You may find this worth reading:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=128

and this http://www.proginosko.com/welty/anatomy.htm

Wow, this article is a little, um, shall we say crazy. As far as I can tell the position that this author is advocating against Bahnsen's position is nothing more than fideism. While I disagree with Bahnsen on a lot, I don't side with Gordon Clark either (or the author of this article).

Sorry, just to clarify, my last comment was directed at the first link. I actually found the second link (on comparing/contrasting the different schools of apologetics) to be somewhat helpful.

Thanks!

I don't remember if it's explained in that article or not, but Clark's apologetic is built upon the understanding of an axiom. Every system has an axiom that is unproven. It is assumed. He says the axiom of Christianity is the Bible.

The Westminster Confession would seem to support this:

"V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

Clark, commenting on this section of the Confession, notes:

"Logically the infallibility of the Bible is not a theorem to be deduced from some prior axiom. The infallibility of the Bible is the axiom from which the several doctrines are themselves deduced as theorems. Every religion and every philosophy must be based on some first principle. And since a first principle is first, it cannot be "proved" or "demonstrated" on the basis of anything prior. As the catechism question, quoted above, says, "The Word of God is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify Him."

If you are studying apologetics and you have not studied Clark, then I highly recommend you do so
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/book-review-gods-hammer-the-bible-and-its-critics/

I have studied Clark in passing and I don't really agree with much that he has to say. To address the specific quotation you have provided, I would say that while it is true that every philosophy needs a first principle that cannot itself be proven, "the bible is infallible" is not a likely candidate for that first principle. An example of a first principle for the Christian worldview might be the law of non-contradiction, the basic reliability of sense perception, the order or uniformity of nature, or even (in some sense) the existence of God (here I am thinking of Plantinga's [really Calvin's] sensus divinitatus). These are first principles upon which we can build a natural theology.

This quote also seems to bear the implication that the authenticity and authority of the Bible CANNOT be argued for reasonably. This conclusion seems absurd to me.

Thanks for your thoughts David. It seems to me that your accusation of fideism rightly applies to anyone who starts with an unproven first principle (which would be everyone). You just happen not to like the axiom that Clark chose.

You are wrong to say that the quote implies that the authenticity and authority of Scripture cannot be argued for reasonably. It's somewhat funny to accuse Clark of abandoning logic, as it is his use of logic that leads so many people to object to him. But perhaps what you mean by "reasonably" is not "logical" but "starting from autonomous man's authority," as is commonly done? Clark does not abandon the use of reasonable argument, rather he rightly points out that there is no higher authority by which Scripture can be subjected to for confirmation.

As for your preference for building a natural theology - have you read Robert Reymond on the topic? I haven't read his "Justification of Knowledge" yet but I would like to. Here are a few quotes from his Systematic Theology:

There is a legitimate sense in which the awareness of God that all people have by virtue of their being created in his image and by virtue of his inescapable revelation of himself to them in nature (Rom. 1:20) may be called “natural theology.” With this use of the term I have no problem: indeed, I wholeheartedly endorse it. But when I refer to “methodological natural theology” I am referring to the theological method whereby a “first floor” philosophical prolegomenon is first built by natural reason working independently with what is portrayed as “neutral data” upon which a “second floor” set of beliefs derived from special revelation is later placed. In this kind of “natural theology,” the Christian revelation, not intended to displace or to function as the ground of the philosophical prolegomenon, presupposes the philosophical prolegomenon and presumably confirms and supplements it. I argue against “natural theology” in this latter sense in “The Justification of Knowledge” (fn 13, p 137)

Much more could be said about methodological natural theology, but suffice it here to say that nowhere does the Bible endorse the notion that general revelation was given to provide people the data by which they might, beginning from themselves, reason their way to God. The Bible introduces general revelation alongside special revelation to emphasize man’s guilt. The entire effort of Thomistic natural theology to discover God by natural reason apart from Jesus Christ must be judged not only a failure (see 1 Cor. 1:20–21) but also as an unwitting handmaid of the entire revolt of human philosophy against the necessity of special revelation. See Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984), 118–30 (p. 57)

Finally, methodological natural theology does not square with the natural apologetic activity of the early church as we find it depicted in the book of Acts. The natural theologian maintains that it is not right to ask skeptics to believe in Christ on the basis of scriptural authority before they have had a chance to consider the evidence supportive of the Christian claims. But does the unbeliever possess some independent criterion of verification which can and should authenticate the truth of Christian revelation in advance of faith? I think not. Otherwise, we must conclude that Dionysius the Areopagite, who believed in Christ simply on the basis of Paul’s testimony prior to any investigation into what Paul proclaimed, was the biggest fool on Mars’ Hill that day in A.D. 50 (Acts 17:22-34), and that the most intelligent men there were those who determined to hear Paul again on some subsequent occasion! No, the missionary efforts of Peter, Stephen, Philip and Paul never urge lost men to do anything other than to repent of sin and bow in faith before Jesus Christ. When they debate, they draw their arguments from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2; 18:28)… (p 150)

"It seems to me that your accusation of fideism rightly applies to anyone who starts with an unproven first principle (which would be everyone). You just happen not to like the axiom that Clark chose."

Well, no. It wouldn't be fideism because it is more reasonable than not to accept the law of non-contradiction. But according to Clark, I can have no reason upon which to base my choice of the Bible as my axiom.

"Clark does not abandon the use of reasonable argument, rather he rightly points out that there is no higher authority by which Scripture can be subjected to for confirmation."

Certainly. But if the Bible is to be our unproven axiom, how exactly can we argue for (prove) it?

In any case, the Bible nowhere teaches that the Bible is to be our starting axiom. We must deduce everything from the Bible, and yet we cannot deduce the principle itself, which seems self-refernetially incoherent to me.

"The natural theologian maintains that it is not right to ask skeptics to believe in Christ on the basis of scriptural authority before they have had a chance to consider the evidence supportive of the Christian claims."

I can't speak for all "natural theologians", but I for one believe that (1) only the Holy Spirit can grant faith and repentence, and (2) He chooses to do this primarily through the preaching of the Word. I have no problem proclaiming the gospel to unbelievers without giving arguments. But it doesn't follow from any of that natural theology is therefore invalid. If you preached the gospel to someone and they rejected it, would you immediately leave them in despair, or would at least attempt to break down whatever emotional or intellectual barriers they claim to have? I would hope you would do the latter.

Thanks for the articles and comments!

In any case, the Bible nowhere teaches that the Bible is to be our starting axiom.

The Bible says it is the Word of God. It is deduced from the Bible that there is no higher authority above God.

or would at least attempt to break down whatever emotional or intellectual barriers they claim to have?

I would. And I would do my best to do so by the Word.

Well, no. It wouldn't be fideism because it is more reasonable than not to accept the law of non-contradiction.

Please define fideism.

I don't mean to drag this on if you're not interested in continuing it. But if you are, I would appreciate it if you could clarify how you hold the law of non-contradiction to be an axiom, yet still hold it to some higher standard to judge whether or not it is "reasonable." Also, please define reasonable.

"The Bible says it is the Word of God. It is deduced from the Bible that there is no higher authority above God."

Aside from the obvious problems with this approach, such as its being viciously circular, and the obvious question "How do you know that the Bible is stating the truth when it says it is the Word of God?", I would like to ask WHY I should accept the Bible as my axiom?

"And I would do my best to do so by the Word."

So would I. But would you absolutely refuse to give theistic proofs or historical arguments for the resurrection to anyone?

"Please define fideism."

Minimally, simply choosing to believe something without reasons.

"I would appreciate it if you could clarify how you hold the law of non-contradiction to be an axiom, yet still hold it to some higher standard to judge whether or not it is "reasonable." "

As I said in my previous comment, I reject Clark's whole system (in favor of Plantinga's). I don't hold to the law of non-contradiction just because I need somewhere to start and you can't prove your first principles anyway. I hold to the law of non-contradiction (as one example) because I think it is incorrigible (i.e. it can't be denied). Similarly, I hold to the basic reliability of our cognitive faculties because that is necessary for us to know anything at all.

In fact, if our cognitive faculties are not reliable and truth-producing (RTP), then we couldn't even know what the Bible says or whether or not it is true. So unless you grant RTP faculties, you can't hold the Bible as your axiom. BUT if you DO grant RTP faculties, then it follows that those faculties will produce true beliefs apart from the Bible, which Clark rejected.

"Also, please define reasonable."

Having sufficient reasons.