# How would a Clarkian defend Christianity?



## RamistThomist (Jan 9, 2005)

How would a Clarkian argue for the existence of God? Or better put, what method would he use to validate the Christian truth claims? I remember reading Robbins say that Greg Bahnsen wasn't a true presuppositionalist because he argued for God's existence.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 10, 2005)

Which is the def used by most folks?


----------



## crhoades (Jan 10, 2005)

Wouldn't Clark and Robbins be considered true fideists? I know that label gets tossed at Van Til and Bahnsen a lot but doesn't it actually *stick* to Clark?


----------



## Civbert (Jan 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> How would a Clarkian argue for the existence of God?



He wouldn't. Arguing for the simple existence of anything is futile. The question is not "does God exist" but what definition of God is true. 



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_Or better put, what method would he use to validate the Christian truth claims?



Scripture, always Scripture. Scripture is the axiom, the first truth, the _presupposition_ of the truth of Christianity. Without Scripture, you can not even define Christianity. And from the axiom of Scripture, we get the truths of Christianity - for all faith and life.


----------

