Meghan Leigh Rader's first place essay

You and I live in a world of total confusion. More often than not, we need only look next-door to find someone with whom we disagree on the answers to the greater questions of life. Is there a God? What is the purpose of man? How did this world come to be? The list goes on, and there are twice as many answers given as there are questions asked. One finds that some answers are as bizarre as the answers are numerous, yet who is to say who is right or wrong? How do we know the truth?

If unaided, that is to say, without the aid of revelation, the endeavors of man are inadequate to answer these greater questions of life. Despite our deepest efforts, we find that we are nothing more than skeptics, forced to admit to the inherent ignorance of mankind, and resolved to knowing only one thing – that we know nothing.

Dr. Gordon Clark didn’t accept the seemingly inevitable skepticism of humanity, and neither should we. Rather, Clark accepted revelation and set it as the basis of his thinking. From the propositions of revelation, that is, by deducing from the principles set forth in Scripture, all else follows. No longer are we skeptical about the existence of God, the purpose of man, or even the Creation of the Earth. With the propositions of the Bible as the foundation of our worldview, we are no longer skeptics, but Biblical Theists, and most important, we know the Truth.

In his book, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, Gordon Clark addresses the issue of human skepticism, advocating that the answer to our problem is found in the sixty-six books of God’s infallible Word. Yet, before advocating Scripture, Clark writes extensively on the rational limitations of unaided human reason (just to make sure we are convinced of our own ignorance), and he does so in a clever and compelling manner.

Religion

“What is religion?” Clark asks (107). It would seem that a subject man has studied for ages and upon which countless books have been written would be easily defined. However, in our attempt to define religion, we find that we cannot. Of course we can all, from the top of our heads, come up with three to four sentences about the nature and properties of religion. Such is a definition, is it not? Yet, as Gordon Clark points out, we shall all provide differing definitions, so really religion has turned out not to be something, but nothing. “If a word means everything, it means nothing. To have no definite or limited meaning is to have no meaning at all” (122)…. Regardless of man’s continually failing attempts to create a definition for religion, there are two primary methods by which many persistent thinkers do try.

The first method is known as the psychological approach, which Clark describes as “based on the intimate familiarity of the experience” (110). In other words, religion may be defined as consisting primarily of an emotional experience. Unfortunately, this definition is entirely too broad, and its ambiguity leads to several significant issues. For starters, what is an “emotional experience”? In the psychological approach, we find the definition to be so vague that religion is just as unknown as if it were left undefined….

The second method by which man tries to independently define religion is the comparative method, wherein one seeks “to find in this welter of beliefs some common denominator, some minimal consensus, some general agreement” (119). The aim here is to observe all religions with the hope of finding a universal element amongst them that can be named the primary and defining qualification of a religion. I know you already see the error here. Clark humorously calls it “the hunting of the snark”, stating most emphatically that “the method is unsatisfactory because it requires at the outset the knowledge it aims to obtain at the end” (120).  If we seek to compare all religions in order to identify some common characteristic, we must first distinguish religions from not-religions. “If there were an authoritative list of religions, a student could begin to examine them for a common element. But before the common element is known, how could an authoritative list be compiled?” (120)….

Proponents of the methods detailed above, in their attempts to define religion, forget that they must first assume and adopt a definition of religion before they describe any religious experience or compare any religion with another. Clark spends the first portion of Religion, Reason, and Revelation presenting in great detail the arguments given by the psychological and comparative methods, yet I believe that in the greater scope of things, his intention was not merely to assert that we cannot define religion. In effect (and what Clark will write many pages later), we cannot define anything and further still, we cannot know or be sure of anything apart from the Word of God. These examples of failed attempts at unaided reason only serve to further support the assertion that if we rely on reason apart from revelation, we will always find ourselves centered in skepticism….

What is so pertinent in Religion, Reason, and Revelation is a recognition that the validity of our presuppositions is of the utmost importance if we are to know the truth. Thus, the question follows, from whence do true assumptions come? Clark argues that the only proper source of presuppositions is the Word of God, and he spends the next portion of his thorough study arguing why all other sources are inadequate.

Reason

If we are to discover an effectual system of thinking based on true propositions, we must ask ourselves this question: What are the places of faith and reason in that system? “Throughout the history of theology and philosophy – both in all the war between science and religion, and as well in more devotional writing on the relation between God and man- the antithesis of faith to reason has been a frequent focus of discussion” (126). But are faith and reason antithetical? That is to say, must it be one or the other? And if the two do cooperate, which has the greater authority?

The first combination of faith and reason, that is, the first explanation of their proper place within a system of thinking, Clark has termed the “Reason and Faith” perspective.  The principal idea behind “Reason and Faith” is that we discover truth by first, a thorough observation of nature wherein we draw conclusions inductively, and only then do we follow with the confirmation of such conclusions in Scripture. Clark undoubtedly explains it better: “When the unbeliever is convinced by an argument drawn from nature, then he may next be shown the antecedent probability of a special revelation, and finally the reasonableness of the Scriptures” (126). In other words, reason first, faith (or revelation) second.

This view of the relationship between faith and reason is the view that is most representative of today’s Christian public. “That true religion is preceded by or in some way founded on the activity of natural reason is an idea that has been and continues to be widely prevalent” (126). Although Roman Catholicism officially supports this position, many Protestant denominations have adopted it as well.  Thomas Aquinas, a devout Catholic of the 13^th century, was one such believer who concluded that not only was there a special revelation (Scripture) that had been provided to mankind, but also, that man had the rational capabilities of proving God’s existence through a sensory experience of our surrounding world….

All in all, Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological argument, although a noble effort, is invalid, and no man has since succeeded by the “Reason and Faith” method. The bottom line is that unaided by revelation, man cannot rationally conclude that God exists. Despite Aquinas and all of his followers’ beliefs, reason alone will never actually lead to faith. “Let this suffice also to refute the claim that God’s existence can be demonstrated on the basis of observation of nature” (136).

What now? Are we to really believe that Christianity is irrational? That is, if reason alone cannot lead us to a belief in the God of the Bible, does it not follow that a belief in the God of the Bible is inconsistent with reason?...

The basic premise of the “Reason without Faith” perspective is that reason alone is sufficient. As this new philosophy heralded the Renaissance, no longer were men to be “tied down” by the intellectual boundaries imposed upon them by religious institutions. Instead, men were to seek truth by reason alone, and if God were abandoned in the process, so be it. The “Reason without Faith” movement took two main forms, both differing in their definition of reason, which is viewed as the supreme authority in the endeavor to discover the truth upon which a consistent system of thought can be constructed.

The first form of this movement is to be called Rationalism. Here, reason is generally defined as logical consistency and is based on deductive thinking, which denotes reasoning from broad principles to facts. As thinkers such as Renee Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz paved the way for a new, exhilarating, and altogether dangerous system of thinking, the rules of logic and rational consistency became of the highest significance. It is important to note that Rationalism does not acknowledge or utilize a system of supplied presuppositions but instead, seeks to operate through logic alone, without the aid of revelation or even sensory data. It is for this reason that the process is flawed….

It is entirely impossible to develop a system of thinking based solely upon rational thought. For one, just because something is thinkable does not make it actual. The Rationalist forgets that through logic alone, the mind can only conceive a realm of possibilities, and while the truth may lie within such a realm, the mind cannot discern between the true and the errant, or between thought and reality. Furthermore, a logical train of thought is not equivalent to truth, for it is possible to arrive at a ludicrous statement after having tediously and faithfully followed a logical proof. At the end of the day, the Rationalist has to recognize that the effectiveness of reason is not determined by the conclusions at which he arrives. Rather, if the Rationalist is to reason through logic alone, what ultimately matters is the proposition with which his thinking begins.

Thus, the first logical question that must be raised to the Rationalist is where does his thinking begin? If the beginning propositions of Rationalism are based on reason, then reasoning itself can never begin at all, for the first proposition will never be unreasoned; it will never be absolute….

The Rationalist fails to acknowledge that in order to begin reasoning, he must first choose a starting point. That is to say, in order to begin operating by the laws of logic, he must first choose the broad principle from which he will deduce the facts. For the Rationalist, this choice is arbitrary and cannot be based on logic. Therefore, the aim of logic alone is impossible.

The second form of the “Reason without Faith” movement is what we will call Empiricism. Reason here possesses a differing definition, and should now be taken to mean sensation. “That is, whereas Rationalism attempted to base all knowledge on logic alone, Empiricism depends on experience alone” (144). Based on inductive reasoning (inducing broad principles from a collection of facts), Empiricism relies entirely upon a thorough observation, sensation, or experience of the world around us. Only after interpreting the facts and data we have gathered do we infer universal principles. It was in this way of reasoning and defining reason itself that many scholars such as David Hume and John Locke asserted that reason (now defined not as logic, but as experience) alone could provide man with the essential knowledge of truth he needed to serve as the foundation for his system of thinking….

Revelation

The “Faith and Reason” perspective, which we will call Scripturalism, is the only proper combination of faith and reason for man to use if he is to have a Biblical (and true) view of the world. Based on the precepts of the Bible, the Scripturalist perspective, through its embrace of both faith and reason (yet with faith given precedence), manages to avoid the skepticism that is inherent to all other methods.  With this perspective, faith is no longer defined as anti-intellectual, as was seen with the mystical assertions of Irrationalism. Reason, too, has taken on a different meaning, for it is not based on induction from observation of sensory experience, as was seen with Empiricism. “Christianity should refuse to define reason as a body of general principles empirically obtained” (181). Instead, and as our only alternative, reason is abstract and formal. Yet with Scripturalism, rather than using pure reason (as was the case with Rationalism), we use reason only in deduction from the revealed principles of God’s infallible Word. “Reason may well be defined as logic. It should not be indentified with experience. When a Christian theologian is deducing consequences from Scriptural premises, he is reasoning- he is using his reason. To require him to test Scripture by sensation in order to avoid the charge of irrationality is itself irrational prejudice” (181)….

I will say that in placing the immutable Word of God as the foundation of your thinking, you will be ridiculed. However, what I will not say is that you will be ridiculed solely by unbelievers, for what we often find is that the very harshest of our critics lie ironically, within our Sunday school classes and Bible studies. Unfortunately, the truth of the Bible is not something that is embraced, even within the majority of Christian circles. Instead, we see a blending of secular and Christian philosophy, one that will always result in an inconsistency of either reason or faith, and one that will ultimately lead us to nowhere but skepticism. Rather than fully submitting to the authority of Scripture on all issues of life, many Christians only partially submit, and the result is an abundance of doctrinal disparities within the church.

One major distortion of Scripture that has found its way into standard church doctrine is the idea that the human heart and mind are two separate entities and possess differing functions in human consciousness. This view, which is very much an idea embraced by the majority of Christians, most of whom are not even aware that there is an alternative, is nevertheless, a misunderstanding of Scripture. Christians today are very inclined to equate new, modern terms with terms used in the Bible, as is seen with the ever so popular equation of the modern term “emotion” with the Biblical term “heart”.

“When contemporary Christians, often in evangelistic preaching, contrast the head and the heart, they are in effect equating the heart with the emotions. Such an antithesis between head and heart is nowhere found in Scripture” (169). In fact, what is observed in Scripture is the exact opposite. In the book of Psalms, the heart is often mentioned as a center of knowledge, something our contemporary understanding would associate with the head or mind….

A second doctrine that once began as a distortion of Scripture but that has now been established as one of the principal tenets of the contemporary Christian faith is the doctrine of free will in answer to the problem of evil. “In the background of every religious worldview there stands a frightening spectre. An author may refrain from mentioning it; he may hope that his public will forget to think about it, but no position is complete and none can be unhesitatingly accepted until it makes a clear pronouncement on the problem of evil” (238). It cannot be denied that in today’s world, the free will doctrine is the prevailing explanation for the problem of evil….

Consider the following passages:

·         “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

·         “The Lord has made all things for himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of evil.” (Proverbs 16:4, KJV)

It is a fundamental tenet of the Reformed faith that God is completely Sovereign. This means that by necessity, all choices, including Adam’s initial evil choice on that fateful day in the Garden, have been predestined. Furthermore, by necessity, all things, including evil, have been created in accordance with God’s will for the sole purpose of glorifying the Father and His Son. “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so” (256). What Clark means here is that because God is completely Sovereign (which is a view undoubtedly espoused by the Bible), nothing, and that means nothing, occurs that is a deviation from the predestined order of the universe, which has existed for all eternity….

It is very important to recognize that although God is the ultimate cause of everything, he is neither held responsible nor sinful. This is true for two reasons. First, God is not held responsible for He is the ultimate and final authority. There are no laws, no judgments, and no standards to which He is subject. Today, it is often asserted that, “God only does that which is good.” Yet in effect, such a statement downplays the omnipotence of the Father. Rather, the statement should be, “Good is only that which God does.” Goodness does not come before God, but God before goodness. “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” (269).

The second reason that God cannot be said to commit sin (even though He does ordain it) is explained by the concept of first and secondary causes. “Although the betrayal of Christ was foreordained from eternity as a means of effecting the atonement, it was Judas, not God, who betrayed Christ. 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” (269).

Now, we must make the distinction between God as the ultimate cause of evil and God as the immediate cause of evil. Child of God, there is a difference, and it is of the utmost significance to Reformed theology that we recognize it, for it is in understanding the idea of first and secondary causation that the doctrines of God’s Sovereignty over evil and man’s full responsibility for sin can exist in rational harmony. “Since God caused Judas to betray Christ, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. At this point it must be particularly pointed out that God’s causing a man to sin is not sin” (269). God does not commit sin, we do. We are the secondary cause. However, God does ordain that we sin. He is the first cause. Nonetheless, that does not make Him responsible. As stated before, God cannot be held responsible because by definition, whatever God does is good….

For now, we live in a world of total confusion, and if we continue in the attempt to answer the greater questions of life without the aid of revelation, we will never escape skepticism. Weighed down by the burdens of this world, sunk in the depravity of our hearts, and hopeless of ever finding satisfactory explanations for why things are this way, we will only find despair. We will be resolved to knowing only this- that we know nothing, that we are nothing, and that life has no meaning.

Follower of Christ, in complete contrast to the message of despair that accompanies the world’s uncertainty is the hope and good news we gather from God’s Word. With God’s Word as the cornerstone of our philosophy, theology, and morality, we find that we have hope, and we find that we are no longer skeptics. We conquer our human ignorance in all the ways that truly matter.

What we read in the Bible and as the principal theme throughout Gordon Clark’s Religion, Reason, and Revelation, is that Scripture must be our foundation. In all aspects of our being, from matters of philosophy, to scientific inquiries, from issues of church doctrine, to dilemmas of ethics, God’s Word must always take precedence. Scripture must be the final authority to which all of our judgments, conclusions, decisions, and beliefs must be subject. The Bible must be the beginning and the end of our worldview, for it is the only divinely inspired Word we have from God. It is our only source of infinite truth within this finite world.

In Luke 6, Jesus states, “I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, which dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built” (v. 47-49, NIV ). Fellow Christian, let us lay our foundation upon the Rock of God’s Word, and let us never be shaken.