Book Report: The Scripturalism of Gordon Clark by Gary Crampton

Gary Crampton’s book is a short introduction and explanation of Gordon Clark’s philosophy of Scripturalism, or axiomatic revelationalism, running nearly 90 pages. He divides his book into two basic sections. The first section deals with knowledge, and how man comes to obtain true knowledge. He discusses the systems and their relation to , opinion, and revelation. In the second section, Crampton examines the doctrine of Scripture, and reviews such issues as progressive revelation, canonization, inspiration and other areas of the doctrine of Scripture. Throughout this book, Crampton makes liberal use of material from Clark.

In the first section of the book on knowledge, Crampton begins by stating in no uncertain terms that Clark was a Scripturalist, one whose philosophical and theological systems are based on the foundation of Scripture as revelation. One should not try and combine both Christian and secular philosophies. The is sufficient for all truth we need and all of the knowledge we can have.

According to Clark, the key to any theological or philosophical system is that of epistemology. Crampton explores very briefly the three major non-Christian theories of knowledge: , , and irrationalism.

Clark defines Rationalism as reason without faith. Reason, apart from revelation or sensory experience, provides the prime or only source of truth. The senses are untrustworthy and our a priori knowledge must be applied to our experiences in order for our experiences to be made intelligible. In pure rationalism, knowledge comes from reason alone. There are, however, several problems with rationalism. One is that men

1 can and do err in their reasoning. Second, there is the issue of the starting point, and various rationalists all seem to disagree on this point. Thirdly, reason apart from revelation cannot determine if the world is controlled by an omnipotent, good God.

Perhaps we have just been deceived by an omnipotent demon that delights in telling us

2+2=4, when it is really 5! Fourthly, rationalism seems to commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent in terms of the origination of knowledge. Finally, rationalism tends to trend downward into solipsism, so that the world becomes nothing more than a part of one’s own consciousness.

Empiricism is the view that maintains all knowledge originates in the senses. It claims to have an objective world that is outside the observer. Ordinary experience yields knowledge, and the triumphs of science has served to reinforce this view. Reason in the empiricist sense does not mean a priori ideas, but reason means sensation. The mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa) at birth, and all knowledge comes through the senses.

What the rationalists obtain by deduction, the empiricists use deduction and induction.

There are many problems as well with empiricism. Inductive arguments are all logical fallacies. These arguments begin with particulars and move toward universal generalizations or conclusions. It is not possible to collect enough experiences on any subject to reach a universal conclusion. The inductive approach calls upon one to approach any investigation without assumptions, which is impossible to do. Another problems is that senses can and frequently do deceive us. They are not reliable.

Empiricism can also not tell us why we should do or hold something, it can only tell us what occurs. Empiricism cannot give mankind .

2

Irrationalism is a third type of system, is a form of skepticism. Actual truth, say the skeptics, can never be found, and rational concepts that attempt to explain the world only leave us in despair. Irrationalism manifests itself in theological circles such as neo- orthodoxy. The problem with this system is that one divorces logic from epistemology, and is left with nothing. It is self-contradictory, and asserts nothing can be known.

Christian epistemology begins with axiomatic revelation, the Word of God. The

Bible has a systematic monopoly on truth, and is also called Biblical presuppositionalism, dogmatism, and Christian rationalism. Taking the Bible as the starting point is not begging the question, as some state. Every system must have a starting point, and the

Bible claims for itself inspiration. There is evidence that supports the claims of the Bible, but one cannot prove the inspiration of the Bible. If one could, then that statement would be the axiom, and not the Bible. There is also no dichotomy between faith and reason.

As Augustine stated, “I believe in order to understand.” Faith makes deductive reasoning from the Scriptures possible.

Clark and Crampton discuss the difference between general and special revelation.

God has implanted innate knowledge of God within man. Man can look at nature, and with this innate knowledge, know enough about God that he has no excuse for not believing or rebelling (Romans 1:18-32). Romans 2:15 also indicates that God implanted some knowledge of morality in man as well. It is not derived from sensory experience nor rationalistic means. Additionally, this knowledge is insufficient for man to know details of God and salvation. Special revelation, the Word of God, is immediate and propositional, eternal truth. Since knowledge is propositional, and since sensory

3 perception yields no propositions, knowledge cannot originate from empirical means. It must be given by revelation.

God knows all truths, and a proposition is true because God thinks it is true. The sum total of all truth exists in the mind of God. God created man in his image, as a rational, thinking being, and can therefore understand propositions and logic, even though sin has distorted man’s capabilities. What truth that man knows intersects with that truth that God knows. Man cannot know all truth, because he is created and is finite. However, what truth he does know, is the same truth that God knows, otherwise, it would not be truth. Clark taught soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, is a branch of epistemology, because salvation is a matter of grace by faith alone in the truth revealed by God in His

Word.

Gordon Clark was not an evidentialist, and rejected the natural of

Aquinas and others. Rather than begin with nature, and argue for the , and then the reliability of Scripture, he began with Scripture first. All traditional proofs of the existence of God are false; they are logical fallacies. It is not logically necessary nor possible for the creator of a finite world to be infinite; it is only necessary for the god to be at least as great as the creation. Observation cannot prove causality. Therefore it is not possible to get from the natural world to the infinite Creator God of the Bible.

While Clark believes that man can know the truth, this is not to infer that man can have exhaustive knowledge. Man is finite, a creature, and even in the Garden of Eden, did not have exhaustive knowledge. There is a quantitative difference between what God knows and what man knows. However, Clark would also confirm that truth is

4 propositional in nature, and that language as God has given us is sufficient for man to actually know this truth. God’s truth lies in the logical meaning and syntactical and grammatical organization of the words of Scripture themselves.

Part Two of the book is an examination of Scripture. Clark taught that God has revealed himself to mankind in both general and special revelation. However, general revelation is insufficient to that knowledge which is necessary for salvation. Without the propositions of Scripture, sinful man is not able to come to a sound or saving knowledge of God. Clark was a strong adherent of the Reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura. Clark was the first to apply Scripture to all areas of life, not just to theology proper.

The Bible is the standard by which all things are judged.

Revelation was progressive in nature. Scripture was continuously enlarged from the Garden of Eden to the Apostles. Throughout the entirety of this progressive revelation, revelation was inerrant at every stage. One of the ways that progressive revelation is recognized in the Bible is in the various covenants that God has instituted and established with His people. This doctrine also affirms that at the end of the apostolic age the miraculous gifts ceased and the canon of Scripture was closed. Since the canon is closed, God speaks authoritatively in His Word alone.

The Scripture is fully inspired by God in the original manuscripts. It does not merely become the Word of God as in neo-orthodoxy, but it is the Word of God. God is the primary author, and the apostles and prophets are only secondary. There is a difference between special revelation and inspiration. The former is that body of truth that we have in the Scriptures. The latter is that supernatural work of the Holy Spirit on

5 human authors of Scripture, whereby their words were rendered as one and the same as

God’s words, and therefore, infallible and inerrant. By means of inspiration God gives man special revelation. Clark opposed the mechanical or dictation view of inspiration, as well as other erroneous views such as the dynamic view, the partial view, the neo-liberal view, and the linguistic philosophy view, to name just some. Inspiration is not partial or limited in any way. God’s truth is found only in the 66 books of the Bible.

Clark agreed that the Scriptures possess certain attributes. Orthodox Christianity affirms that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. It is unimpeachable, meaning it cannot be contradicted, violated, disregarded, or opposed. The Bible states nothing contrary to fact.

The Bible teaches its own verbal and plenary inspiration. Scripture is perspicuous, meaning that there is clarity to Scripture. Any literate person is able to read and understand the Bible, but this does not mean that everything in the Bible is equally plain.

The full authority and all-sufficiency of Scripture have been noted in the section on knowledge. The Bible is not just the sole authority for the church of Jesus Christ, but also for every area of life and study. The church is under the divine mandate to teach the whole counsel of God to thoroughly equip every saint for their God-ordained tasks.

Clark believed that when the Word of God is faithfully taught, it is Christ’s message that is taught.

Clark did not separate the law and the gospel. Law without gospel is merely a dead letter, while there is no gospel without he law to reveal one’s need for the grace of

God in Christ. With regard to the law, Clark the traditional categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial. The ceremonial law, as a tutor that pointed to Christ, was abrogated in the

6

NT era. The moral law, which was given to Israel in the form of the Ten Commandments, along with the general equity of the civil or case law, remains perpetually binding.

Clark’s view of the law and gospel stood in sharp contrast to dispensationalism, which claims the OT law (Ten Commandments) no longer binds NT Christians. The law of

God is so important that one cannot love his neighbor without it. Love is volitional; it is not emotional. Love toward God consists of living life in obedience to His commandments (John 14:15, 21, 23, 1 John 2:4-5). Love all by itself gives us no guidance whatsoever and cannot justify a specific action. Love needs the law as a guide.

With regard to hermeneutics, Clark believed that it was the privilege of every

Christian to read and study the Bible for himself. Clark noted that there were many rules of interpretation, but the main one was the analogy of faith, where Scripture interpreted

Scripture. Further, Clark opposed the allegorical form of interpretation. The literal sense of each particular passage is the true sense of the text. A text may have various applications and implications, but it has only one proper interpretations.

Clark affirmed through Scripture that there are three main Biblical institutions: the family, the church, and the civil magistrate (or state). The institutions exist, as with all things, to glorify God. They are separate as to function, but not as to authority. All three are governed by Scripture. Clark considered the family to be the primary institution.

The Bible teaches a well-ordered family, and marriage in the thought of Clark was sacrosanct. Clark also taught that no one vocation or calling should be viewed as holier than others. There was dignity in all types of work. Clark distinguished between the visible and the invisible church, and that there was a communion of saints. The

7 importance of proper worship was central to the church, and Clark held to the regulative principle of worship. Clark also believed that there were three essential marks of a true church: a proper preaching and hearing of the Word, the proper administration and reception of the sacraments, and Biblical church discipline. The cardinal mark of the church is the preaching and teaching of God’s Word. Clark was also a Presbyterian, and saw this form of church government as the most Biblical. The third institution is the state.

Clark avoided both errors of Papalism and Erastianism in terms of church-state relations.

Clark also believed that the Bible taught a strictly limited role for the civil government.

Clark believed that the Bible taught man that he could not adopt any type of government he chose. The Bible definitely disapproves certain types of governments, and Clark believed that the best and most Biblical was the constitutional republic. The government should be obeyed until it commands them to do what God has forbidden in the Scriptures, or forbids them to do what God commands.

8