforhope.org/a-conversation-with-luke-miner/.

[4] Gordon H. Clark, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, in The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark, Volume 4 (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2004), p. 300-301. Bold emphasis ours. Quoted in Sean Gerety's comment on 26 April 2007, "Must Clarkians use some Emperical Analysis & Inductive Reasoning?", Puritan Board, http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/20726-Must-Clarkians-use-some-Emperical-Analysis-amp-Inductive-Reasoning/page2

[5] Clark, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, p. 322. Bold emphasis ours. Quoted in Sean Gerety, "Biblical Epistemology 101," God's Hammer, 27 Jan 2013, https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/ink-marks-on-a-page/

[6] Gordon H. Clark, "Plato's Theory of Knowledge," The Gordon H. Clark Foundation, accessed 1 Jan 2016, http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/platos-theory-of-knowledge-by-gordon-h-clark/

[7] Gordon H. Clark, Lord God of Truth (Hobbs, NM: The Trinity Foundation, 1994), p. 40. Bold emphasis ours. Thanks to CJay Engel for finding this quote. For "a reasonably complete proof that Gordon Clark did, indeed, consistently use the term “knowledge” distinctly from true belief (or true opinion)," see his and Luke Miner’s article, "Gordon Clark and Knowledge: On Justification," http://scripturalism.com/gordon-clark-and-knowledge-on-justification/

[8] See a Google Books Ngram Viewer analysis of "justified true belief" from 1500 to 1985 at https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=justified+true+belief&case_insensitive=on&year_start=0&year_end=1985&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cjustified%20true%20belief%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bjustified%20true%20belief%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BJustified%20True%20Belief%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BJustified%20true%20belief%3B%2Cc0

[9] Sean Gerety, "Biblical Epistemology 101," God's Hammer, 27 Jan 2013, accessed 3 Jan 2016, https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/biblical-epistemology-101/

[10] Sean Gerety, "Ink Marks on a Page," God's Hammer, 24 Jan 2009, accessed 3 Jan 2016, https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/ink-marks-on-a-page/

[11] Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge: An Introductory Study in Christian Apologetic Methodology (San Jose, CA: Pacific Institute of Religious Studies, 1998), p. 68, http://www.sgbcsv.org/literature/JustificationOfKnowledge.pdf.

[12] Reymond, Justification of Knowledge, p. 70.

[13] Reymond, Justification of Knowledge, p. 100.

[14] John W. Robbins, "An Introduction to Gordon H. Clark," The Trinity Review (July/Aug 1993), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=192. Emphasis ours.

[15] W. Gary Crampton, "Scripturalism: A Christian Worldview," The Trinity Review 299 (March/May 2011), http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=276. Bold emphasis ours. See also Crampton’s The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1999), p. 46:

An important part of Gordon Clark’s epistemology is his distinction between knowledge and opinion. There is a difference between that which we know and that which we opine. Knowledge is not only possessing ideas or thoughts; it is possessing true ideas or thoughts. Knowledge is knowledge of the truth; it is justified true belief. Only the Word of God (that which “is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”) gives such knowledge.

[16] Gordon H. Clark, "Know, Knowledge," The Gordon H. Clark Foundation, accessed 6 Jan 2016, http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/know-knowledge-by-gordon-h-clark/

[17] Gordon H. Clark, "What Is Saving Faith?", The Trinity Review 206 (Jan/Feb 2004), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=102

[18] Gordon H. Clark, What Is Saving Faith? (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2004), p. 88, http://www.trinitylectures.org/what-is-saving-faith-p-60.html. Emphasis ours. This book combines Faith and Saving Faith and The Johannine Logos into one volume.

[19] On 26 September 2015, we messaged Dr. Kenneth Talbot privately to inquire about his attacks on John Robbins. He thanked us for expressing our concern but declined to comment. Here’s what Tim asked:

My friend Carlos and I have strongly considered attending your school in the future and I am grateful for your presence in the ministry of Christ. I count you as a brother in the Lord and have benefitted from you personally. That’s why I find this difficult now.

I want to approach this carefully and respectfully, but I feel that I need to say something. I have recently found myself discouraged and even troubled to some extent by the way you speak about John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation. I have heard you speak negatively of Robbins and the TF in the past and have ignored it. Recently on Jason Petersen’s wall you said the following:

View fullsize

This is not the first time I have heard you say something like this and I am disturbed by it. I don’t know anything really about Cheung but I find it surprising that you would say such things about Robbins.

I have benefited greatly from Dr. Robbins’ writings and the Trinity Foundation which has been committed to keeping and defending the legacy of Dr. Clark. I have used Dr. Robbins’ work in my own writings and have a high regard for the man. I don’t share in your assessment of Robbins or the TF and I wanted to know if this is the impression you give your students. I should also tell you that when I first heard of your school I asked Tom Juodaitis about it and he affirmed that it was the only school that was favorable to Clark and he had nothing negative to say about you or your school. I will not have time to reply back to you right now but I look forward to hearing from you.

You can also check out my writing and see if it reflects the type of attitude you have a problem with.

God Bless, Tim

Here’s what I (Carlos) asked:

Dr. Talbot you criticized Robbins publicly so we didn't think you'd have a problem giving details. Isn't the attitude you express against him the same attitude you're accusing Robbins of? Why would you defame a man who loved Clark and dedicated his life to promoting and preserving his legacy? Clark obviously held Robbins in high regard if he asked him to finish his book [The Incarnation] on his deathbed. It sounds like you're slandering him. I don't understand why you defame Robbins and the Trinity Foundation—who defend and promote Clark—while you also affiliate with people who criticize Clark and have no regard for him like Joel McDurmon [listen to “An interview of Joel McDurmon: Researcher and Writer for American Vision”] and Jeff Durban, who had Oliphint recklessly misrepresent Clark and falsely accuse him of heresy on his show (https://www.facebook.com/ApologiaRadio/posts/324063354406639).

These are some of the reasons Tim and I are no longer considering Whitefield Seminary, and no longer recommend it even though they're one of the few seminaries that incorporate Gordon Clark into their curriculum. For more information see Sean Gerety’s “Faith Is Understanding With Assent” and “Whitefield Follies,” as well as Luke Miner’s “Clark on Saving Faith in 1961.” There are still very strong misrepresentations–even slanders–of Clark today, particularly from Van Tilians. Here are a few examples from Scott Oliphint, Apologia Radio, and Reformed Forum:

• https://www.facebook.com/groups/CFDD1/permalink/791646060853020/

• https://www.facebook.com/ApologiaRadio/posts/324063354406639

• http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc163/

• http://www.apologiaradio.com/?p=482

[20] Gordon H. Clark, "Faith," The Gordon H. Clark Foundation, accessed 3 Jan 2016, http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/faith-by-gordon-h-clark/

[21] Clark, "Faith," http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/faith-by-gordon-h-clark/

[22] Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism: A Theological Primer, 3rd ed. (1990), p. 112. To request the free ebook version, see http://whitefieldmedia.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=2209ac66c06c8383a9ce36dfd&id=f5a1e983ce

[23] Clark, What Is Saving Faith?, p. 152.

[24] Clark, What Is Saving Faith?, p. 153.

[25] Talbot and Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, p. 114. See also John Robbins’ “R. C. Sproul on Saving Faith,” http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=238. Talbot and Crampton’s view of faith is like Sproul’s.

[26] Gordon H. Clark, "Saving Faith", The Trinity Review (Dec 1979), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=10

[27] W. Gary Crampton, “Justification by Faith Alone,” A Puritan’s Mind, accessed 31 Dec 2015, http://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/justification-by-faith-alone-by-w-gary-crampton-th-d/

[28] Clark, "Know, Knowledge," http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/know-knowledge-by-gordon-h-clark/

[29] Clark, "Faith and Reason," http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/faith-and-reason-by-gordon-h-clark/. Emphasis ours.

[30] Gordon H. Clark, "Faith and Reason," The Gordon H. Clark Foundation, accessed 6 Jan 2016, http://thegordonhclarkfoundation.com/faith-and-reason-by-gordon-h-clark/. Emphasis ours.

[31] Petersen, http://answersforhope.org/a-conversation-with-luke-miner/

[32] Gordon H. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man, 2nd ed. (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1992), http://www.trinitylectures.org/biblical-doctrine-of-man-the-p-50.html

[33] John W. Robbins, Can the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Be Saved? (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2004), p. 13, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=232

[34] Kevin Reed, “Imperious Presbyterianism,” The Trinity Review (June/Aug 2008), http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=254v

The task of Christian Apologetics is to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3). This requires you to “always [be] prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15), and to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). It is to provide a rational justification for the faith and refute arguments made against the Christian worldview, which is defined entirely and exclusively by the Bible. Apologetics then is nothing more than the intellectual defense of the of the truth of propositional revelation. Unfortunately, there is much confusion in today's churches regarding the topic of Christian apologetics. Some Christians disparage and refrain from the task of apologetics because they view it as argumentative and confrontational. Often they cite their own personal experience or shortcomings as the basis for their position. We hear statements like, “we should be trying to win people not trying to win arguments.” Rather than encouraging apologetics, they attack it out of false piety.

Yet many others who actually do engage in apologetics seem to misunderstand its purpose. The purpose of apologetics is not to try to prove to the unbeliever what he already knows; that is, God exists. Romans chapter one tells us that the unbeliever knows God. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them,” (Romans 1:19) but that “by their unrighteousness [they] suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18). It should be clear from the plain reading of the text that the unbeliever already knows that God is real. We, therefore, should not spend any of our time trying to prove to the unbelievers what they already know.

It would seem, however, that many Christian apologists are predominantly concerned with trying to prove to the unbeliever that God exists. What is even more surprising is that many Van Tilian Presuppositionalists are under the mistaken impression that they can prove the existence of God by using the transcendental argument. We often hear these presuppositionalist repeat Greg Bahnsen and claim, “we can prove God by the impossibility of the contrary.” The Scripturalist has long since corrected this misunderstanding among the proponents of the Van Tilian presuppositional method. In order to be a presuppositionalist who is bent on trying to prove that God exists one would have to be thoroughly confused. Dr. Gary Crampton rightly points out, “is it not obvious that, by definition, a presupposition is not provable? And if one is a presuppositionalist, he cannot logically believe in the legitimate use of theistic proofs for the existence of God.”[i] Presuppositions are assumptions and one cannot prove what they must first assume. Crampton goes on to write, “The absolutely certain proof of the transcendental argument is imaginary. The Van Tilian position is a confused form of evidentialism; it is certainly not presuppositionalism.”[ii]

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The transcendental argument can still be very useful in apologetics. Crampton continues, “This is not to say that a form of the transcendental argument cannot be used in an ad hominem fashion, that is, a reductio ad absurdum. Reducing an opponent's arguments to the level of absurdity, thereby showing him the vacuous nature of his own worldview, is an excellent apologetical tool. All of Gordon Clark’s books are examples of such argumentation.”[iii]

The Scripturalist argues that the transcendental argument cannot be used to prove the existence of God but that it can be used in an ad hominem response. However, before we proceed any further, we must correct a very common misunderstanding that all ad hominem replies are fallacious. Here we must caution the would-be philosopher to avoid making this mistake. Gordon Clark wrote:

ad hominem - Latin meaning "to the man." A form of argument that accepts a proposition espoused by another for the purpose of deducing from it contradictory propositions or propositions that would be rejected by the other person. AD HOMINEM SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE INFORMAL FALLACY OF ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM. (Emphasis Clark’s)[iv]

Clark emphatically points out that an ad hominem should be distinguished from an abusive ad hominem fallacy. An abusive ad hominem fallacy is made when one attacks the other person’s character or some other personal trait that is irrelevant to the argument. However, a valid ad hominem reply can be made, if instead of attacking the person’s character, we attack their presuppositions. This is what we have in mind when we use the transcendental argument in an ad hominem fashion. An ad hominem reply of this nature is valid because the unbeliever's presuppositions are relevant to the discussion, whereas their character may not be relevant to the discussion. Presuppositions are the basis on which arguments are made. If the basic presuppositions are false then the arguments from which they are derived and from which they proceed are altogether worthless. This type of ad hominem reply is not irrelevant and therefore it is not fallacious.

The Clarkian use of the transcendental argument in an ad hominem fashion also allows the Christian to fulfill the apologetic method prescribed in Proverbs 26:4-5.

Answer not a fool according to his folly,

lest you be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly,

lest he be wise in his own eyes.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly." That is, do not accept his false presuppositions as your own, "lest you be like him yourself."

"Answer a fool according to his folly." That is, do accept his false presuppositions for the sake of argument, so that you may deduce from them contradictory proposition or reduce them to absurdity, "lest he be wise in his own eyes."

Many Christian apologists have failed to regard this passage in their apologetic method and consequently, they have become like the fool. Instead of accepting the folly of the fool as our own we should accept it only for the sake of argument. For example, we can make an argument “toward the man” (the empiricist) and accept his false assumption of empiricism as true for the sake of argument. That is you answer him according to his folly of empiricism, so that you may reduce it to absurdity.

While working at the firehouse a number of years ago, I found myself engaging fellow firefighters about my faith. To my surprise, most of the firefighters were very open about discussing what they believed, and at times I found an ally or two. Still, there were a handful of outspoken atheists, but it was a great experience, however, because God granted me favor with these individuals and I had the opportunity to share the gospel with them. I came to appreciate these late night firehouse chats as we engaged in some productive discussion.

One evening at the fire station I asked my friend why he didn’t believe in God, to which he confidently replied, “there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God.” Fortunately, by this time I had already been introduced to Scripturalist apologetics and I was able to offer an ad hominem reply.  I didn’t accept my friends standard of empiricism as my own standard; rather, I accepted it for the sake of argument in order to reduced it to absurdity.  I replied that if empiricism is true then he could not know that it is true. Empiricism holds that all knowledge is gained via the senses yet he had just made a knowledge claim that could not be known by the sense. It is, therefore, contradictory and self-refuting. I challenged him to establish the standard of empiricism on its own terms before he make any demands that I establish God’s existence by the false standard of empiricism. I further pointed out that the empiricist puts forth a universal claim that all knowledge is gained via the senses yet the empiricist cannot establish any universal claim through sense perception. This is because his sense perceptions are limited in the past and non-existent in the future with the result that his claim rests on an impossible induction, which cannot be completed. Therefore, the empiricist commits the fallacy of induction in his attempt to establish a universal claim from a limited set of particular instances. Furthermore, the empiricist cannot account for the laws of Logic via sense perception yet their arguments require the use of the laws of logic. One reason for this is that the laws of logic are universal and as we just pointed out the empiricist cannot establish universals on empiricism. My friend had advanced an unargued philosophical presupposition of empiricism and I accepted it for the sake of argument in order to reduce it to absurdity and show it to be self-contradictory. By casting down his lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God I was then able to share the gospel.

As I told him about his need for Christ I switched from apologetics to evangelism, however, the task of apologetics wasn’t over. I warned him of the judgment to come and that he would have to stand before a Holy and Righteous God when he died. He responded by telling me that when we die nothing happens and that we don’t have a soul. He then asked me if I had ever seen the TV series Cosmos. He stated something to the effect that there was no heaven or hell and all that ever existed was the Cosmos. At that point, I realized that he had presupposed a materialistic worldview.

Materialism is the philosophical view that nothing exists apart from the physical or material universe. This view is quite popular among unbelievers because it excludes the supernatural and the spiritual. All that exists is matter and energy in motion. My friend had clearly been influenced by Carl Sagan’s opening line in the 1980 hit television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage in which Sagan famously stated, “The Cosmos [matter and energy] is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” This statement and the original video clip of Sagan standing on the beach was repeated in the 2014 sequel series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey which featured astrophysicist and cosmologist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Both Sagan and Tyson, along with many others, appear to share this view of materialism. The underlying presupposition of materialism was the basis on which my friend put forth the claim that there was no heaven or hell, he had no soul, there was no afterlife, and there was no God. During a Q&A session featuring Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson, published on Youtube on Nov. 13, 2011, Tyson stated the following, “I would request, that my body in death be buried not cremated so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth so the flora and fauna can dine upon it just as I have dined upon flora and fauna throughout my life.”[v] This once again presupposes a materialistic worldview.

I asked my friend if he believed there was anything beyond the material to which he replied that he did not. Rather than accepting his position of materialism as my own presupposition, I accepted it for the sake of argument in order to reduce it to absurdity. I replied that if materialism is true the materialist cannot make his arguments in favor of his materialism intelligible. The problem is that the materialist cannot account for immaterial laws in a materialistic worldview. Some may wish to disregard the existence of immaterial moral laws, but the case against materialism becomes indisputable when one considers the laws of logic. This is because it is impossible to argue for a materialistic worldview without first presupposing the immaterial laws of logic. The arguments for materialism would not be intelligible without these immaterial laws and this is not difficult to demonstrate. I pointed out that when Carl Sagan said, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” he did not intend for his audience to understand that to mean “The Cosmos is not all that is or ever was or ever will be,” for that would contradict his claim. He is therefore already committed to the immaterial law of contradiction. Furthermore, I pointed out that every word in his claim has a specific meaning. The word “Cosmos” does not mean baseball and the phrase “all that is” does not mean none there was. One may notice that there are thirteen words in Sagan’s claim, and if the law of contradiction is rejected then we can say that his words carry the meaning of these thirteen words, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalm 19:1 KJV). Of course, Sagan and Tyson would both reject this understanding of what Sagan said because that is not what he was trying to communicate and it contradicts their views.

The problem facing the Materialist should, therefore, be obvious. These men are inescapably committed to the immaterial law of contradiction. However, in their worldview, the laws of logic are nowhere to be found. Not only are the immaterial laws not accounted for in the materialistic worldview, but they are necessarily excluded. The fact that such arguments are intelligible and can be understood demonstrates that they are false and irrational.

The Van Tilian presuppositionalist is already engaged in this tactic to some extent. What the Clarkian refers to as an ad hominem reply the Van Tilian refers to as an “internal critique.” It would appear then that both the Van Tilian Presuppositionalist and the Clarkian Scripturalist are using the transcendental argument in the same way but we disagree on what it accomplishes. To give an example of a Van Tilian Presuppositionalist giving an ad hominem reply we should look no further than Greg Bahnsen. Dr. Bahnsen gave a brilliant ad hominem reply against naturalism. He stated the following:

… if naturalism is true then the naturalist has no reason to believe his naturalism… If naturalism is true the naturalist has no reason to believe it... Because you see, naturalism says all of our thinking is just electrical chemical responses. All of our thinking is subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, which is to say all of our thinking is determined by the factors in the physical world or in the physical brain in the environment around us. All of our thinking is in principle predictable then because it's just following the laws of nature. Usually more sophisticatedly put, the laws of physics and biology and chemistry and so forth. But the point is that human thinking is just a species of the physical world and its operation. Human thinking is just, it’s on the same order but not on the same level of sophistication as weeds growing. And so if naturalism is true then the person who's propounding it is propounding it why, because his or her brain is required them by the laws of physics, and chemistry and biology to say this sort of thing. It’s not as though they have the freedom and self-awareness to think about different theories evaluate evidence and make a choice as to which is right or wrong. They just have to say whatever they have to say and that's why the irony is that a naturalist would promote naturalism and try to tell people it’s true, you should believe that and not supernaturalism. The answer is that if naturalism is true so that your brain is just working on the laws of physics then you have no reason to believe naturalism is true, it’s just the laws of physics requiring you to say that, which is just to say that if naturalism is true then there is no reason to say that naturalism is true; you’re just forced to say that just like I’m forced by the laws of physics to say the opposite. Unbelievers cannot even account for why we argue with each other then, can they? On their assumption there is no argument because there is no freedom to choose the truth over against error, there are just the laws of physics governing my brain so say and do whatever it does.[vi]

Bahnsen does not accept the position of naturalism as his own presupposition but rather he accepted it for the purpose of reducing it to absurdity. He aptly answers the fool according to his folly. This cannot prove Christian theism simply on the grounds that he showed the impossibility of the contrary, which in this case is naturalism. However that is not our task in apologetics. It is simply to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3), to “always [be] prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15), and to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). Bahnsen gave an outstanding argument that one can use in an ad hominem fashion.

[i] Crampton, Gary W. "Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis." Trinity Foundation. June & july 2000. Accessed March 27, 2017. http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=128.

[ii] Crampton, Gary W. "Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis." Trinity Foundation. June & july 2000. Accessed March 27, 2017. http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=128.

[iii] Crampton, Gary W. "Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis." Trinity Foundation. June & july 2000. Accessed March 27, 2017. http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=128.

[iv] Clark, Gordon H. Logic. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2004.

[v] Thiscantbeitagain. "Neil deGrasse Tyson stops a religious troll (w/captions)." YouTube. September 28, 2010. Accessed March 27, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGkv0IT4dU.

[vi] "Greg Bahnsen debunks atheist Dogma (Presuppositional Apologetics)." YouTube. August 08, 2013. Accessed March 27, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRq6qKp78W8&t=13s.

I believe he [God] is “really there” because, without him as the universe’s final Reality, there would be no intelligibility anywhere. (Robert Reymond, etc.)[1] Dr. Reymond’s statement is both profound and insightful. Without God, there is no intelligibility. While the unbeliever cannot account for and at times disregards logic, he must still rely on logic in his own thinking and argumentation. The unbeliever must use the laws of logic in order to make his case against Christianity intelligible, yet it is only the Christian worldview that can account for these laws. He is therefore required to “steal” from the Christian worldview to argue for his worldview. By this, the unbeliever shows that he is inconsistent and demonstrates that his own worldview is wrong. One cannot make a counter argument to this without first presupposing the laws of logic, and it is impossible to account for the laws of logic apart from the God of Scripture.

Only if the God of the Bible exists do we have the laws of Logic and only if the laws of logic exist do we have intelligibility. This necessarily includes the intelligibility of moral judgments. While the laws of logic are necessary for the intelligibility of moral judgments, they cannot tell us what is morally right or wrong. For that, we need an objective moral standard. The charge against atheism, secular humanism or any worldview which rejects the Bible is that it cannot establish an objective moral standard and therefore it cannot rationally justify any moral judgments. Only if the God of the Bible is our lawgiver do we have an objective moral standard, and only if we have an objective moral standard do we have a basis for moral judgments. In the Christian worldview it is God's character, his commandments, and his authority that establish an objective moral standard as the basis for making moral judgments indissoluble (perpetually binding or obligatory), and it is Jesus --the Logos of God--who endows the mind of man with the logic necessary to make those moral judgments intelligible (capable of being understood or comprehended). The unbeliever cannot account for either of these two necessary conditions in his own worldview. He cannot account for the laws of logic necessary to make moral judgments intelligible, nor can he account for an objective moral standard by which to make moral judgments indissoluble.

Objective Vs Subjective

That which is objective is true, independent of personal belief or opinion. We may simply say that truth is objective. Although this may seem obvious to most people, it is possible that in some postmodern academic circles someone will argue that there is no such thing as objective truth. When such irrational objections are raised we might ask their proponents if it is objectively true that there is no objective truth. If they say no then we can simply agree that their statement was wrong. However, if they say yes, then they have refuted themselves by claiming it is objectively true that there is no objective truth.

By contrast, that which is subjective is merely regarded as personal belief or opinion which may or may not reflect the truth. It’s not difficult to see that many people hold opinions that are not true. Whatever is subjective is not universally true or binding for all people; it is a matter of personal opinion. Many times people equate or confuse subjective opinion with objective reality. Some people will argue something similar to this: Mike sees a green maple leaf but Terry sees a yellow maple leaf and both perspectives are equally valid and true. But as Dr. John Robbins rightly points out, “The law [of non-contradiction] is expressed symbolically as: ‘Not both A and not-A.’ [This means that] a maple leaf may be both green and not-green (yellow) but it cannot be both green and yellow at the same time and in the same respect—it is green in the summer, yellow in the fall. If it is green and yellow at the same time then it cannot be green and yellow in the same respect; one part, however small, will be green, another yellow.”[2] Mike and Terry may have observed the maple leaf at different times or they may have observed different parts of the maple leaf in order to reach their conclusions, but if they are observing the same areas of the same leaf at the same time then they cannot both be right about the color. The Christian should understand that subjective opinion can only be validated by objective truth. It is objectively true that each of them is of a different opinion about the color of the leaf, but it is not true in any sense that both opinions are correct if, in fact, they are contrary. The terms objective and absolute are many times used synonymously as well as the terms subjective and relative. That which is objectively true is regarded as absolutely true in all instances and that which is subjectively true is only regarded as relatively true in particular instances.

Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism holds two main tenets. The first is that there are no moral absolutes which apply universally to all people. Instead of moral judgments being absolute they are only relative to individual preference or perspective. The second tenet is that there is no objective moral standard which is universally binding and unchanging. Instead of an objective moral standard, which is true, independent of personal opinion, relativism stipulates that all moral judgments are subject to individual preference or perspective. True moral judgments can, therefore, differ from person to person, and can even change over time. Every person can choose for themselves what is morally right or wrong. According to the relativist’s view, that which is morally wicked for one person may be morally righteous for another.

Those who subscribe to this view of morality often seek the moral freedom it offers. We can decide for ourselves what is morally right and wrong. This view often resonates with those who support the homosexual agenda and those of the pro-abortion movement. While the moral relativists seek to empower every person by giving moral authority to each individual, they inevitably make it impossible for moral judgments to be intelligible. This is because the inevitable result of moral relativism is that contradictory judgments of morality must be true at the same time, but it is impossible for contradictions to be true. The result is a worldview in which murder, rape, and child abuse are both morally right and wrong at the same time.

Let’s consider an example in which a father physically abuses his children. From the father’s perspective, his actions are morally right. He believes he is conditioning his children for the real world and that he is teaching them to be tough. Now let’s suppose that his youngest daughter dies as a result of the injuries inflicted from the physical abuse. We might expect at this point that there would be an admission of wrongdoing from the father but to the contrary, he stands firm and professes that his actions are nothing less than merciful. Perhaps this response from the father is too extreme to even be considered possible, but before we dismiss it altogether, let us remember that it was abortion icon Margaret Sanger who said, “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."[3] While the father feels that what he has done is morally right and even merciful, the mother and his other children view his actions as morally wrong. Because the moral relativists say that what is morally right or wrong is determined by individual perspective, the inescapable conclusion is that the very same actions of child abuse and murder are both morally right and not morally right (morally wrong) at the same time.

Here we have a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction because "the same attribute [in this case moral rightness] cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject [child abuse and murder] and in the same respect.”[4] The Relativist intends to argue that moral judgments held by different individuals, which are contradictory, are equally valid and true. This view, however, requires the rejection of logic which in turn provides a sanction for evil because it refuses to properly distinguish right moral judgments from wrong moral judgments. This rejection of logic makes morality unintelligible. If such contradictory moral judgments were made in reference to the same moral action then those moral judgments would be unintelligible. The inevitable result would be a state of confusion in which we could not know whether or not child abuse was morally right or wrong. If all moral judgments are shown to be contradictory then all moral judgments are reduced to absurdity. While the relativist may wish to disregard logic at this point he is still required to use logic in his own argument and he cannot advocate his own views without first presupposing the law of non-contradiction.

Not only does moral relativism fail to make moral judgments intelligible, it also fails to make moral judgments indissoluble; that is perpetually binding or obligatory for all people. This is due to the fact that all moral judgments in this view are grounded entirely in subjective arbitrary opinions which have no universal significance at all. It is important to understand that whatever the moral relativist may propose as morally right or wrong is not to be regarded as universally true or obligatory for all people. On moral relativism, there are no universal moral obligations that one should live by. This concept, however, seems to stand in direct opposition to our thinking when it comes to certain moral judgments.

When we make the moral judgment, for instance, that murder (the unjustifiable killing of an innocent person) is morally wrong, we intend to imply that murder is morally wrong for everyone. It does not matter if the person committing the murder is someone of wealth, influence, status or power; wrong is wrong and murder is morally wrong. This, of course, is not a new concept and one should only keep in mind the history of tyrannical dictatorships when considering the indissoluble nature of certain moral judgments. History is full of dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and many others who murdered millions of people. These tyrants are a sobering reminder that everyone, including the person in power, has a moral obligation to act justly and refrain from murder. Murder, however, cannot be considered morally wrong for all people unless all people have the same moral obligation to not murder. This creates a problem for the moral relativist because in their view there aren’t any indissoluble moral obligations. This means that the moral relativist has no foundation upon which to stand and criticize the actions of people like Adolf Hitler or anybody else for that matter. According to the moral relativist, Hitler could decide for himself what was morally right or wrong even if that meant the systematic genocide of an entire group of people.

In other words, if there are no indissoluble moral judgments then there are no moral absolutes. It stands to reason, though, that if every person has the same moral obligation to refrain from murder then the wrongness of murder stands as a moral absolute. We could simply say that murder is absolutely wrong. The moral relativist, however, denies moral absolutes and does not ultimately believe that murder is absolutely wrong. Similarly, they do not believe that child abuse or rape are absolutely wrong either. We should press the issue here and ask the relativist, “Since you believe that murder, rape, and child abuse are not absolutely wrong then can you give some examples of when these things are not morally wrong and are morally right?”

When asking questions like this to someone who holds this view of morality the reply is often nothing more than an assertion of the obvious. They will reply that “to them” things like rape, child abuse, and murder are morally wrong, but “to someone else” these things might be viewed as morally right. This reply is nothing new or insightful and it offers no hope of establishing a system of morality. This is a very popular view of morality known as descriptive moral relativism, and although it is widely held, it too fails to make moral judgments indissoluble or intelligible because it merely states the obvious; that different people have different views about what is morally right and wrong. Descriptive relativism can tell us nothing about what actually is morally right or wrong; nor can it tell us what we should do. Because moral relativism cannot substantiate any intelligible or indissoluble moral judgments the moral relativist cannot establish any ethical normative conclusions or moral imperatives. They simply cannot provide us a coherent, rational view of morality.

Morality is either subjectively based or it is objectively based. These are two mutually exclusive positions and there is no third option. If morality cannot be grounded or rationally justified from a subjective standpoint then that leaves us with the only other alternative. Morality must be grounded in an objective standard. For the Christian worldview, God’s divine law provides us an objective standard by which we can say what is right and wrong as well as advocate what we should or should not do. This view is most often recognized as the divine command theory. This view stipulates that morality depends on God and his commandments.

Euthyphro’s Dilemma

Plato’s dialogue the Euthyphro Dilemma has become an enduring inspiration for argumentation against the Christian position that morality depends on God. In this dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates, which takes place outside of a courthouse in Athens, Plato examines the essence of piety. This short dialogue has inspired many unbelievers to ask the question: Is something right or good because God decreed that it is, or is it decreed by God as right or good because it is right or good? The question is presented as a dilemma, a choice between two options, which ultimately lead to unsatisfactory conclusions for the Christian. If the Christian chooses the first option, that something is right or good because God decreed it to be so, then the implication is that God’s decree is completely arbitrary. This means that God could have decreed that murder and lying were good. If the Christian chooses the second option, that God decrees something is right or good because it is right or good, then the implication is that God must abide by a higher standard or authority than himself. This means that there is something greater than God and that he is not the ultimate source of goodness.

It is very likely that the Christian will hear some variation of this argument in a debate over morality. While some people may think this argument is sophisticated and persuasive, we should point out that it is fallacious because it presents a false dilemma. The argument only offers two options when in fact there is a third option. The third option is this: God’s decrees that something is right or good because it is in accordance with His own good character and righteous will. The standard for what is morally right and good is what God commands but it is vitally important to note that his commands are based on his own character and will. "Not only is God the governor and judge; prior to this, he is the legislator. It is his will that establishes the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong; it is his will that sets the norms of righteous conduct."[5] Only God has the power and authority to legislate right and wrong, to judge between good and evil and to execute punishment to those who break his law. God has established the virtue of his own character as the basis for universal moral commands, while particular commands are based on his will. The universal moral commands are often referred to as moral law while the particular commands are often referred to as positive law. However, these distinctions are not mutually exclusive and there is overlap. Therefore, it is both his character and his will that are the basis for his commands. This means that God is neither arbitrary in his commands nor is he forced to appeal to a higher moral authority than himself. Scripture tells us, “For when God made a promise to Abraham since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself” (Hebrews 6:13). Clearly, there is no greater authority than God.

Some Christian apologists have argued that God’s commands are the basis for that which is morally right and good, while others have argued that it is His character. Although, it would seem that most Christian apologists who attempt to answer the Euthyphro Dilemma will argue that it is only God’s character and not his commands that are the basis for morality. Clearly, they are attempting to avoid the charge of God’s commands being arbitrary, but this misses the full picture.

Therefore, we must ask: is it God’s commands or it is His character that is the basis for morality? To answer this, we need to make a distinction between an ontological basis and epistemological basis for morality. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question concerning what is real or what exist. The ontological basis for that which is morally right and good is God’s character, and in some instances, it is his sovereign will. Without God’s character and will as the transcendent ontological basis for morality, then right and wrong are reduced to subjective opinion and preference. In other words, there would be no actual right and wrong but only a difference of opinion and preference.

On the other hand, Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question concerning how we can know something, and without God’s revelation, we could not know his righteous decrees or his moral standard. Therefore, the epistemological basis for that which is morally right and good is God’s revelation which is given authoritatively and most clearly in the form of Divine commands. It is, therefore, appropriate to say that God’s commands are the basis for that which is morally right and wrong, and his character and will are the basis for that which He commands. The question often arises, though; “how can we account for the fact that actions such as lying and murder were wrong prior to the issuance of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai?” Certainly, it was morally wrong for Cain to murder Abel even though it happened prior to God giving the command to Moses “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Because God’s character and will are the ontological basis for what is morally good this means that objective right and wrong existed prior to Moses receiving the Ten Commandments. The Scriptures say that God is good (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19), and that he is eternal (Revelation 1:8), which means that that which is good has existed in the eternal, unchanging character of God.

Now, this raises the question; “how can God find fault with Cain for murdering his brother Abel if he had not read the Ten Commandments?” There must be a revealed law in order for this act to be a sin. It cannot merely be based on God’s character. Clark notes, “The Scripture says precisely what sin is. ‘Sin is the transgression of the law’ (1 John 3:4). ‘Where no law is, there is no transgression’ (Romans 4:15). ‘Through the law cometh the knowledge of sin’ (Romans 3:20). It should be clear then that sin is always defined by the law. Unless one knows the law of God, he cannot know what is wrong, evil or sinful.”[6] How can God punish those who have not received expressed commands and how is it possible to know right and wrong prior to God giving the commands if that knowledge depends on God’s revelation? Here we must point out that no one is ignorant of God’s moral law (ie the Ten Commandments). The answer to this question of supposed ignorance to the moral law is God’s revelation, but not in the form of divine commands. Remember, revelation is the epistemological foundation for the knowledge of right and wrong, but there are two categories of revelation that must be considered in order to properly address this question. The first category is a general revelation which is given through innate knowledge in the form of a moral conscience and the second category is a special revelation which is given in the form of divine commands.

General Revelation and Morality

General revelation is the category of Christian epistemology that allows us to address how we can know what is morally right and wrong apart from the expressed commands of God given in Scripture. Matt Slick writes, “General revelation is the knowledge of God, as well as the knowledge of right and wrong, that can be obtained through nature. This general revelation of God’s existence and basic morality is known by everyone.”[7] The Christian can account for the fact that all people inherently know that actions such as lying and murder are morally wrong even if some people have not read the Scriptures. This is because we are made in the image of God. God is a moral agent and because we are imaged in his likeness we too are moral agents. We are not only endowed by God with the gift of rationality but we are also endowed with the gift of morality. We have been given the knowledge of right and wrong in the form of a conscience. Jesus Christ is “the true light, which gives light [knowledge] to everyone” (John 1:9), and part of that light is a moral conscience. The word conscience contains the prefix con, from the Latin com, meaning “with or together,” and the suffix science from the Latin scire, meaning “to know.” The mind of man is illuminated by Christ with a moral conscience that provides us with (con) the knowledge (science) of right and wrong.

While this answers the question of moral knowledge prior to the issuance of the Ten Commandments to Moses it may appear contradictory to what Paul says in Romans chapter 7. How can we suggest that people had the knowledge of right and wrong prior to the Ten Commandments (the moral law) when Paul says, “Yet if it had not been for the law [Ten Commandments], I would not have known sin? For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet” (Romans 7:7). It is important to note that Paul is quoting Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 in this verse. Paul is saying that he would not have known that coveting or even that lying and murder were wrong apart from the Ten Commandments. This may appear to contradict the view that man had a knowledge of right and wrong prior to the Ten Commandments being given to Moses?

Paul does affirm that our knowledge of right and wrong depends on the knowledge of God’s moral law but he does not say that the moral law was first given to Moses. This is nothing more than an apparent contradiction and any perceived tension can easily be resolved. The answer is given earlier when Paul says concerning the Gentiles who do not have the law that; “...the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” This is why the 1689 London Baptist Confession states, “God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, (19.1) and that “the same [moral] law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man” (19.2).

It is also important to note that the first chapter of Romans points to an innate knowledge of God and his laws. In verse 20 we read, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature [character], have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” God’s invisible attributes include His rationality and His morality which are part of his divine nature, and these attributes are clearly perceived in the creation of man who is the very image of God. God’s moral law is a direct reflection of His character. Lying is wrong because God is a God of truth and murder is wrong because God is a God of justice. Adultery is wrong because God is always faithful. God’s moral law is a reflection of who God is and it is because God has made himself known to us innately that we are without excuse. Knowledge of the moral law is given innately to all people. The knowledge of his decree is innate knowledge which is why Paul says, “they know God’s righteous decree” (Romans 1:32).

Special Revelation and Morality

While general revelation makes God’s commands known innately, it is special revelation that provides us with expressed commands given in Scripture. However, there are two different categories of divine commands that we find in Scripture. There are universal commands which are morally binding for all people (referred to as moral law), and then there are particular commands given to certain individuals (referred to as positive law). The universal commands are primarily an outworking of God’s character while particular commands are primarily an outworking of his will. The moral law (i.e. the Ten Commandments) comprise a set of universal commands that are morally obligatory for all people, but God has also issued commands to individuals that are not morally obligatory for all people. Particular commands are replete throughout scripture. God commands Noah, “Make yourself an ark of gopher wood” (Genesis 6:14). Surely, we don’t have to obey this command and build an ark out of gopher wood, but Noah had obligation to obey this command. It would have been wrong for him to disobey it. This particular command given to Noah was based on God’s will which was to show mercy and preserve mankind through Noah and his family while bringing judgment upon the rest of mankind for their wickedness.

In a similar manner, God commands Jonah, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me” (Jonah 1:2). For Jonah, this particular command from God was a moral duty and he had an obligation to obey, but we are not all called to go to Nineveh and preach against it. When Jonah did not obey God’s command to go to Nineveh we see that God punished him; “And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights” (Jonah 1:17). These types of commands reveal God’s will and they are morally obligatory for their recipients, yet they are not morally obligatory for all people. We will not be judged for our lack of obedience to any particular command of God unless we are the direct recipients of such commands.

It is important to point out that commands that are primarily based on God’s will and those that are primarily based on his character both reflect God’s goodness and never contradict. Some people have suggested that God’s particular commands have conflicted with his universal commands, but this would result in a contradiction. In other words, God would be self-contradictory and double minded. As an example, we can consider God’s universal command not to murder (Exodus 20:13), and contrast that with God’s particular command to the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanite clans (Deuteronomy 7.1-2; 20.16-18).

The KJV renders Exodus 20:13 as “Thou shalt not kill,” and this is perhaps the reason for some of the confusion. This passage is better translated “Thou shalt not murder,” and most, if not all, other Bible translations correctly translate the passage with the verb “murder.” God commands us not to murder and some have misunderstood this to mean that God commanded us not to kill. We need to understand the difference between killing and murdering. Most people tend to recognize that there is a distinction to be made, and may even try to think of scenarios in which killing is not considered murder. Often these scenarios involve situations of war or self-defense in which there is no other option but to kill another person in order to preserve one’s own life or protect someone else. In such cases, killing is not always morally wrong, however, murder is always morally wrong and should never be condoned. Simply put, murder is the wrongful killing of another person.

Just as the state may be justified in the execution of a guilty criminal so too God is justified in the death of the wicked. This certainly was true of the Canaanites. By the time God had commanded the destruction of the Canaanites, their wickedness was no longer restrained and their evil was exceedingly great. In fact, their iniquity was complete. As a society, they were completely given over to practices such as homosexuality, bestiality, ritual prostitution, and even child sacrifice. Infants and children up to age four were often sacrificed to the pagan god Moloch by being burned alive. It is important to point out just how patient and longsuffering God was with these people. In Genesis 15:16 God says, “the iniquity of the Amorites [a clan of the Canaanites] is not yet complete” and we see that God withheld his judgment against the Canaanites for 400 years. God waited until their entire society became exceedingly wicked and they were completely given over to their sin. We should also remember that God was willing to spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of only 10 righteous people. Although no petition of mercy was ever made on the behalf of the Canaanites, and there was no obligation for God to be merciful, we can certainly suppose that God would have shown mercy for the sake of 10 righteous Canaanites. What we do see is that God waits until their iniquity is complete. This means there were no righteous Canaanites to be found among them. This should give us some perspective as to just how wicked the Canaanite societies were and just how patient and longsuffering God is in his judgments.

When God finally dealt with the Canaanites he used the Israelites to execute his judgment. The Israelites, in effect, became the instrument of judgment by which God punished them for their wickedness. There is, therefore, no contradiction between God’s universal moral command and his particular command. God commanded the Israelites to kill, but not in the same sense in which he had previously commanded them not to kill; that is not to murder.

While these particular commands are morally obligatory only for their recipients a system of morality, a theory of ethics requires universal commands that are morally obligatory for all people. These commands or laws must be universal and fixed. The Christian worldview provides such universal and fixed moral commands, yet the unbeliever’s worldview cannot establish any universal and fixed moral command or law. This is an important point to make with the unbeliever.

Universal and Fixed Laws

Earlier it was argued that only if God exists do we have an objective moral standard and only if we have an objective moral standard do we have a basis for moral judgments. An objective moral standard can also be referred to as an objective moral law. The argument is still the same though because only if there is a moral lawgiver do we have an objective moral law and only if we have an objective moral law do we have a basis for moral judgments. The Christian worldview is able to establish an objective moral law because “the LORD is our Lawgiver” (Isa. 33:22). Unless a moral standard is objectively binding and unchanging it cannot be regarded as a universal and fixed moral law. God’s revealed moral law is an objectively binding moral standard because He has the authority and power to punish those who break his law. This makes His law a universally binding moral standard. His moral law is also fixed because it will not arbitrarily change from one day to the next. Laws which reside in the eternal and immutable character of God, whether the laws of logic or the laws of morality are universal and fixed. However, it is important to note that the laws of physics are only universal and fixed as long as God chooses to uphold the universe in a law-like fashion, but the laws of logic reflect the eternal character of God’s thinking. While God may break the laws of physics he can never break the laws of logic. These two types of laws should not be equated. The moral laws are similar to the laws of logic in that they reflect the eternal character of God’s goodness and righteousness. The laws of logic are God's standard for rational thought and the moral laws are God's standard for moral conduct. The problem for the unbeliever is that he cannot account for nor can he establish any universal and fixed laws in his worldview.

Moral laws are universal because they apply everywhere and to everyone, but the unbeliever cannot rationally justify any universal law from his worldview. Without divine revelation from an all-knowing God, he is limited to his own observation and experience and no universal law can be deduced from observation or experience. Of course, we can expect that an observant unbeliever will point out that universal laws are not arrived at by a deductive method of reasoning but are rather based on an inductive method of reasoning. But here the unbeliever is committing the fallacy of induction if he intends to establish any universal law, moral or otherwise, on the basis of his own limited observation or experience. “Induction is the attempt to derive a general [universal] law from particular instances”[8] and unless the induction is completed it is always fallacious. “As Hume amply showed, our experience is limited in the past and non-existent in the future, with the result that we cannot know that all bread is nourishing, or that all arsenic is poisonous, or that all motions require a cause.”[9] In the unbeliever’s worldview, there is no epistemological foundation which would allow him to establish that murder is universally wrong. The unbeliever cannot establish any universal moral judgments in his worldview. This is once again because universal judgments are contingent upon universal laws and universal laws cannot be established on the basis of limited observation or experience.

Not only are the moral laws universal but they are also fixed because they will not arbitrarily change from one day to the next. This is true of moral laws just as it is true of the laws of logic. Moral judgments concerning the future will reflect past moral judgments if they are based upon unchanging moral laws. In the same way, that we can ask the unbeliever how he knows that contradictions are always false, we can also ask how he knows that murder is always morally wrong. The unbeliever may wish to say that the Nazi genocide of the Jews during WWII was morally wrong, but how can he say that a future genocide will be just as morally wrong. To say that we should not murder because it would be morally wrong is to make a judgment on a future action. The unbeliever cannot provide an epistemological foundation by which he can say that the future act of murder will be just as morally wrong as past acts of murder without fallaciously begging the question that the future will be like the past because of past experience. To suggest that the future will be like the past on the basis of past observation or experience is circular. Because his worldview is unable to provide a non-circular justification for saying that the future will be like the past he cannot affirm any timeless moral laws without being fallacious. He cannot say we should not murder because it will be morally wrong on the basis that it was wrong in the past. He has nothing outside of his own limited past experience to provide a basis for his judgments. Again, Hume pointed out that “our experience is limited in the past and non-existent in the future” with the result that we cannot know that the future will be like the past on the basis of observation and experiences. The reason is simple; no one has ever observed or experienced the future. In the unbeliever’s worldview there no justification for arguing that we should not murder tomorrow because it would be morally wrong, for that bears judgment on future actions which he has not yet observed or experienced. He, therefore, cannot advocate any moral imperatives in his worldview.

Contrary to the unbeliever’s inability to account for universal and fixed moral laws the Christian is able to account for such laws from the Bible. Scripture is the epistemological foundation for the Christian’s worldview which means that we have an epistemological foundation for universal and fixed laws. The Christian does not rely on observation or experience but rests wholly on the word of God. God, who is the lawgiver, has established his law as the universal and fixed rule of life. We know that His law is universal because everyone is held accountable to that standard. Paul writes, “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Romans 3:19). John further tells us, “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:14) and we know from Paul that, “all have sinned [broken the law] and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). This is why God “commands all people everywhere to repent,” (Acts 17:31). We should note the universal terms in these passages: “every mouth; whole world; all;” and “all people.” These laws are the universal standard of morality. But the laws are also fixed and will not arbitrarily change from one day to the next. Jesus said, “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void” (Luke 16:17).

Far from the Euthyphro dilemma being a problem for the Christian worldview, we find instead that it is the Atheist who is lacking. We should point out for the Atheist that using the Euthyphro argument is an exercise in futility. It is clear that those who advance the argument are aware that being arbitrary is unacceptable and recognize the need for an objective standard. At this point, the Christian may want to turn the tables on the Atheist and ask: Is something right or good because you said that it is, or did you say it is right or good because it is right or good? We can refer to this as the Atheist’s dilemma and to help the Atheist see the problem they are facing we can also ask: Is murder wrong because you say so, or did you say murder is wrong because it is wrong.

While this is a false dilemma when used against the God of the Bible it is a true dilemma when applied to the unbeliever. Every moral judgment the unbeliever makes must be established on the basis of one of these two options and neither option is satisfactory. If he says that murder is morally wrong because he said so, then we may just as well ask who made him the boss. In this reply, he is not claiming to be a moral relativist but is rather claiming to have moral authority over everyone else. Not only is this extremely egocentric and narcissistic but it is equally delusional. Hopefully, the unbeliever will recognize that they personally don’t have the moral authority to determine what is right or good for everyone else. We should point out again that their subjective opinion is not morally binding for others. What makes them the moral authority for all humanity? We should ask them; “does everyone have to abide by your subjective, arbitrary moral opinion?” I have yet to hear someone argue in the affirmative to that question.

This leaves the unbeliever the other option; which is to say that murder is wrong because it is wrong. If he says that murder is wrong, not because he said so, but because it is wrong, then he is appealing to an objective moral standard that does not depend on his own personal belief or opinion. The problem is that in his worldview there no objective moral standard by which to make such judgments. As we have already seen, any moral standard established on the basis of individual opinion is purely subjective and every individual lacks the moral authority to establish universal indissoluble moral judgments. The unbeliever cannot establish an objective moral standard from the subjective opinion of the individual. This is why the unbeliever must now appeal to a standard outside of himself, an objective moral standard, to say that murder is wrong because it is wrong. When such a reply is given we can simply ask: “based on what objective standard?”

[1] Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1998. [2] Robbins, John W. "Why Study Logic?" Trinity Foundation RSS. July/August 1985. Accessed June 28, 2016. http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=39. [3] Sanger, Margaret. Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentano's, 1920. [4] Robbins, “Why Study Logic?”, 2. [5] Clark, Gordon H. Religion, Reason and Revelation. Vol. 4. Signature. TN: Trinity Foundation, 2012. Pg. 137 [6] Clark, Gordon H. What Is The Christian Life. TN: Trinity Foundation, 2016. [7] Slick, Matt. "What is general revelation and special revelation?" CARM.org. Accessed December 12, 2016. https://carm.org/questions/about-bible/what-general-and-special-revelation [8] Crampton, Gary. "The Biblical View of Science." Trinity Foundation. http://trinithttp://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=163yfoundation.org/journal.php?id=163. [9] Clark, Gordon H. Christian Philosophy, The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark. Vol. 4. Signature. TN: Trinity Foundation.

Introduction 

There are many Christians today who think that logic is unnecessary, useless, or unimportant. According to them, we should spend our time on bigger and better things, like reaching people for Jesus. Some would argue that we should not waste our time studying logic, but instead, we should study the Word of God. Some even piously claim that “logic is not the gospel, so what’s the point?” The truth is that many modern churchgoers engulf themselves in irrational thought and dismiss logic altogether.

This kind of thinking is certainly present, if not predominant, in churches today, and it expresses a deep lack of understanding of what logic is and why it is necessary. Perhaps this negative view of logic stems from the deeply rooted anti-intellectualism of many evangelical Christians who seek an emotional high in their religious experience rather than a deeper understanding of the Word of God. They simply do not understand the relationship between logic and the Bible.

This anti-intellectualism can often be seen in churches that downplay the importance of sound doctrine and do not concern themselves with harmonizing or systematizing God’s word. When confronted about the state of irrationalism that has crept into modern Christianity we find that many professing Christians disparage and even dismiss logic. However, any attempt to disparage or dismiss logic is self-refuting for the very reason that one must use logic in order to make their own argument against logic intelligible. As Dr. John Robbins notes, “The opponents of logic must use the law of contradiction in order to denounce it. They must assume its legitimacy, in order to declare it illegitimate. They must assume its truth, in order to declare it false. They must present arguments if they wish to persuade us that argumentation is invalid. Wherever they turn, they are boxed in.”[i] Thus, any attack on logic is undermined by the antagonist’s own use of it. This is simply unavoidable.

Many who desire to throw logic out the window in pursuit of other “nobler” endeavors do not realize that logic is fundamental to all disciplines, all thought, and all language. Those who would argue that we should study our Bibles instead of wasting our time with logic miss the fact that the correct method of Biblical interpretation, that is to interpret Scripture in the light of Scripture, requires the most fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction. Those who would argue that logic is not the gospel do not understand that affirming and proclaiming the gospel requires the laws of logic, such as the law of the excluded middle. If logic therefore, is required for the affirmation and proclamation of the most basic–indeed all–Christian truths, then every Christian should understand logic and know how to use it.

What is Logic?

A study in logic may be difficult at first but even the most basic understanding will prove beneficial. In order for a person to reason correctly and think rationally, they must think logically. Dr. Gordon Clark defined logic as the “science of necessary inference.”[ii] Logic is the science of correct thinking and therefore, it may be explained as the correct process of reasoning.

In formal logic, there are three fundamental laws which are the law of contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of the excluded middle. These laws are deduced from Scripture, which allows us to account for them as universal and unchanging principles. The law of contradiction, which states, A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect is revealed in scripture as part of God’s eternal character and nature, “for he cannot deny [contradict] himself” (2 Timothy 2:13)[iii]. In this verse the law is expressed in the form of a proposition. In the symbolic notation however, “A” can represent either a proposition or a word. Therefore, the law of contradiction is embedded into every word of scripture. When Genesis 1:1 declares, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” it does not mean “In the beginning, God dismantled the heavens and the earth” for that would contradict the proposition of divine revelation. The word “created” does not mean “dismantled” and vice versa. Each word has a specific meaning and although a word may have more than one meanings in general, it cannot have more than one meaning in any proposition. Clark writes, “A word that means everything means nothing. In order for a word to mean something, it must also not mean something.”[iv]

The law of identity (A is A), which holds that everything has a specific nature, is expressed in God’s name, “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14). Everything exists as something in particular to itself, and everything has specific characteristics that make it what it is. For example, God is holy, righteous, sovereign, loving, and good. God’s identity however includes all his specific traits and not just the ones mentioned. This law is crucial because it means that God has a definite nature and is therefore knowable.

The law of the excluded middle, also known as the principle of the excluded third (principium tertii exclusi), holds that a proposition is either true or its negation is true; there is no third option. This law is deduced from Jesus’ own words to the Father, “your word is truth” (John 17:17). In this verse Jesus affirmed for us that all propositional revelation is true thereby upholding the law of the excluded middle.

It is precisely because these laws of logic are embedded in Scripture that the Christian can establish from an epistemological standpoint that they are fixed and universal “laws.” Epistemology seeks to answer the question “how do we know?” Scripture is the answer. Without the epistemology of scripture, we cannot account for the laws of logic and it is for that reason that Scripture rather than logic itself is chosen as the Christian axiom. We agree with Dr. Clark that “Scripture, the written words of the Bible, is the mind of God. What is said in Scripture is God’s thought.”[v] This is how we know that the laws of logic are fixed and do not change, because “the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8). Likewise, we also know that they are universal because “he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3). In other words, we know these laws of logic are “laws.”

Although it is true that all rational thinking requires logic, it is impossible to establish an epistemological foundation for logic strictly from the mind of man, for the laws are universal principles, and the mind of man has no universal significance at all. The Christian must also understand that logic is not descriptive of human thinking–it is not psychology–but is rather prescriptive for all human thought. This means that logic does not describe how a person does think, but rather how a person should think if they are to think correctly. The laws of logic could never be derived from a description of how people think because many people tend to think irrationally, illogically, often contradicting each other and even themselves.

The laws of logic can, however, be derived from a description of how God thinks because He is always consistent, rational, logical and never errs in his reasoning. Logic then is, as Dr. Clark wrote, “the characteristic of God’s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there never was a time when God existed without thinking logically.”[vi] God cannot lie because it is inconsistent with His eternal character and He will not and cannot contradict Himself. “The Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change his mind” (1 Sameul 15:29). This is just one verse of many that provide us a description of the nature and character of God. This is the way in which God thinks and it is the way in which we ought to think. It would be fallacious, however, for one to derive a prescriptive ought statement from the descriptive is statement of God’s nature and character. Fortunately, the Christian is not merely left with a description of the way in which God thinks but we are also given a prescription for the way in which we ought to think. Scripture tells us, “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Paul also exhorts us to “be imitators of God, as beloved children,” (Ephesians 5:1).

It should be clear then that the Christian is able to account for the laws of logic from an epistemological foundation that is consistent and rationally justifiable within the Christian worldview.

Our Moral Obligation

It may come as a surprise to many Christians to learn that we have a moral obligation to think logically. Perhaps this is because they have not considered carefully that it is impossible to obey God if our thinking is illogical. We often associate sinful thoughts with the vices of lust or hatred, but the truth is that all sin originates in our thinking. “Although adultery and theft are commonly regarded as overt actions, their origin is in our thinking. Sin is the result of intellectual error.”[vii] Clark was correct then, to point to such verses as Proverbs 23:7– “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he”–in order to point out that “sin is first of all mental and only afterward overt.”[viii]

Some might find this disturbing and may wish to separate logic from morality, but logic is necessary for morality as well because without logic there can be no distinction between deception and truth, good and evil, right and wrong. It is no wonder then that the Scriptures are logically consistent. If this were not the case, then we would not be able to discern truth from error. If God’s thinking is logically consistent and the Scriptures are part of the mind of God, then it is impossible to obey scriptural commands if we contradict the Bible in the way we think.

The reality is that we often do not stop to consider just how intellectually disobedient we can be in our thinking. It is important to realize that it is impossible to love God with all our mind if we are illogical. How can we surrender every thought captive to the Lordship of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5) if our thinking does not reflect the logical consistency of Scripture? The inescapable result of failing in this area is compromise, error, and sin. We inevitably begin to adopt worldly and secular thinking which is firmly opposed to the Word of God. We should recognize that every attack from the enemy is an attack on the Word of God. A clear example of this can be seen in the current debates over same-sex marriage and abortion.

Christ asserts that marriage is between a man and a woman (Matthew. 19:4-5), so we stand in direct defiance if we insist that same-sex marriage is morally good. When we likewise insist that a woman has the right to abort their unborn children then we defy God and advocate the murder of children on the altar of convenience and shame. Those who advocate such positions stand in direct opposition to Christ and His Word. Professing Christians who hold such positions display and an incredible amount of logical inconsistency and as a result, have no basis for believing that Jesus died on the cross for their sins. If they do not believe the Bible when it speaks on the issue of marriage, the sin of homosexuality, and the life of an unborn child, then what basis do they have for believing the truth of the cross? How convenient it must be to arbitrarily pick and choose what suits us. Such advocates of logical inconsistency would be hard-pressed to provide a rational reason for believing that the gospel is true while rejecting its source as unreliable when it doesn’t suit them.

Accounting for Logic

The unbeliever cannot account for logic in his own worldview and therefore cannot account for his ability to think rationally. The challenge has been made many times to unbelievers to account for logic in their own worldview and it has always fallen short or gone unanswered. Never has an adequate response been given. In formal debates, the challenge is often ignored by the unbeliever, yet the challenge demands an answer because debates presuppose logic.

The unbeliever is required to use logic in order to make his argument against Christianity consistent and intelligible, but only the Christian worldview can account for logic. He is therefore required to rob the Christian worldview in order to make his argument against Christianity intelligible

Some argue that logic is merely a description of nature. Logic, however, cannot be accounted for in nature because logic concerns thinking and governs how we ought to think. The 18th century Scottish Philosopher David Hume identified the impossibility of deriving an “ought” statement from an “is” statement. Nature can only provide a description of what is but cannot provide a prescription of what ought to be, so it cannot tell us how we ought to think. Logic is also immaterial and conceptual while nature is just the opposite. This proves to be an impossible hurdle for the atheistic materialist to rise above.

Due to the materialist’s inability to account for an immaterial law, many try to adopt a form of rationalism. Rationalism is the theory that all knowledge comes from logic alone, apart from the senses and revelation. The rationalist assumes the laws of logic but ultimately fails to account for them. This is problematic because in order for a worldview to be complete it must be able to account for the laws of logic which are a precondition of intelligibility. Because the Rationalist cuts himself off from divine revelation, he isolates himself in his thinking. He attempts to arrive at knowledge from logic alone but has no epistemological foundation for the universal laws logic because they are not descriptive of his own thinking but rather prescriptive of how he ought to think. If he supposes that all knowledge comes from logic but is unable to provide a foundation of knowledge by which he can know the laws of logic as prescriptive, independent, and invariant laws of thought, then he is hopelessly lost. One cannot navigate from logic alone to any propositional knowledge or truth.

We will further demonstrate the failure of rationalism by attacking its first premise. Rationalism says that all knowledge comes from logic alone, but this knowledge claim itself cannot be inferred from logic alone. Although the laws of logic are communicated as propositions which require the laws of logic in order to be intelligible, the laws themselves provide no additional content about reality or truth. The laws of logic can only be applied to how we think. They only tell us how we should think but provide no content of thought. The rationalist must show that the laws of logic provide all the necessary content of thought and that this content can only be derived from the laws themselves and nothing else. The law of contradiction is a universal rule of thought but the law itself cannot tell us what is universal.

If rationalism cannot know its first premise by its own method, then it is shown to be self-refuting and fails as a theory of knowledge. No self-contradictory epistemological foundation can account for the law of contradiction. If rationalism fails as a theory of knowledge, then there is nothing that can be known on rationalism. If one cannot know anything on rationalism, then it cannot account for the universal laws of logic which exist outside the mind of the rationalist. We need more than what rationalism can offer. We need divine revelation from God.

Many reject the epistemology of Christianity which accounts for logic in the Word of God and instead turn to Empiricism. This comes as no surprise since the rebellious mind is hostile towards God and rejects that “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7).

When 17th-century rationalists saw the shortcomings of assuming logic alone, the world shifted towards empiricism. Today empiricism may be regarded as the most widely held epistemology and it is the underlying presupposition for many arguments against Christianity. When unbelievers argue that there is no empirical evidence for God they are presupposing the epistemology of empiricism. But it is impossible to even make such an argument intelligible without presupposing the laws of logic. Using logic is necessary for such argumentation but presupposing the truth of empiricism is problematic because logic cannot be accounted for empirically. Empiricism holds that all knowledge comes through the senses, but the laws of logic have never been observed by any of the senses since they are conceptual. Even if one were to make an appeal that every perceived contradiction they have ever encountered has been false, they still have no hope whatsoever of asserting the laws of non-contradiction on empiricism. This is, in part, due to the fact that the law is universal, but their experience is limited. There simply is no way to establish a universal law by one’s limited experience. Any attempt to do so would be committing the fallacy of induction because the induction could never be completed.

Another aspect of the laws of logic that must be established is the fact that the laws are timeless and fixed. There is simply no way to establish the timeless nature of a law on the basis of one’s own limited past experience and there is no way to empirically verify that the future will reflect the past because the future has not been observed. There is no basis for saying that the law of contradiction will stand tomorrow on an empirical foundation. No universal timeless law can ever be empirically verified because no one has experienced all the past or any of the future.

When the empiricist states, “all knowledge comes through the senses” he does not mean that “no knowledge comes through the senses” for that would contradict his claim. He is, therefore, using the law of non-contradiction in order to make his claim intelligible. It is ironic then that logic is necessary to define empiricism and give it meaning yet at the same time it requires that empiricism be regarded as false. The claim that all knowledge comes through the senses requires the application of the law of non-contradiction in order that it might be intelligible and understood yet the claim is self-contradictory. The claim that all knowledge comes through the senses is a knowledge claim that has not been observed by the senses. Empiricism has never been observed and cannot be empirically verified. Not only does empiricism fail to account for logic but the same logic that is necessary for its own definition requires that empiricism itself be rejected by the rational mind.

Many people attempt to combine rationalism with empiricism to overcome the shortcomings of both. Yet rationalism cannot deduce anything from logic alone, ultimately failing to account for logic itself, and empiricism cannot yield any knowledge or propositions from the senses, including the laws of logic. Just as the unbelievers require air to breathe with which to curse God, so also, they require the laws of logic in order to make their case against God intelligible. By way of analogy we can look to a group of angry protestors in Wisconsin who recently found themselves in an embarrassing situation. The headline reads, “Awkward: Protesters Fail to Inflate Coal Plant Balloon with Renewable Energy.”[ix] The group of unhappy activists was protesting Madison Gas and Electric’s new rates, complaining that it diminished consumer interest in renewable energy. To make their case loud and clear, they inflated a blow-up coal plant balloon using nothing but “renewable energy” while chanting “Coal has to go!” Unfortunately, the blow-up coal plant collapsed because their batteries ran out of power and their solar panel did not produce enough energy to keep it inflated. The group later admitted that they would normally inflate the prop with electrical wall outlets or gas-powered generators. The irony and foolishness of the situation aren't difficult to see. The energy company they were protesting against provides them the energy required to inflate the prop in their protest. Without that energy source, they can’t even inflate their prop. Atheists find themselves in a similar predicament. Without logic, they cannot make their case against Christianity, yet only the Christian worldview can account for logic. The Christian God must first provide man the ability to reason, and only then can he suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).

Logic and knowledge

Many Christians don’t recognize man’s dependence on God for knowledge and how this relates to logic. Without logic, knowledge would be impossible because we could never know what is true; no distinction between truth and error could ever be made. The connection between man’s dependence on logic for knowledge and man’s dependence on God for knowledge is easily established in the person of Jesus Christ.

“In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, John wrote, ‘In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.’ The Greek word Logos is usually translated Word, but it is better-translated Wisdom or Logic. Our English word logic comes from this Greek word logos. John was calling Christ the Wisdom or Logic of God. In verse nine, referring again to Christ, he says that Christ is ‘The true light’ who lights every man.”[x]

Jesus is the Logos--the Logic of God--that lights every man with knowledge. This is why the Scriptures tell us that in Christ Jesus "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). Here is the heart of Christian epistemology: All wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ. The fact that all knowledge is hidden in Christ means that man cannot search it out anywhere else. If Christ does not illuminate the mind of man, then man can know nothing at all. And because our ability to think rationally requires logic, man cannot even reason or think rationally apart from Christ, the Logic of God.

Rejecting Logic

The desire of the unbeliever to reject God may also cause him to reject logic as well. This should not come as a surprise to us since God has made "foolish the wisdom of the world" (1 Corinthians. 1:20). If the unbeliever forfeits logic then he has already lost the debate because all debates, all rational discourse, and all communication, presupposes logic. Without logic, the unbeliever cannot even make his case against Christianity intelligible.

Let us return to our unhappy protesters and consider for a moment that the coal plant balloon represents an argument against the company they were protesting. The protesters were protesting the energy company because of its non-renewable energy, yet they required that same non-renewable energy to inflate their balloon. Likewise, some atheists reject logic in order to make their arguments against Christianity, yet they require logic to make their arguments intelligible. Theoretical physicist and atheistic propagandist Stephen Hawking is one such example. Hawking writes: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”[xi] In order to argue for a self-created universe, one must reject the law of non-contradiction. For something to be its own creator and its own creation, it must exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. According to Aristotle, “The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect.”[xii] R. C. Sproul also notes that “for something to create itself, or to be its own effect as well as its own cause, it would have to exist before it existed. The universe, to be self-created, would have to be before it was. Stated in terms of the law of non-contradiction, the universe would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship.”[xiii]

Hawking must reject the law of non-contradiction in order to argue for a self-created universe, but it is impossible for him to make his argument intelligible apart from the law of non-contradiction. That is because every word in his argument has definite and specific meaning.  As Dr. John Robbins wrote, “Each word has a definite meaning. In order to have a definite meaning, a word must not only mean something, it must also not mean something.”[xiv] When Hawking argues that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he does not intend for us to understand that “the universe cannot and will not create itself from nothing,” for that would contradict his claim. The word “can” does not mean “cannot” and the word “will” does not mean “will not.” He is, therefore, rejecting the law of non-contradiction to make his argument while at the same time using the law of non-contradiction to make his argument intelligible. His argument is self-refuting. No rational person could ever accept such a position. Unfortunately, atheists make arguments like this all the time. However, if they insist on making logical blunders or advancing self-refuting arguments or dismissing logic altogether in order to maintain the position of atheism then so be it. Christians have nothing to fear, for “let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: 'That you may be justified in your words, and may overcome when you are judged' " (Romans 3:4). Since the Bible alone can properly account for logic the unbeliever is forced steal from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it. This is the inevitable tragedy of every argument raised against the knowledge of Christ. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalms 14:1).

[i] John W. Robbins, “Why Study Logic?”, The Trinity Review (July/August, 1985)

[ii] Gordon H. Clark, Logic, Fourth ed. (Unicoi, Tennessee: Trinity Foundation, 2004), 162.

[iii] Scripture references are ESV unless otherwise noted. All emphases in Scripture quotations are mine.

[iv] “Chapter 5 Logic.” In Defense of Theology, by Gordon H. Clark and John W. Robbins, Trinity Foundation, 2007, p. 48.

[v] Gordon H. Clark, “God and Logic,” The Trinity Review (November/December, 1980), edited by John W. Robbins, 4.

[vi] Clark, “God and Logic,” 3.

[vii] Gordon H. Clark, “The Theologian’s Besetting Sin,” The Trinity Review (March/April, 1992), edited by John W. Robbins.

[viii] Clark, “The Theologian’s Besetting Sin,”

[ix] Gutfield, Greg. "Awkward: Protesters Fail to Inflate Coal Plant Balloon With Renewable Energy." Fox News. FOX News Network, 16 Oct. 2016. Web. 24 June 2017. <http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/10/16/awkward-protesters-fail-inflate-coal-plant-balloon-renewable-energy>.

[x] Robbins, “Why Study Logic?”, 2.

[xi] Roberts, Laura. "Stephen Hawking: God Was Not Needed to Create the Universe." The Telegraph. September 2, 2010. Accessed November 10, 2014. Emphasis mine

[xii] Robbins, “Why Study Logic?”, 3.

[xiii] Sproul, R.C. "Self-Creation." In Defending Your Faith, 205. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 200

[xiv] Robbins, “Why Study Logic?”, 4.