# Scripturalism vs. Historic Reformed View(s)



## Parmenas (Aug 24, 2017)

What is the historic Reformed view of epistemology? How does Scripturalism (as taught by Gordon H. Clark) differ from the historic Reformed view of epistemology?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 25, 2017)

A lot of Reformed principia and prolegomena were open to the idea of knowledge gained via natural revelation (if not a full orbed natural theology). And they probably allowed for the possibility of knowledge gained via sense experience.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parmenas (Aug 28, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> A lot of Reformed principia and prolegomena were open to the idea of knowledge gained via natural revelation (if not a full orbed natural theology). And they probably allowed for the possibility of knowledge gained via sense experience.



Thank you for your reply. Could you provide me any references or quotations?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2017)

Wighardus said:


> Thank you for your reply. Could you provide me any references or quotations?



Google Richard Muller and Reformed scholasticism. Our fathers used Aristotelian terminology (if not fully endorsing the content). They were okay with using natural theology at times, though they weren't as excited about it as, say, an Arminian apologist would be. 
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/28/28-2/28-2-pp183-193_JETS.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 28, 2017)

Wighardus said:


> Thank you for your reply. Could you provide me any references or quotations?


You could review this:
http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/summary.htm

In fairness to the opposing view see a response to the above:
http://scripturalism.com/10-reasons-to-reject-scripturalism-a-response-part-8-of-10/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parmenas (Aug 28, 2017)

The reason I am asking this question is that I have recently discovered Gordon H. Clark (two or more weeks ago) and the Trinity Foundation. I knew of Mr. Clark before this discovery, but I had not studied or researched his thought. I had been to the Trinity Foundation website once or twice before, but I had no understanding of it and did not read anything. 

I find myself in much greater agreement with Mr. Clark than with Mr. Van Til, but reading the Rev. Matthew Winzer's debates with the resident Scripturalists in old threads has increased the nagging doubts and hesitation I had, especially since I hold Mr. Winzer to be a very biblical, godly, consistent, confessional, and traditional minister.

From the start, something seemed wrong and off about Scripturalism. It seemed very contrary to what I understood to be Reformed thought.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 28, 2017)

Wighardus said:


> From the start, something seemed wrong and off about Scripturalism. It seemed very contrary to what I understood to be Reformed thought.



Good that you are taking a long look at the issue. It sounds like you are on the right track, too.

We Reformed are usually known for our intellectual approaches to matters. Unfortunately when a person "discovers" Gordon Clark, much resonating sounds tickle our studious ears. Not a few never escape the clarion call to all things logical and easily stated propositionally. It's proven. It's not a matter of debate, for, in _the beginning_ was "_Logic_"...

The devotion to the man by some borders upon the cultic:

"Gordon Haddon Clark was one of the most profound and brilliant scholars God has ever given his church. Even the eighteenth-century American prodigy, Jonathan Edwards, must defer to Clark as the greatest American theologian and philosopher. "
"...No one in modern times has as competently defended the faith against both the world and the wolves as Gordon Clark. Indeed, one must return to the works of Augustine to find anything comparable in the history of Christian thought, and even Augustine did not see so clearly the implications of the Bible."
Src: A Christian View of Men and Things An Introduction to Philosophy The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark Volume I, The Trinity Foundation, pg. 423-424

Sigh.

I am not saying that there is nothing to be gained from reading his efforts. There is a smart mind at work therein. Just be discerning.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You could review this:
> http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/summary.htm
> 
> In fairness to the opposing view see a response to the above:
> http://scripturalism.com/10-reasons-to-reject-scripturalism-a-response-part-8-of-10/



That Aquascum article was a legend ten years ago. And on the other side Luke Miner is one of the better Clarkian writers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parmenas (Aug 29, 2017)

Wighardus said:


> I find myself in much greater agreement with Mr. Clark than with Mr. Van Til



I should note I do not know much of Van Til's thought (or Clark's really), but I still agree with Clark on at least some of the issues they fought over.


----------



## Parmenas (Sep 4, 2017)

Update: I now have a small understanding of Vantillianism and I reject it.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Sep 10, 2017)

So quickly and with a "small" understanding you reject it?? That's a bold statement!

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 11, 2017)

Wighardus said:


> Update: I now have a small understanding of Vantillianism and I reject it.



Which works by Van Til, Bahnsen, Oliphint, and Frame have you read? Mind you, I am not a Van Tillian.


----------



## Parmenas (Sep 13, 2017)

Goodcheer68 said:


> So quickly and with a "small" understanding you reject it?? That's a bold statement!





BayouHuguenot said:


> Which works by Van Til, Bahnsen, Oliphint, and Frame have you read? Mind you, I am not a Van Tillian.



Is it unreasonable to reject a system of thought if one finds the foundations to be corrupt?

No, I have not read any Vantillian works; I have not read any works of Jeremy Bentham, Karl Marx, or Ayn Rand, yet I can confidently reject their systems of thought (Utilitarianism, Marxism, and Objectivism).

[I do not think the same of Vantillianism as I do of those infidel systems.]


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 13, 2017)

Wighardus said:


> Is it unreasonable to reject a system of thought if one finds the foundations to be corrupt?



No, but Van Tillianism has a lot of nuances to it.

I guess I can ask the question this way: where do you see the corruption as presented in Bahnsen's writings? Or rather, where do Bahnsen and Frame fail to make the case? 

No, you don't have to read all of those guys, but if you haven't read any of the major sources (and some of them are short), then I question if one really knows the system.


----------



## Parmenas (Sep 13, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No, you don't have to read all of those guys, but if you haven't read any of the major sources (and some of them are short), then I question if one really knows the system.



Could you direct me to the short major sources, then?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 13, 2017)

Wighardus said:


> Could you direct me to the short major sources, then?



Bahnsen, _Always Ready_. Some of The book is available here.
http://www.cmfnow.com/freearticles.aspx
Frame, _Apologetics to the Glory of God_.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa078.htm
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa072.htm
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa210.htm

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Parmenas (Sep 13, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Bahnsen, _Always Ready_. Some of The book is available here.
> http://www.cmfnow.com/freearticles.aspx
> Frame, _Apologetics to the Glory of God_.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the references.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 13, 2017)

Wighardus said:


> Thank you for the references.



And mind you, I have some concerns about modern Van Tillianism.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 2, 2017)

I'm by no means anykind of expert on any of this, especially not historic Reformed Epitemology. But I do know something about Clark and philosophy. Two things I'm not a Clarkian but a Vatillian but I know that Clark was a brilliant man. I think it is all too common in our world to go with simple critiques of philosophers. For example Pragmatism beleives whatever works is true, so if murder works than its true. Or Derrida said "there's nothing outside the text", so only language exists. Or Clark denied any knowledge cam come from the senses only scripture, so how do you know what scripture says without reading it? Philosophers are rarely that stupid you always need context not slogans. That said it seems to me, from reading Gary Crampton's book on Clark (which I can't reference now because i just moved and it's in box somewhere) that what Clark beleived that our senses provide "impressions" to our mind that then form "propositional" truth (which is what Clark considered actual knowledge). He did this to avoid falling into Hume's arguments against sensation. Although I don't really know what the difference is between what Clark says and calling some stuff we get through our senses as "knowledge" other than some semantical difference. But I do see a methodological advantage to what he said, anytime someone makes an empirical claim against the faith you can just wipe it away. If i'm wrong than someone correct me.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 2, 2017)

I'd also like tto point out that Van Til on at least one occasion said "Clark was a better philosopher than he was". That was later on his life, so it shows us how he felt about him.


----------

