(The following is an edited message sent in response to a reader who asked about the first principle of a biblical approach to philosophy and apologetics.)

The innate knowledge mostly has to do with how we can have any common point of reference with the unbelievers, so that we can communicate with them, and press them concerning the fact that they implicitly acknowledge biblical premises even though they explicitly deny them. It is not strictly related to the self-justifying nature of biblical revelation. That is, even if there is no innate knowledge, and even if there are no human beings at all, the Bible would still be objectively true, and self-justifying, being a revelation from God.

As for how a first principle can be self-justifying, first consider the law of non-contradiction. This law is self-justifying in the sense that it is logically undeniable — you must affirm it in the very attempt to deny it. However, as a first principle it would be insufficient, because it does not contain enough (any) information, including the very information that you need to tell you how you could know about the law in the first place (a theory of epistemology).

So, when I say that a first principle must have the content to justify itself, I am saying that it must coherently supply all this missing information — on metaphysics, epistemology, linguistics, ethics, etc., etc. — otherwise, the first principle itself would not have enough information to make itself possible.

The content of our first principle, of course, is the Bible, and it is systematically expressed in Christian theology, and this is the basis upon which we think about the world and interact with the unbelievers.

Now, Clark says that every system must begin from an unprovable axiom or first principle. Properly understood, this is true, since by definition a "proof" involves reasoning to a conclusion from previous premises. And if we can have a "proof" for our first principle in this sense, then our first principle would not really be first (since it would be a conclusion derived from previous premises), and we would be contradicting ourselves to call that a "first" principle. (The same point applies to the words "indemonstrable" and "demonstration.")

So Clark is right, but because many people do not use this technical definition for "proof," when you say that your first principle is "unprovable," then they tend to think this means that it is arbitrary, or that it cannot be rationally defended. Stictly speaking, the fault rests with these people who misunderstand, and not with Clark, since they fail to understand what a "proof" means.

I usually do not call the Christian first principle "unprovable" because I wish to avoid this misunderstanding, that is, as if we cannot rationally defend our first principle. But even Clark affirms that we can defend our first principle, but just not by what is technically called a "proof." For example, in A Christian View of Men and Things, he shows how our first principle can successfully deduce an adequate intellectual system, and at the same time, how other options have failed.

My difference with him on this point (although I do not contradict him here) might be that I emphasize more than he does the self-justifying and undeniable nature of our biblical first principle, as well as how this first principle logically rules out all others. This way, our starting point would not appear arbitrary (since it is necessary), even though, as I stated, Clark's explanation would not appear arbitrary to those who rightly understand what he says.

Recommended:

Man’s Innate Knowledge

How Does Man Know God?

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions

Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations

Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation

Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy

Gordon Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things

Carl F. H. Henry, Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief

Posted in Philosophy, Apologetics | Permanent Link