Philosophy makes man human

"A man is a 'philosopher' by virtue of being more THOROUGHLY human: he is a 'philosopher' precisely because he possesses and cherishes above the rest of mankind that 'love of wisdom' which is a part of all human nature and because he more reflectively and critically brings to the light and examines the largest and widest implications of the life of all men." - Martin, Clark, Clarke, and Ruddick, A History of Philosophy, pg. 5

Air is the singularity of Nature

"The single quotation preserved from his [Anaximenes] work asserts that, 'just as our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air encompass the whole world.' This contains perhaps a hint why Nature was identified with air. The belief was widespread that the soul - the life principle of living things - was a vaporous substance, maintained during life in the body by respiration and finally exhaled at death only with the last breath. That Nature should be conceived as the self-evolving vital principle of the universe, as we have seen that it was by Milesian Philosophy, meant that the world was being interpreted after the analogy with living beings, and this way in some measure makes more intelligible Anaximenes' doctrine that Nature is air. Condensation and rarefaction are the respiration of a living cosmos; Nature is its breath of life." - Martin, Clark, Ckarke, Ruddick, A History of Philosophy, Pg. 18

What is wrong with history apart from divine written Revelation?

"The history of philosophy began with naturalism, and so far as this volume is concerned it ends with naturalism. The Presocratic naturualism dissolved into Sophism, from which a metaphysics arose; and the metaphysics lost itself in a mystic trance. Then under the influence of an alien source, Western Europe appealed to a divine revelation. In the sixteenth century one group put their complete trust in revelation, while another development turned to unaided human reason. This latter movement has now abandoned its metaphysics, its rationalism, and even the fixed truths of naturalistic science. It has dissolved into Sophism. Does this mean that philosophers and cultural epochs are nothing but children who pay their fare to take another ride on the merry-go-round? Is this Nietzsche's eternal recurrence? Or, could it be that a choice must be made between skeptical futility and a word from God? To answer this question for himself, the student, since he cannot ride very fast into the future and discover what a new age will do, might begin by turning back to the first page and pondering the whole thing over again. This will at least stave off suicide for a few days more." - Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey, Pg. 533 - 534

The whole point of Clark's work comes down to this that Philosophy unaided by Divine Revelation knows nothing. We see the fact that philosophy without the Bible alone (The word of God alone) conjures up several different ideas and views as time goes on. These ideas, to say the least, are wrong. This does not mean that no human being apart from Scripture alone cannot know some things that are helpful; however, it does mean that man apart from Scripture alone cannot know the truth. Truth is the reality of the world, truth is eternal, truth is God. It is God who is truth, who is eternal. We know God by Scripture alone.

What is wrong with man is the measure of all things?

In the attack against Heracleitus and Protagoras, Plato says that they ultimately make man the measure of all things. For what appears to me to be cold may appear to you to be warm. Or what appears to me to be big may appear small to you. No one person may or can have the same perception. Perhaps this is the fault with those who trust that we know thinga by our senses. But, if one percieves a different quality in an object than another one does should we say that truth is therefore subjective? Perhaps the fault lies in our senses. How do we know what is truth? Of course the Bible alone is the word of God. God has revealed the Bible to us. God is truth, logic, and eternal. Therefore, the Bible alone is truth. God alone reveals it.

The diminishing Mind of Empiricism

Ayn "Rand maintained that the child - every child - knows nothing, his mind is 'unexposed,' and yet he has a conscious mind. The contradiction is inherent in the notion of a tabula rasa mind. A mind that is tabula rasa is simply not a mind. A consciousness conscious of nothing is simply not a consciousness. A mind that is empty is not a mind, any more than a geometrical figure that has no sides is a geometrical figure. This egregious contradiction lies at the foundation of Rand's epistemology - not only Rand's, but at the base of all empirical philosophies, including those of John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle." - John W. Robbins, Without A Prayer, Ayn Rand and The Close of Her System, pg. 30-31

What worldview is best and true?

"But now we have fallen into an 'ocean of arguments' no less deep and wide than Plato's Parmenides. Suppose the child, the human being, is an evolutionary product, simply a more complicated animal, without a soul, especially without an immortal soul. The late Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said, 'I can see no reason for attributing to man a significant difference in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or to a grain of sand. . . . I wonder if cosmically an idea is any more important than the bowels.' Bertrand Russell's famous passage, quoted in chapter three, builds life and therefore education 'only on the firm foundation and unyielding despair.' The end of man is a doom, pitiless and dark. All the labor of the ages is destined to extinction and must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins. Suppose on the other hand that God created man in His own image and breathed into him the breath of life, with the result that those redeemed by Christ shall glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Teachers teach pupils. But whereas a teacher with the first view of what a pupil is teaches despair along with arithmetic or social consciousness; the teacher with the second view teaches hope.
In these two views, naturalism and theism, are interwined all the strands of philosophy. Even the question whether the government should control education for its own ends and ban God from the schools, or whether the church, home, or private corporations should do the educating, depends on what man is. Once admit that the teacher teaches pupils, it is impossible to rule out any part of philosophy as irrelevant.
Among the considerations that have come under review, some mention has been made of the effect of government on education. Mention should also be made of the effect, or alleged effect, of education on government. Americans often speak of public education as if it were the main support of democracy. Without an educated populace all sorts of evils would proliferate, and the professional educators claim that unless legislatures appropriate almost unlimited amounts of tax money for the schools, the nation will shortly collapse. The fact of the matter is that with hundreds of billions already appropriated for public education, all sorts of evils have proliferated and the nation is already collapsing. A Justice of the United States Supreme Court was forced to resign in the 1960's because of suspicious financial arrangements. The 1970's and 1980's have seen a series of national scandals in all three branches of the government. No wonder America raises its crime rate faster than it inflates its money." -Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, Pg. 8-9

The word of God is alone sufficient

"The Bible, infallibly, and the Westminster Confession, in compliance with the Bible, both teach the sufficiency of Scripture, neither science, nor history, nor philosophy is needed to give knowledge. There is no 'two-source' theory of knowledge taught in the Word of God. As Paul clearly stated in the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians, the wisdom of the world is foolishness, and man is not able to come to the knowledge of the truth apart from the Spirit-revealed propositions of Scripture. The Bible is sufficient for all the truth we need and all the knowledge we can have. Here alone do we find, writes Solomon, 'the certainty of the words of truth' (Proverbs 22:17-21). This is Scripturalism." - W. Gary Crampton, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, Pg. 16

Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark

"As a Scripturalist, Dr. Clark maintained that Christians should never try to combine secular and Christian notions. Rather, all thoughts are to be brought into captivity to the Word of God (2 Corinthians 10:5), which is (a part of) the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16). Scripturalism teaches that all our knowledge is to be derived from the Bible, which has a systematic monopoly on truth." -W. Gary Crampton, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, Pg. 15

Our Sensations are not adequate in Knowledge.

"The main and more philosophic reply to Reymond's widely accepted view, that sensations must play a role in the learning process, is directed against two words, sensation and role. Clark's reply to both is the same, viz., they convey no meaning. Like nearly all, one could actually say all, Clark's empirical critics within the evangelical movement, Reymond refuses to define sensation. If it be defined as Aristotle and John Locke defined it (though these two did not completely agree) there is no such thing. Augustine made that quite clear. We never see a poem with our eyes nor do we ever hear a tune with our ears. A single note may be a sensation, but it is not a tune. In ordinary parlance we must hold in mind remember, compare, judge a series of notes in order to 'hear' a tune. Similarly, no one has ever seen a tree. Since Clark was so deeply influenced by Augustine, his critics are remiss in not meeting Augustine's position." - Clark Speaks from the Grave

Knowledge and Truth

If Gods knowledge and mans knowledge is not the same univocally thus rendering God and man analogous in knowledge, then it would in fact be the case that man would know nothing of God. The word 'God' would be insufficient and this whole paragraph would be impossible. Mans words would also fail to communicate correctly to one another. Therefore, Gods and mans knowledge are in fact not analogous but are univocal. God simply knows more quantitatively not qualitatively.
Of course a word may have two or three or more other meanings. But the fact is that a word will not have an infinite array of meanings. In order for a word to mean something it must also not mean something. A cat does not mean a dog, or a horse, but rather it means pussy cat or feline.

Gordon Clark on the Trinity

"One substance or essence means that neither the Father nor the Son is an 'essence.' Each is a 'person.' Only the Trinity as such is an 'essence.' The confusion here and in the footnote above disappears, or at least is alleviated, by using the word definition instead of essence; and also by remembering that the Son has an 'essence' that is different from the 'essence' of the Father, but which in both cases contains the 'essence' of Deity. The definition of Deity does not define the Son; nor can the definition of the Son apply to Deity. A succulent does not have all the qualities of a cactus, but the latter has all of the characteristics of the former. That is to say, the Trinity or Godhead, absolutely and as such, does not have the characteristics of any one Person, absolutely and as such; but each Person has all the predicates of Deity. Note that the word here is Deity, not Father." - Gordon Clark, The Trinity

On God's purpose in commands on ethical beings.

"unless you also clarify that the only way He could do that and still be just is if man were not made in the Image of God, which is the reason it is sin in the first place. God is not bound by His commands per se, as I said above. However, every command has a reasoned causal chain that goes back to God’s character and desires, and these are essential to Him as primal manifestation/expression/revelation of Himself both to Himself and to conditional creatures."It is because Man is made in the image of God that they are responsible to Him. God could have commanded anything - with that said His laws are said to be just, holy, and good because God commands them. However, God is not bound by those laws. Even if man obeyed the law of God completely (scripture says in Romans 3 and 10 that it is impossible due to His depravity and fallen nature) he would still be doing that which was his job as a creature. Luke says that they would be unprofitable servants because they did what they were told and what they were responsible for. All men are responsible to God because of the fact that they are creatures of God made in the image of God. This is why I say you should not imply from this that all of God's creatures deserve salvation. Salvation is a free gift of God and not something that is to be inferred on the creature.

Gordon H. Clark says, "In Christianity . . . God is supreme, and any ideas that may be required are dependent upon what God wills to think. God is the legislator, and piety is determined by his preceptive decree." - Religion, Reason and Revelation Indeed to say that God must honor his law is to subject him to a law above him. Clark also says elsewhere "Responsiblility presupposes a superior authority that rewards and punishes. The highest authority is God. Therefore responsibility is ultimately dependent on the power and authority of God. Is it just then for God to punish a man for deeds that God himself 'determined before to be done'? Was God just in punishing Judas, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the others? The Scriptures answer in the affirmative and explain why. Not only is God the creator of the physical universe, not only is he the governor and judge of men, he is also the moral legislator. It is his will that establishes the distinction between right and wrong, between justice and injustice; it is his will that sets the norms of righteous conduct." From this I inferr that man is responsible to God because He is created in His image. One may also say that Paul says this in Romans 9 when he says that God is the potter we are the clay. The potter has supreme rights.

Secondary Causes? Not really.

So i had read something really interesting about Zwingli on secondary causes. Ill quote it later but it was interesting. He essentially says he does not believe that secondary causes are legitimate causes or should be called such things as cause for God alone is the true cause.What is a good way of talking about this? in my language its hard to speak without using secondary cause.

- Assumed secondary causes are nothing more than the observable effects of the immediate cause. It's a matter of perception, but only one is truth, for truth is objective and not subjective.

Good philosophers

· Harry Frankfurt, Paul Helm, Nelson Pike, Peter Kreeft, Robert Cain, John Martin Fischer, and John Taylor to name a few.

Q: is the Christian faith reasonable?

A: I answer: Yes. For it is says that there is a Triune God who is Holy who has deal accordingly to His nature with His creation, which He has created, in His image, good, and so thereby pressing man to Live for the glory and enjoyment of God. The problem is that all of man by his own unrighteousness and through Adam's unrighteousness has fallen. They are thereby radically evil, although they may will good at times; there goodness is never truly good as that of the original state of Man. However, they are still in the state of the Image of God. What Christianity teaches is that there is a God who has revealed Himself in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and who has determined the means of the accomplishment of Salvation for the sins of many through His Son Jesus Christ, and has determined also the means by which Salvation is applied, through the calling and regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, who works in the sinner so that the sinner may repent and believe the good news of Christ and so thereby obtain Christ righteousness who not only came in the flesh to live the perfect life that no one else could by their own powers or willing live and has taken upon Himself the eternal divine wrath of God. This means that everyman should repent and believe (humble themselves), for if they do not and continue to act in rebellion (Pride) God has determined a date when all things will end and retribution will be declared (Rebels will be humbled) and receive the Divine wrath for all of eternity. I ask you to please turn from your sins and trust in Christ for your righteousness.

True Utopia

The Humanist people are always thinking this life is all that one has. Their belief is that if they may cause a sort of fake happiness to one, then things will be better. They look to build themselves an utopia that will only actually occur with Christ. Although, Christ is reigning now, sovereignly, Sin and evil are still here. It is not till Christ fully destroys these things and holiness prevails over the spiritual devils and the unregenerate men who are denying Christ till the end are finally thrown into the fiery lake, recieving God's just wrath.

Theological Reasoning is the only way

As Theologians we do not say that Theology is seperate from reason. Indeed, theology is not dumb. But we do reject the other reasoning that is first removed from Scripture and is tried to be put together by those philosophers who call themselves also theological reasoners. For out of the mind comes things from man that God never said or wanted to say.

Philosophical concerns on Theological matters.

Why be concerned about details of Christian doctrine that produce nothing but quarrels and prejudice, when natural reason, a faculty common to all human beings, can answer the fundamental questions regarding God and human nature.


Natural reasoning can never inform us of who God is or who we truely are in consequence to knowing God, the philosophy that came about from the enlightenment. Although philosophy may try to answer the questions of whether there is a being out there (via. - cosmology, morality, and ontology) - philosophy in and of itself can never truely give us the answer of what is this being liek and our relation to Him and how to interact with Him. Calvin says to know ourselves (truly) we must know God and to know God we must hear the scriptures (Romans 10). As Romans 10 says faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of Christ. Although some may say the Scriptures as a whole is what is meant here, and I think that could very well be, however I think the Word of Christ that is being meant here is the Gospel. Knowing ourselves through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Quite frankly every man has his reasons as every man has general revelation. But as Romans 1 says every man suppresses the turth by their own unrighteousness. As "what can be known about God is Plain to them, because God has shown it to them." So therefore as Paul says at the beginning of verse 18 the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and ungodliness. So philosophy, although good, for it is good to defend the cause of theism and perhaps also deism, still falls short from theology that is grounded from the scripture and informs us of who God is and who we are in relation to Him. So respectful people like Giesler, Craig, and such who are considered as philosophers can never attain to what the scriptures say that man is totally depraved and if not for the free unconditional election of God and irresistible grace of God he would remain in such a state. As Ephesians 2:1-10 gives us the state at which the christians were in, as those who are of the world is currently in, and then God's means of saving us by grace through faith for His glory in Christ for good works which he has prepared for them who are trusting in His unfailing promises found in Christ alone. Philosophers are no theologians, and rightly so. For a philosopher to answer what or who is God like and our relation to Him would be to infringe on their subjects and thus not have authoritative voices.

Live Philosophers who may quote the dead ones

Harry Frankfurt, Paul Helm, Nelson Pike, Peter Kreeft, Robert Cain, John Martin Fischer, and John Taylor to name a few


-------------------------------------------- Update ----------------------------------


I have not read these guys and unless something draws my attention to these guys I will not read them. I have read, however, Peter Kreeft and know he is a Catholic. He believes that we are justified by faith and works as all Catholics do.