What do you think?
Rate this book
The Presbyterian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark
This is the story of Gordon Clark (1902-85), respected philosopher and prolific writer, who held that Christianity, as a logically coherent system, is superior to all other philosophies. Clark fought no wars and conquered no kingdoms. Yet he was a leading figure in many theological wars fought for the Kingdom of God. These battles for the minds and souls of men were every bit as crucial as physical wars between nations.
In an age of increasing secularization, he put up an intellectual defense of the Christian faith. This faith, he believed, was a system. All of its parts link together, a luxury of no other philosophy. His stance shows a Christianity that is in fact intellectual, not relying on appeals to emotion or experience.
In propounding this view, he encountered frequent opposition, not from the secular world, but from within his own denomination. This biography helps explain why his thought was so profound, why resistance mounted against him, and how his struggles impacted American Presbyterianism. Additionally, this book calls for a reappraisal of Clark's views, which have been maligned by controversy. Understanding and applying his views could significantly fortify Christians combating irrational and non-systematic ideas prevalent in today's churches.
In an age of increasing secularization, he put up an intellectual defense of the Christian faith. This faith, he believed, was a system. All of its parts link together, a luxury of no other philosophy. His stance shows a Christianity that is in fact intellectual, not relying on appeals to emotion or experience.
In propounding this view, he encountered frequent opposition, not from the secular world, but from within his own denomination. This biography helps explain why his thought was so profound, why resistance mounted against him, and how his struggles impacted American Presbyterianism. Additionally, this book calls for a reappraisal of Clark's views, which have been maligned by controversy. Understanding and applying his views could significantly fortify Christians combating irrational and non-systematic ideas prevalent in today's churches.
318 pages, Paperback
Published January 24, 2017
12 people are currently reading
58 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
March 22, 2024
Douma, Douglas. The Presbyterian Philosopher. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.
It is tempting to think that Gordon Clark never had the influence that Cornelius Van Til had, but that might be a mistake. Clark did influence several key evangelicals, notably Carl F Henry and the earlier Christianity Today. Clark’s influence, though, was never denominational, which is probably why the authorized biography did not appear earlier.
Douglas Douma, utilizing numerous unpublished manuscripts and letters, gives us a unique glimpse into Gordon Clark’s life. The book was a joy to read and literary qualities aside, it will prove quite valuable in the history of 20th century evangelicalism.
Clark’s Intellectual Influences
He “aggressively studied Plotinus in the original Greek.” He argues that God’s simplicity is not a simplicity in the Plotinian sense, but Clark believes that the attributes are identical. Douma hints how this might be a problem with Clark’s epistemology. Man has to know at least some of the same propositions as God knows. But it might not be that problematic: whatever tensions Clark’s position might have, it does not seem to follow that knowing the same content in a proposition man must then have the same mind, and hence essence, of God.
Clark thought, probably with some justification, that his view was Augustine’s: the basic items in God’s mind were not ideas, but propositions. I think that might be too restrictive, though. I know God knows me in his mind, yet it seems intuitive that God can know me without having to use the proposition “I know Jacob.”
Wheaton
Clark’s “worldview thinking” became apparent at Wheaton. He drew heavily upon James Orr’s account of worldview, seeing items as systematically coherent. Christianity must be defended as a whole system. God’s existence is the ultimate basis for all other knowledge.
This entailed for Clark, among other things, a rejection of empiricism. Clark defined empiricism as “the theory of epistemology that bases all knowledge on experience or sensation alone.” Such a view also entails that the mind is blank, “sensations are basic,” they are stored in the mind, from which we abstract ideas or concepts.
There are several problems with empiricism. A blank mind cannot process sensations. Senses can deceive. One must point out, however, that we still use sense data. Indeed, we use sense data even on the intuitive level (such as looking both ways crossing the street before one even thinks about looking both ways).
Worldview Thinking
Presuppositionalism as a term was first coined in 1948 by Buswell. For Clark, theory must precede fact. Indeed, “the alleged events, instead of constituting Christian theism, stand themselves in need of philosophic interpretation” (Clark, quoted in Douma).
All systems have unproven and unprovable axioms, or starting points. In some places, Clark seems to identify these axioms with first principles. If so, then he is closer to traditional epistemology in this regard than he might suspect. Such an axiom must be shown to be self-consistent, having no contradictions.
The Ordination Controversy
Clark had considered ordination in the Reformed Episcopal Church.
It cannot be the case that the OPC had always rejected Clark’s view of incomprehensibility. Henry Coray had written to Van Til that Clark’s student, Francis Mahaffy, passed presbytery without any objections (Henry W. Coray to CVT, 15 April 1944, WTS Archives, quoted in Douma).
The problem restated: “Clark, an Old School Presbyterian, was a strict subscriptionist to the Westminster Standards, but The Complaint asked him to subscribe to Van Til’s particular views” (Douma).
“The issue between the two parties, rather, was over how man’s knowledge relates to God’s knowledge.”
“The point of contact was, for Clark, the proposition known.”
“Clark held to a qualitative distinction in the mode or manner of knowing. He believed God’s knowledge is intuitive…whereas man’s knowledge is discursive.” So far, Clark is orthodox. Indeed, the Complaint’s earlier wording spelled disaster, asserting that there was no point of contact between man’s knowledge and God’s knowledge. This means man knows nothing, since God knows everything and there is no point of contact. The Complainants ultimately backed off that extreme claim.
The problem with saying the Bible is all paradox or all apparently contradictory: “He who says a given paradox cannot be solved, logically implies that he has examined every verse in Scripture, that he has exhausted every implication of every verse, and that there is in all this no hint of a solution.”
Is the content of man’s knowledge and God’s knowledge as it relates to a specific truth the same? Clark explains: “Obviously the contents of one’s knowledge are the truths one knows…The contents of a man’s knowledge are the truths the man knows. The Complaint maintains that these two sets of truths are qualitatively different.”
Douma does not bring this out, but Thomists were already aware of this. That is why we say that the content of a particular proposition is univocal between man and God, but analogical in terms of judgment.
Douma notes that “content” was changed to mean “character of understanding” in the 1948 majority report. If it now means “mode of knowing,” then the original Complaint does not make sense. As Clark notes in a letter to D. Clair Davis, “If mode answers how we know, and object answers what we know, what question is answered by the idea of content? They have (to this day, as far as I know) refused to define content so as to distinguish it from mode and object” (14 October 1952, quoted in Douma).
The Complaint
Initially argued that Clark’s ordination was approved at an illegal presbytery meeting.
Clark’s Contributions
In light of recent developments by Russell and others on logic, Clark adamantly defended traditional Aristotelian logic. Here is the problem. Take your standard “A Proposition,” All S is P. The subaltern(I Proposition) is Some S is P. If all men are mortal, it naturally follows that some men are mortal. Beginning with Gottlobe Frege, logicians saw a problem. Subalternation seemed to imply that some entities exist which clearly do not. Douma gives the following example:
“All lions in the room next door have sharp teeth” does not mean “some lions in the room next door have sharp teeth,” because there might not be any lions next door.
Russell framed it this way: all A is b means a
For Clark, Russell gave an erroneous definition of “all.” It is one thing to claim A is included in B. It is quite another to say A is B. For example, 0>1 now reads “All 0 is 1,” yet this is clearly absurd.
Clark makes some important points here, but I am not sure it is enough to overturn the gains in modern logic.
Addendum: Was Clark a Nestorian?
Charity demands we say no. Clark honestly worked through the implications of his system and knew he was at an impasse, which is probably why he did not publish his book on the incarnation. The problem stems from his definition of person as a “composite of truths.” As Jesus had both divine and human minds, he had divine and human composites of truths. This seems to lead to the conclusion that he was two persons.
Clark responded that Nestorius did not define person in this way, and that is true. It is still a problem and I am not sure how he can get out of it. There are a few potential options: we could say that the divine composite of truths “enhypostasized” or hominized the human composite of truths. That could work, although we are stretching language at that point.
Conclusion
This book was a delight to read and presents Clark’s case to a wider audience. Douma helpfully summarized Clark’s own views, even showing how Clark’s teachings can reach mainstream evangelicalism. There are a few areas in which I must differ with Clark, though. I think he overshoots his target on sensation, though his criticisms on empiricism are probably sound. Notwithstanding that, I found Douma’s case for Clark’s position in the ordination controversy very convincing. In fact, if one keeps in mind the old distinction in Thomism (noting the irony here) between univocal in content, analogical in judgment, Clark’s position is actually common sense.
It is tempting to think that Gordon Clark never had the influence that Cornelius Van Til had, but that might be a mistake. Clark did influence several key evangelicals, notably Carl F Henry and the earlier Christianity Today. Clark’s influence, though, was never denominational, which is probably why the authorized biography did not appear earlier.
Douglas Douma, utilizing numerous unpublished manuscripts and letters, gives us a unique glimpse into Gordon Clark’s life. The book was a joy to read and literary qualities aside, it will prove quite valuable in the history of 20th century evangelicalism.
Clark’s Intellectual Influences
He “aggressively studied Plotinus in the original Greek.” He argues that God’s simplicity is not a simplicity in the Plotinian sense, but Clark believes that the attributes are identical. Douma hints how this might be a problem with Clark’s epistemology. Man has to know at least some of the same propositions as God knows. But it might not be that problematic: whatever tensions Clark’s position might have, it does not seem to follow that knowing the same content in a proposition man must then have the same mind, and hence essence, of God.
Clark thought, probably with some justification, that his view was Augustine’s: the basic items in God’s mind were not ideas, but propositions. I think that might be too restrictive, though. I know God knows me in his mind, yet it seems intuitive that God can know me without having to use the proposition “I know Jacob.”
Wheaton
Clark’s “worldview thinking” became apparent at Wheaton. He drew heavily upon James Orr’s account of worldview, seeing items as systematically coherent. Christianity must be defended as a whole system. God’s existence is the ultimate basis for all other knowledge.
This entailed for Clark, among other things, a rejection of empiricism. Clark defined empiricism as “the theory of epistemology that bases all knowledge on experience or sensation alone.” Such a view also entails that the mind is blank, “sensations are basic,” they are stored in the mind, from which we abstract ideas or concepts.
There are several problems with empiricism. A blank mind cannot process sensations. Senses can deceive. One must point out, however, that we still use sense data. Indeed, we use sense data even on the intuitive level (such as looking both ways crossing the street before one even thinks about looking both ways).
Worldview Thinking
Presuppositionalism as a term was first coined in 1948 by Buswell. For Clark, theory must precede fact. Indeed, “the alleged events, instead of constituting Christian theism, stand themselves in need of philosophic interpretation” (Clark, quoted in Douma).
All systems have unproven and unprovable axioms, or starting points. In some places, Clark seems to identify these axioms with first principles. If so, then he is closer to traditional epistemology in this regard than he might suspect. Such an axiom must be shown to be self-consistent, having no contradictions.
The Ordination Controversy
Clark had considered ordination in the Reformed Episcopal Church.
It cannot be the case that the OPC had always rejected Clark’s view of incomprehensibility. Henry Coray had written to Van Til that Clark’s student, Francis Mahaffy, passed presbytery without any objections (Henry W. Coray to CVT, 15 April 1944, WTS Archives, quoted in Douma).
The problem restated: “Clark, an Old School Presbyterian, was a strict subscriptionist to the Westminster Standards, but The Complaint asked him to subscribe to Van Til’s particular views” (Douma).
“The issue between the two parties, rather, was over how man’s knowledge relates to God’s knowledge.”
“The point of contact was, for Clark, the proposition known.”
“Clark held to a qualitative distinction in the mode or manner of knowing. He believed God’s knowledge is intuitive…whereas man’s knowledge is discursive.” So far, Clark is orthodox. Indeed, the Complaint’s earlier wording spelled disaster, asserting that there was no point of contact between man’s knowledge and God’s knowledge. This means man knows nothing, since God knows everything and there is no point of contact. The Complainants ultimately backed off that extreme claim.
The problem with saying the Bible is all paradox or all apparently contradictory: “He who says a given paradox cannot be solved, logically implies that he has examined every verse in Scripture, that he has exhausted every implication of every verse, and that there is in all this no hint of a solution.”
Is the content of man’s knowledge and God’s knowledge as it relates to a specific truth the same? Clark explains: “Obviously the contents of one’s knowledge are the truths one knows…The contents of a man’s knowledge are the truths the man knows. The Complaint maintains that these two sets of truths are qualitatively different.”
Douma does not bring this out, but Thomists were already aware of this. That is why we say that the content of a particular proposition is univocal between man and God, but analogical in terms of judgment.
Douma notes that “content” was changed to mean “character of understanding” in the 1948 majority report. If it now means “mode of knowing,” then the original Complaint does not make sense. As Clark notes in a letter to D. Clair Davis, “If mode answers how we know, and object answers what we know, what question is answered by the idea of content? They have (to this day, as far as I know) refused to define content so as to distinguish it from mode and object” (14 October 1952, quoted in Douma).
The Complaint
Initially argued that Clark’s ordination was approved at an illegal presbytery meeting.
Clark’s Contributions
In light of recent developments by Russell and others on logic, Clark adamantly defended traditional Aristotelian logic. Here is the problem. Take your standard “A Proposition,” All S is P. The subaltern(I Proposition) is Some S is P. If all men are mortal, it naturally follows that some men are mortal. Beginning with Gottlobe Frege, logicians saw a problem. Subalternation seemed to imply that some entities exist which clearly do not. Douma gives the following example:
“All lions in the room next door have sharp teeth” does not mean “some lions in the room next door have sharp teeth,” because there might not be any lions next door.
Russell framed it this way: all A is b means a
For Clark, Russell gave an erroneous definition of “all.” It is one thing to claim A is included in B. It is quite another to say A is B. For example, 0>1 now reads “All 0 is 1,” yet this is clearly absurd.
Clark makes some important points here, but I am not sure it is enough to overturn the gains in modern logic.
Addendum: Was Clark a Nestorian?
Charity demands we say no. Clark honestly worked through the implications of his system and knew he was at an impasse, which is probably why he did not publish his book on the incarnation. The problem stems from his definition of person as a “composite of truths.” As Jesus had both divine and human minds, he had divine and human composites of truths. This seems to lead to the conclusion that he was two persons.
Clark responded that Nestorius did not define person in this way, and that is true. It is still a problem and I am not sure how he can get out of it. There are a few potential options: we could say that the divine composite of truths “enhypostasized” or hominized the human composite of truths. That could work, although we are stretching language at that point.
Conclusion
This book was a delight to read and presents Clark’s case to a wider audience. Douma helpfully summarized Clark’s own views, even showing how Clark’s teachings can reach mainstream evangelicalism. There are a few areas in which I must differ with Clark, though. I think he overshoots his target on sensation, though his criticisms on empiricism are probably sound. Notwithstanding that, I found Douma’s case for Clark’s position in the ordination controversy very convincing. In fact, if one keeps in mind the old distinction in Thomism (noting the irony here) between univocal in content, analogical in judgment, Clark’s position is actually common sense.
April 29, 2020
Douglas Douma’s book, The Presbyterian Philosopher, is a fascinating biography of one of my heroes of the faith, Dr. Gordon H. Clark. I will admit that I was not always Clarkian. While studying under Clark at Covenant College I was a hard-core Van Tillian who was always interested in a good debate. Since Clark welcomed debate as one of his teaching styles, I had the opportunity to have my arguments torn to shreds repeatedly. But he engaged all of us with such charm, humility, and gentleness, that I came to love these sessions, and through them he became a model for Christian character long before he convinced me of his philosophy. This biography brings out both the personal side of Clark and his academic side. I thought that Doug portrayed this amazing man perfectly, compellingly, and interestingly. Though I thought I knew Clark pretty well, I learned all kinds of new things about him that have endeared me to him even more. But I especially appreciated the way that Doug simplified the main issues of the central controversies that Clark was engaged in. I also appreciated learning of all the men and women that had been profoundly shaped by his teaching. I actually found myself being brought to tears at times. I know, I know, “emotionless” is the stereotype of Gordon Clark. But there are many stereotypes that will be dispelled as you read through this book. I highly recommend it. Oh - and spoiler - Van Til and Clark did become friends.
December 21, 2017
Great book!
This work is important not only for its fair and positive look at a philosopher/theologian who is too often unfairly vilified, but also for its study of 20th century Presbyterian history in the United States. Thanks, Rev. Douma, for the hours of labor, and for this labor of love left to Presbyterian posterity.
This work is important not only for its fair and positive look at a philosopher/theologian who is too often unfairly vilified, but also for its study of 20th century Presbyterian history in the United States. Thanks, Rev. Douma, for the hours of labor, and for this labor of love left to Presbyterian posterity.
July 26, 2017
A book that deserves wide readership especially in the United Kingdom where I hope it will foster an interest in the philosophy of Gordon H. Clark and, thus, encourage the reading of his works. His books set forth a Christian, that is,a particularly Reformed, philosophy. I believe this to be a great need of the hour for the Church. One will not agree entirely with Clark's views but they point forward. Personally, I would accept some of Ronald H. Nash's criticisms as set forth in his article in 'The Philosophy of Gordon H.Clark'.
It is an encouraging, enlightening and entertaining read. Why? Because it introduces that philosophy as well as giving an account of his life. The key role he played in American Presbyterian politics, for want of a better word, came as a surprise to me. The Clark -Van Til controversy is set forth in a clear manner.
It is an encouraging, enlightening and entertaining read. Why? Because it introduces that philosophy as well as giving an account of his life. The key role he played in American Presbyterian politics, for want of a better word, came as a surprise to me. The Clark -Van Til controversy is set forth in a clear manner.
March 18, 2018
This is not simply a biography in the strictest sense. It indeed chronicles the background and life of one of the Church’s foremost thinkers of the past two millennia, but it does far more than that. Douma masterfully delves into Clark’s historical and theological significance, as well, chronicling the events of the Clark-Van Til ordination controversy, detailing four ways Clark impacted 20th century theology, and briefly addressing the theological issues brought about by Clark’s books on the Trinity and the hypostatic union. Supported by scores of primary sources, as well as sanctioned by Clark’s own daughters, this work should receive a wide readership. Anyone even remotely interested in Reformed thought should at some point become acquainted with Clark’s thought.
August 14, 2019
Exceptional. If you are interested in this period in american church history, in Old Princeton, Westminster, Van Til etc, then this is a book for you. Douma does a really nice job , because he gives a lot of space to Clark's ideas and philosophy, and he also conveys well the spirit of the man. However, this is also a rather sad story of division and doctrinal fussiness, rather than a broader Reformed unity.
September 14, 2017
For Orthodox Presbyterians, it might be good to get a different perspective on the "Clark Case."
I rejoiced at the evident reconciliation between Clark and Van Til.
His reasons for opposing the Join & Receive between the RPCES and the PCA are very insightful, and I appreciated his concern for the OPC.
I rejoiced at the evident reconciliation between Clark and Van Til.
His reasons for opposing the Join & Receive between the RPCES and the PCA are very insightful, and I appreciated his concern for the OPC.
July 20, 2018
I couldn't put it down til I read the whole thing. Douma has written a fantastic introduction to the theology and philosophy of Gordon Clark (as well as Clark the son, husband, father, chessplayer, mentor, churchman). You can tell a lot of work went into the research of this book. I can not recommend it more highly.
December 4, 2017
I read God's Hammer years ago, and it was a pleasure to read this book and learn more about Gordon Clark and his history. I hope to continue to read through more of his works, although it will be slowly, since I'm trying to keep up with the reading curriculum of four children! =-D
February 1, 2026
An excellent biography, covering one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century.
February 19, 2019
Excellent and fascinating biography of a little known spiritual giant of the 20th century.
December 19, 2019
The only biography of Clark. Get it for that reason alone.
April 19, 2017
This was slow reading a the start - I had difficulty enjoying it - not what I expected; seemed to drag. However, as Douma moved further into Clark's life I gained interest.
For those interested in the Clark-Van Til controversy, or those interested of the ins and outs of Presbyterian history - read the book.
For others - decide for yourself.
For those interested in the Clark-Van Til controversy, or those interested of the ins and outs of Presbyterian history - read the book.
For others - decide for yourself.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews