Clark Quick Quote
Keeping with the epistemology theme of recent posts, the following is from Clark’s reply to George Mavrodes that can also be found in Clark and His Critics:
Explore posts in the same categories: Gordon ClarkThe point at issue is not whether somebody believes that David was King; the question is, How can we know that David was King? No secular historiography (as I hope to show in a future volume) can validly give us that proposition. Nor can secular or empirical epistemologies give us the Atonement. In answer to the question how we may know these things we can reply only that God has so revealed them. One sentence in the objection (unintentionally no doubt) reinforces my position. Mavrodes notes, “It is a common tactic of Christianity’s opponents to direct some of their first and most effective attacks against the Axiom.” In this tactic, so it seems to me, there is a satanic wisdom that passes by derivative propositions and fixes on the very basis of Christianity. These opponents know or perhaps dimly but rightly surmise that if they can destroy the foundation, nothing remains.
January 30, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Hear, hear!
All their good intentions notwithstanding, Messrs McDowell, Strobel, et. al. are doofusses.
In answer to the question how we may know these things [anything!] we can reply only that God has so revealed them. Amen.
January 31, 2013 at 3:51 am
Hugh,
“All their good intentions notwithstanding, Messrs McDowell, Strobel, et. al. are doofusses.”
I agree, the surprising thing being why these doofies do not find learning to their taste. Anyone no matter how learned or conceited would find something edifying in Gordon Clark’s writings.
Paraphrasing the Apostle Paul: Titus 1:9 – 11,
” holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of [empricism], whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. ”
I need to start reading Clark all over again!
January 31, 2013 at 3:15 pm
Sean,
Do you know anywhere specifically where Clark says that justification is necessary for knowledge, meaning, that one must personally be able to validly demonstrate their true belief in order for their true belief to be rightly called knowledge? Of course there must be a legitimate account for knowledge, but need the individual knower provide the justification in order to know? Thanks.
Maybe I’m off, but I think that this quote has an implicit endorsement of what I lean toward. Namely, Clark says, “In answer to the question how we may know these things we can reply only that God has so revealed them.” Right! So in other words, Clark’s assent and Mavrode’s assent to the proposition that “David was king” are both called knowledge (for they both know it according to Clark), but Mavrode’s epistemology (which is non-revelational at root) can’t account for that proposition. Am I off here?
February 1, 2013 at 9:18 am
While perhaps not a specific quote, I would say his entire Intro to Christian Phil answers the question “how do we know?” Also, many people confuse demonstration with giving an account. I know that is not really your question, but I came across an old exchange between Dr. Robbins and Hare Krisha Michael Sudduth that might answer your question, if not it was still interesting for me to read this exchange again (emphasis mine):
February 1, 2013 at 5:04 pm
“it was still interesting for me to read this exchange again”
It was very interesting for me to read this for the first time.