GREENVILLE PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY A SUMMARY OF GORDON CLARK'S VIEW OF BIBLICAL INSPIRATION BY GABRIEL N.E. FLUHRER PROLOGOMENA AND THEOLOGY SEPTEMBER 21, 2006One of the questions that Gordon H. Clark poses in his book, God's Hammer: the Bible and its Critics, is “how may I know the Bible is inspired?” He immediately distinguishes this question from its twin inquiry; namely, “how do I know the Bible is true?” This paper will survey Clark’s answer to the first question. Clark begins by addressing the alleged contradictions in Scripture. Citing archaeological and historical evidence that has answered many of the nineteenth century higher critics, he then points out that many of the so-called “contradictions” in the Bible are trivial at best. He gives three criteria for the reader, if one is to find any “errors” in the Bible. “....[T]o conviet the Bible of inconsistency, [the alleged “errors”] should be 1)several, 2)clear and 3) important instances” (Clark, 2). These three criteria are exemplary; it is impossible to find any alleged Bible “error” that meets these three requirements. One sees the definess of Clark’s famous (or infamous, depending on your theological viewpoint) logical ability. Clark then tums to answering the question “how may I know that the Bible is inspired?” He answers this by beginning where Calvin did: with the Bible itself. “The first reason for believing the Bible is inspired is that the Bible claims to be inspired” (Clark, 2). He notes that the unbeliever will not at all agree to this; indeed, he will charge the Christian with circular reasoning. Clark answers “The Christian is well within the boundaries of logic to insist that the first reason for believing in the inspiration of the Bible is that it makes this claim....[e]ven those who have a fair knowledge may not realize how insistently the Bible makes this claim” (Clark, 3). Thus, Clark’s operating presupposition is that of Calvin’s and the Westminster Confession’s: the Bible authoritatively makes the claim to inspiration.Next, Clark defines inspiration. Quoting 2 Timothy 3:16, Clark writes “God breathed out the Scriptures. We might say metaphorically that the Scriptures are God’s breath’ (Clark, 4-5). Not only is the Bible God-breathed, it is so in all of its parts. “God breathed out all of it...{citing John 10:35] The precise point of Christ’s remark is that all Scripture is authoritative” (Clark, 5). He then includes a very fine exegetical discussion on 2 Peter 1:18-21 in reference to the plenary, or whole, inspiration of Scripture. He covers a wide range of verses to show that this refers not to the prophets of the Old Testament, but the writings of the Apostles in the New Testament as well. His treatment is both concise and penetrating. The verbal aspect of inspiration is handled next. The “...Bible teaches verbal inspiration. God put words into Jeremiah’s mouth”(Clark, 9). Clark points out, though, that it does not follow that this means that the Bible was mechanistically dictated. He deals with the caricatures of verbal inspiration, proving from Scripture, the Reformed “organic” view of inspiration. The revelation of God was written down, says Clark. “It is true of course that they [the Bible writers] were borne along by the Holy Ghost; but the Biblical claim is that God inspired what was written. ..It is the Scriptures that cannot be broken” (Clark, 11) Clark makes this seemingly insignificant point over against the claims of liberals and neo-orthodoxy that the Bible merely “contains” the Word of God. He gives several very s the written words that good refutations of both of these positions, concluding that it, God inspired” (Clark, 12). ‘The next question that is answered is, “how may one prove Biblical inspiration to an inquirer” (Clark, 12)? Clark strengthens the previous arguments by again directing the