Clarkian Admits Clarkianism Lends to Hyperpreterism

Some people have had a difficult time following why I am so against Clarkianism; after all its axiom is: "The Bible is the Word of God written" -- why should I oppose that?  I don't.  Of course the Bible is the Word of God written, but that hasn't been the starting point in historic Christianity.

Cornelius Van Til and others in 1944 lodged a complaint against Gordon Clark's ordination/licensure within Van Til's denomination.  Not only did Van Til's group complain that the denomination was waiving the rules that Clark had to have 2 years seminary training; Clark was philosophically trained but not theologically -- but they complained that Clark was compromising major elements of the Faith.  Van Til said:

"The Christian doctrine of the knowledge of God is distinguished as well by its affirmation of the incomprehensibility of God as by its assertion of his knowability. The point does not need to be labored that the knowability of God lies at the very foundation of Christianity. That God can be known, and that he has given a knowledge of himself through his works and words, is pervasively taught in the Scriptures. The possibility and actuality of true religion depend upon the light and truth which God communicates to men. Skepticism and agnosticism are thoroughly anti-Christian." -- SOURCE: http://godshammer.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the-complaint.pdf

Note that the complaint specifically says "the knowability of God lies at the very foundation of Christianity. That God can be known, and that he has given knowledge of himself through his works [read Rom 1:20] and words, is pervasively taught in the Scriptures."  Now do you see the problem??? Clarkianism supposes we can't know God without the Scriptures.  This is a contrary view to the historic Christian position and to the Bible itself as demonstrated in Rom 1:20.  Keep in mind, I'm NOT talking about salvific knowledge -- only the most basic awareness of deity.

But what is the connection to Hyperpreterism you ask?  Well, Van Til demonstrated that Clarkianism basically put the human intellect as prime.  Van Til said:

"The interpretation of Christianity as being fundamentally intellectualism subordinates the volition to the intellect in a manner that is flagrantly in violation of the teaching of Scripture and of the Reformed theology...Nor do these errors concern only isolated details. In all of these matters there is manifest a rationalistic approach to Christian theology."

Now, to tie this altogether and get to the title of this article, I quote devout Clarkian and less than a year former hyperpreterist, Sam Frost:

"Without Clark’s starting point (which I used BEFORE I became a FP and DURING – read Misplaced Hope) FP cannot get off the ground." -- 12/19/2011

Why? Because Clarkianism gives hyperpreterism its "rationalistic" rubric.  Clarkianism allows a hyperpreterist to approach the Bible as if it were merely a legal text to be subsectioned into any outcome they desire.  This is why Frost used Clarkianism to become a FP, and during and even now.

This is why I will continue to oppose Clarkianism.  It simply feeds the egotism that we see run amok among the Clarkians.