Douglas J. Douma's Blog, page 5

GHC Review 35: In Defense of Theology

[image error]

In Defense of Theology, by Gordon H. Clark, Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1984, 119 pp.

This is the one and only book Gordon Clark had published with Mott Media. It seems that he chose this publisher at a time when John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation were fully busy publishing other volumes of Clark’s. It was the last book he had published with Mott Media because of how poorly things worked out with them on this volume. Clark wrote to Greg Reynolds (05?/??/1983) saying, “Next month my small MS on In Defense of Theology should appear, if the publisher can withdraw a series of ‘corrections’ which he made, spoiling emphasis and meaning.” But Mott resisted correcting the “corrections.” Clark wrote again to Greg Reynolds (12/9/1983) saying, “In Defense of Theology ought to come out in January. My relations with that publisher have turned sour. He tried to publish the book, after changing a good bit of the language, without letting me see the page proofs. He also tried to deceive me with falsehoods. But I could not break the contract.” Finally, in a letter again to Greg Reynolds (3/31/1984) Clark wrote, “In Defense of Theology is now published by Mott Media. These people are dishonest and conceited. But I had signed a contract and could not withdraw the MS. I think I pestered them enough to get them to correct most of their incompetent ‘corrections.’”

The original version of the book is in fairly large print. When the Trinity Foundation later published a new version of it, the original text fitting 119 pages was reduced to a standard font size and fit in just 57 pages.

The book looks at three groups who hold theology in contempt, or simply ignore it. The groups are devout people who lack theological training, atheists, and the neo-orthodox. Each of these groups receive their own chapters (though in the order Atheism, The Disinterested, and Neo-Orthodoxy) before Clark’s views are presented in two final chapters.

Typically Clarkian humor comes in the opening chapter when he writes, “Finally, the readers will be urged to come to their own conclusions, which is a polite way of saying that the author hopes they will agree with him.” (p. 4)

What I noticed for the first time in just now re-reading this volume is that In Defense of Theology copies some from the “Introductory Remarks” from Clark’s unpublished systematic theology. The copied sections include parts or all of pages 7, 8, 10, 11, 25, 26, and 29.

This volume repeats a lot of ideas that Clark has presented elsewhere. But, since parts of it are written in a more introductory fashion it could be valuable as a first book to read of Clark’s. Or maybe given some of the complicated parts, it functions better as a summary to read later on in one’s studies of Clark.

The original cover design is shown above. Below is a later Trinity Foundation version.

[image error]

For the previous review in this series see here.

GHC Review 34: The Biblical Doctrine of Man

[image error]

The Biblical Doctrine of Man, by Gordon H. Clark, Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1984, 101 pp.

This book was first written as the chapter titled “Man” in Gordon Clark’s systematic theology, First Lessons in Theology. Seeing that it was ultimately published as a stand alone volume in 1984, it was published when Clark was still alive and thus clearly had his approval.

This volume is classic Clark and it is a nice relief from reading his sometimes tedious Biblical commentaries, some of which I’ve recently reviewed for this series. This might be one of his best books, though at times overlooked by some (including myself) because of its small size and late date of publication.

In the first chapter of The Biblical Doctrine of Man Clark defends the doctrine of creation. It is no surprise that he holds to creation over evolution.

The second chapter, on “The Image of God,” is a topic Clark emphasizes in his writings and it is critical to his theories. “The Bible,” he writes, “makes an immense distinction between man and animals.” (p. 5) “Man has a mind.” (p. 6) “God spoke to Adam and Adam understood what God told him.” (p. 7) “The image of God is not something man has, somewhere inside of him, or somewhere on the surface, as if God had first created man and then stamped him with a signet ring. No, the image is not something man has, man is the image. First Corinthians 11:7 pointedly says, ‘He [man] is the image and glory of God.’” (p. 9) Quoting various Scriptural verses, Clark argues that “the image of God, in which man was created is knowledge.” (p. 14) More exactly Clark writes, “The image must be reason.” (p. 16) “John 1:9 [That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.] cannot be soteric because it refers to all men.” (p. 18) It seems to be epistemological. “The conclusion therefore is that creative light gives every many an innate knowledge sufficient to make all men responsible for their evil actions.” (p. 18)

Clark spends a number pages refuting behaviorism. In a particularly excellent paragraph he writes, “But their assertion is inconsistent with their fundamental principle. Man is physics and chemistry, is he? Well, if a chemist combines hydrogen, sulphur, and oxygen, in certain propositions, he will have sulphuric acid. And to keep the examples elementary, if he combines sodium and chlorine, he will get salt. But is salt any more “true” than sulphuric acid? Make the example more complex. If certain brains and muscles perform motions called behaviorism, are they any more true than my brains and muscles whose intricate reaction is called Christianity? Reduce thinking to chemistry and no distinction between truth and error remains. Behaviorism has committed the suicide of self-contradiction.” (p. 29)

Chapter 7 is on “Dichotomy and Trichotomy.” Trichotomy, Clark contends, was erroneously taught by a few in the early centuries of the church but died out and “remained in its tomb until resurrected in the nineteenth century.” (p. 35) John Gill is seen to hold to dichotomy and possible hadn’t even heard of trichotomy. (p. 37)

Chapter 8 then is on “Traducianism and Creationism.” This is, of course, not the “creationism” as in the creation of the world, but rather the question of whether souls are created with each human born into the world, or whether the souls, per traducianism, are not created but are produced from the souls of the parents. This is one of those topics that I first heard about when reading Clark. I guess you’d be unlikely to come across it in most other theologians. That’s one thing that makes reading Clark so much fun and so rewarding. Against Gill and A. A. Hodge, Clark concludes, among other points, “the specific statement that God rested from his work of creation renders incredible the notion that God issued many billions of creative fiats after the original creation week.” (p. 51)

Chapters on “Federal Headship,” Immediate Imputation,” and “Total Depravity” are solid defenses of the Calvinistic position on soteriology.

And, finally, in a passage surely disliked by some of today’s hyper-calvinistic-ish internet zealots, Clark explains total depravity with the distinction (shared by the Westminster Confession) that some sins are more heinous than others:

“In case some elementary students are unaware of it, and some secular professors too, one must inform them that the doctrine of total depravity does not mean that everyone is as sinful as it is possible to be. The word total in English can be used either extensively or intensively. The intensive or connotative idea is that man is so corrupt that his every act is as heinous as any act can be. The extensive or denotative sense is that all his thought, faculties, and activities, all of them, are to some degree or other affected by sin. In his totality he is indeed heading in the wrong direction, but only a few persons have actually descended to the lowest depths of their destination.” (p. 76)

There are so many excellent points in this volume that a review of it tends towards such a length that it is better simply to read the book itself.

For the previous review in this series see here.

See also: https://douglasdouma.wordpress.com/2019/02/27/a-distinction-in-gordon-clarks-view-of-man/

A Distinction in Gordon Clark’s View of Man

There is an important distinction to understand in Gordon Clark’s view of man. That is, for Clark, while humans are a combination of body and soul, man (i.e. “person”) is merely soul.

The first of these two points — that humans are a combination of body and soul — is called “dichotomy.” This is to distinguish it from the “trichotomy” of body, soul, and spirit held by some Arminian dispensationalists.

That Clark held to dichotomy is clear in such statements he made such as:

“A kindly old gentleman—he was personally a lovely character—used to argue that man was composed of three things, body, soul, and spirit. (Genesis 2:7 shows that there were just two, not three components.)” – Gordon H. Clark, Peter Speaks Today, 1967, p. 22.

“The second and greater error in trichotomy is that it ignores the one place in the Bible where the composition of man is explicitly described. The account of creation in Genesis clearly imposes a dichotomy. God formed man’s body out of the earth and breathed his spirit into the body. There are precisely two components.” – Gordon H. Clark, The Pastoral Epistles, p. 152.

While Clark then held to a certain form of dichotomy, he yet believed that “man is soul.” That these two statements are not at odds, but are easily reconcilable is the contention of this article.

That Clark held that “man is soul” is clear in a number of places in his writings. Starting then with his unpublished systematic theology (Introduction to Theology, Chapter 9 – “Eschatology”, circa 1977) he writes:

Since a person himself, Paul, Calvin, you and I, or better, since the souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory, “while” their bodies … rest in their graves till the resurrection,” it follows that the man himself, far from being an instance of organic chemistry, is not even a combination of soul and body, but is strictly the soul. Thomas Aquinas followed Aristotle too closely in the definition of the soul as “the form as an organic body.” Aquinas tried to avoid the denial of immortality inherent in Aristotle’s definition, but avoidance is difficult. Some other theologians or apologetes, even if they are not Thomists, argue that man is a unity, and that there is no duality of soul and body. Well, if man is the soul, he is a unity. But if we follow Augustine a man is no more a unity of soul and body than a carpenter is a unity of hand and hammer. For Augustine and what other theory so well accommodates the Biblical data on the intermediate state? – the soul is the person and the body is its instrument. So also Charles Hodge: “The soul is the self, the Ego, of which the body is the organ” [instrument] (Vol III, p 725). Also, “the body [is] not a necessary condition of [the soul’s] consciousness or activity.” (p. 726).

Then in an audio recording (“Questions and Answers,” Audiotape, Minute 35, Winter Theological Institute, Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi, Feb. 2-4, 1976.) a dialogue is recorded:

Dr. Wilson Benson: We have determined, I believe, that man is the image of God. And I’m wondering if man is body or soul or whether man is body and soul. And if man is made in the image of God and man is body and soul, how can the image be in one part and not the other part?

Dr. Clark: “The account in Genesis says that God formed the body of Adam out of the dust of the ground, then he breathed into his nostrils the breath or spirit of life, and that combination was called a living soul. Since the clay of the earth is not the image of God, and since there is only one other element that goes into the makeup of man, it’s that other element that is the image of God, namely God’s breath. So that man is his spirit.”

And greater length Clark writes in The Biblical Doctrine of Man (1984):

Some contemporary theologians, on the whole quite orthodox, insist that man is a unity, not a duality; hence they conclude that he is not his soul, but the combination of soul and body.

Before discussing such a view, one should realize that the New Testament terminology, though a development from the Old, is not precisely the same. Genesis explicitly describes the soul as the combination of the earthly clay and divine breath, and calls man a living soul. The language in the preceding paragraph takes soul to be something quite distinct from the body, and this in general is the New Testament usage. While the Old Testament often uses soul and spirit synonymously, the New Testament, especially when the adjectival forms of the word occur, imposes on them a moral distinction. Soulish carries an evil connotation (compare 1 Corinthians 2:14, 15:44, Jude 19). On the other hand, spiritual no longer denotes the human spirit, but the influence of the Holy Ghost (compare 1 Corinthians 2:11-16 and 15:42-47; Colossians 1:9, I Peter 2:5).

With this Scriptural background in mind, one may return to the question, not whether man is a unity, but what sort of unity man is. A parallel case should help. Salt is a sort of unity too, being a chemical combination of sodium and chlorine. So also the compound man is not the soul. Here of course soul does not reproduce the usage of nephesh in Genesis 2:7. It is a New Testament usage and is the common usage of our present century. Now to show man himself is not the combination, but is precisely the soul, mind, or spirit, one may appeal to II Corinthians 12:2, which says that on one occasion Paul did not know whether or not he was in the body or out of the body. Quite obviously the he cannot be the body, for he, Paul, could be either in the body or out of it. And if man is the soul, we have a more perfect unity than a chemical compound of sodium and chlorine. One may also quote II Corinthians 5:1, “For we know that if our earthly home of the tabernacle be destroyed we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” Similarly Philippians 1:21 ff. Says, “For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain … for I am faced with two choices, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for this is far better …” Both of these verses show that a person can exist apart from the body. The body is not the person; it is a place in which the soul dwells. The home eternal in the heavens is not the soul, for our souls are not eternal. By God’s grace they are everlasting, but eternality would be a denial of their creation. What Paul is saying is that if the soul’s present residence is to be destroyed, we need not worry because in our Father’s house there are many mansions, and Christ has ascended to prepare them for the arrival of our souls. Or to change the figure, the present body, as Augustine said, is an instrument which the soul uses. It is the latter that is the image and the person. (p. 9-10)

Given then Clark’s view of man as soul, what are we to make of the combination of body and soul? If the soul is the person, what is the soul plus a body? Clark continues in The Biblical Doctrine of Man:

Up to this point emphasis has been put on man’s soul or mind, for surely this is the basic truth about man’s nature. However, man also has a body. An earlier page mentioned some theologians who, in the interest of man’s unity, somewhat made man a compound like NaCl. This, I hold, is not the Biblical view, but of course man does have a body and what the Bible says on the subject must not be ignored. In fact, some theologians, instead of considering man in his present compound state as body and soul, advocate a threefold division. They say that man is three-fold, like H2S04. He is a compound of body, soul, and spirit. The theological terminology for these two views is dichotomy and trichotomy. (p. 33)

The point to notice here [in Genesis 2:7] is that God constructed man out of two elements: the dust of the ground and his own breath. The combination is the nephesh. A parallel illustration may be of help. Suppose, under proper laboratory conditions, I mix some sodium with some chlorine and the mixture becomes salt. Salt is not one of the elements: it is the name of the compound. So also in Genesis. God took some clay, breathed his spirit into it, and the combination was a living soul. In the Old Testament the term soul designates the combination as a whole, not just one of the components. (p. 37)

According to Clark then, in the Old Testament, nephesh (translated as soul or living soul) is the combination of the material and immaterial components; the body and the “soul/spirit.” But it is the immaterial “soul/spirit” that Clark calls the “New Testament usage and the common usage in the present century” of the term soul. That is, “soul” is the immaterial, not the combined material and immaterial of the nephesh. This distinction of two definitions of “soul” helps to explain what otherwise might appear to be a contradiction in Clark’s view.

While Clark says that “God constructed man out of two elements” he had previous described man as just soul. The solution to this apparent contradiction, is not only to understand the difference between the OT and NT use of “soul” but to understand also Clark’s different uses of “man.” When discussing dichotomy “man” refers to the “human” or “human nature,” and when discussing the nature of “man” himself the reference is to “person.” Clear definitions make for clear theology. “Man” is ambiguous. “Human” and “person” are more precise terms.

To summarize then, “man” is a soul/spirit/person. But the Old Testament “man,” which is called soul/nephesh is referring to the combination, the human nature. A human is the combination of a soul and body, but a person can exist apart from the body as a soul.

Review of Confessions by St. Augustine

Confessions by St. Augustine, originally written in Latin in thirteen books from AD 397 – 400, translated by R. S. Pine-Coffin, Penguin Books, 1961, 347 pp.

Surely many reviews of Augustine’s Confessions have been written which well summarize and explain the text. The purpose of this review will be merely to note some important things I found in the volume.

In reading Augustine’s works I’m primarily looking for insight into his theory of knowledge. Evidently, Confessions was written after Augustine’s important epistemological treatise De Magistro, for in the former he notes the latter. Though the present book is not one of his major works on epistemology there are some relevant passages. For one, he writes, “No one can tell me the truth of it except my God, who enlightens my mind and dispels its shadows.” (p. 52) And, he says, “In those days my mind was corrupt. I did not know that if it was to share in the truth, it must be illumined by another light, because the mind itself is not the essence of truth.” (p. 86) And then Augustine continues in quoting John 1:9, “For you are the true Light which enlightens every soul born into the world.” This is in agreement with Gordon Clark’s interpretation of this verse and in agreement with the KJV over most other Bible translations which make “the true Light” rather than “every soul” to be that which is born into the world. Also relevant to epistemology, Augustine writes, “Since we are too weak to discover the truth by reason alone and for this reason need the authority of sacred books, I began to believe that you would never have invested the Bible with such conspicuous authority in every land unless you and intended it to be the means by which we should look for you and believe in you.” (p. 117)

While Augustine places an emphasis on the light of illumination, his theory relies in some part also on the senses. “For the senses of the body are sluggish, because they are the senses of flesh and blood. They are limited by their own nature. They are sufficient for the purposes for which they were made, but they cannot halt the progress of transient things, which pass from their allotted beginning to their allotted end.” (p. 80-81) And, “Step by step, my thoughts moved on from the consideration of material things to the soul, which perceives things through the senses of the body, and then to the soul’s inner power, to which the bodily senses communicate external facts. Beyond this dumb animals cannot go. The next stage is the power of reason, to which facts communicated by the bodily senses are submitted for judgement.” (p. 151)

It seems that Augustine’s theory of knowledge first relies on the senses, but understands them to be limited, and so argues that something else is needed to know God. He writes, “If I am to reach him, it must be through my soul. But I must go beyond the power by which I am joined to my body and by which I fill its frame with life. This is not the power by which I can find my God, for it it were, the horse and the mule, senseless creatures, could find him too, because they have also this same power which gives life to their bodies.” (p. 213) “So I must also go beyond this natural faculty of mine, as I rise by stages towards the God who made me.” (p. 214)

Book X focuses on epistemology and deserves a careful reading and re-reading.

Moving beyond epistemology, we see also in this volume Augustine’s understanding of sin and total depravity. He writes, “For in your sight no man is free from sin, not even a child who has lived only one day on earth.” (p. 27) And he quotes Psalm 50 in saying “But if I was born in sin and guilt was with me already when my mother conceived me, where I ask you Lord, where or when was I, your servant ever innocent?” (p. 28)

Also in Confessions Augustine’s privation theory of evil is found. He writes, “evil is nothing but the removal of the good until finally no good remains.” (p. 63)

There is also much of interest against the Manicheans. Augustine notes, “They claimed that the books of the New Testament had been tampered with by unnamed persons who wishes to impose the Jewish law upon the Christian faith, but they could produce no uncorrupted copies.” (p. 105-106) The same comment today applies to the Muslim’s contention that the Bible has been corrupted. Augustine has a very clear argument against Manichean dualism on pages 173-174 that is too long to quote here, but it is a type of reductio ad absurdum.

Augustine mentions such notables as Aristotle, Ambrose, Terence, Cicero, Manes, Homer, and Anaximenes. The reader will benefit by briefly looking up and reading about any of these unfamiliar to him.

Review of Presbyterians in the South, Volume Three: 1890-1972

Presbyterians in the South, Volume Three: 1890 – 1972, by Ernest Trice Thompson, Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1973, 636 pp.

This book is the third of three volumes of Ernest Trice Thompson’s Presbyterians in the South.

I found this volume to be the worst of the three. Much of the book is tedious to read. Some chapters rely too heavily on statistics to make any enjoyable narrative. And as the book approaches Thompson own time his biases become more visible.

Thompson’s main focus continues to be the possibility of merger or union between the Southern and Northern Presbyterians (or with virtually anyone else who might be willing). He clearly is in favor of union. In this book Thompson’s liberal proclivities come fully out in the open. He notes himself being heavily influenced by Walter Rauschenbusch (1861 – 1918), a key figure in the Social Gospel movement and opponent of Biblical inerrancy. (p. 265) Where Thompson gives his opinion (explicitly or implied) I don’t think I once agreed with him. Whenever I read a mid-twentieth century liberal like Thompson, I wonder what he’d think of the mainline church today. Wouldn’t even Thompson be appalled at the extreme leftist politics of today’s PCUSA? Maybe not; none of the other divergences from the Scriptures in his own time seem to have concerned him.

Anyways, to finish out my three-part series on this book, in the same fashion as the two previous reviews I’ll note ten things I found of interest in this lengthy tome.

1. Thompson notes that Billy Sunday “held a number of successful campaigns in various Southern cities after World War I.” (p. 43)

2. Canvassing the western states and the growth of Presbyterianism there, Thompson notes, “the great tide of population flowing into the Southwest poured into Texas and Oklahoma, and Arkansas was sometimes described as ‘The State which is passed by.’” (p. 49)

3. Thompson is continually opposed to the Westminster Confession. He calls Calvinism “rigid.” (p. 490) He says the Confession has “extreme language” (p. 210) and he once refers to “the legalism of the confession.” (p. 516) And he calls the five points of Calvinism “disputed.” (p. 211)

4. On a personal level I found this following quote interesting: “Mountain missions were pushed more aggressively in North Carolina after the founding of Asheville Presbytery in 1896.” (p. 102) It was that very same year that my current church — Dillingham Presbyterian (then called The Covenanter’s Church) — was founded by the Asheville Presbytery.

5. I’ve long been confused about where Union Seminary (of Virginia, not New York) was located. Now I understand from this book that Union was originally at Hampden-Sydney but later moved to Richmond. (p. 171)

6. I like the quote from R. C. Reed saying that higher criticism originated in Germany as a “pastime of German professors,” who, “had no more reverence for the Bible than for Homer.” (p. 212-213)

7. The highpoint of PCUS missions was in 1926 when they had “more than 500 missionaries in half a dozen foreign lands.” (p. 426)

8. The first women ordained in the PCUS was Dr. Rachel Henderlite in 1965. (p. 479)

9. Perhaps one of the most interesting things is what Thompsons leaves out. In the same year that this book was published the PCA broke off from the PCUS. In just one place is there a reference to the Concerned Presbyterians, the group which led to the PCA. Thompson gives no indication that the conservatives are about to leave the church to form their own.

10. Ok, I only have 9 points. I’ll use this tenth point to ask and answer the question “should you read this three-volume series?” My answer is “probably not.” The whole thing is over 1500 pages of fairly dense text. There is a lot to learn, but one could easily read a half dozen other volumes in this time in takes to read this series.

For the previous review in this series see here.

Review of Faith & Reason by Ronald H. Nash

Faith & Reason, Searching for a Rational Faith by Ronald H. Nash, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988, 285 pp.

This seems to be the book wherein the philosophical and apologetical views of Ronald H. Nash are most thoroughly exhibited. In other volumes of his that I’ve read (The Concept of God, The Gospel and the Greeks, The Light of the Mind, and Life’s Ultimate Questions) Nash shows himself a very capable philosopher in explaining the history of philosophy and ideas. Here in Faith & Reason he does this as well, but also provides more insight into his own thinking than perhaps anywhere else.

I was somewhat surprised throughout the volume to see Nash’s general alignment with the school of thinkers known as “Reformed Epistemologists.” (The school of Plantinga, Alston, Wolterstorff, etc.) This school, I believe, can be thought of more as a school of “philosophy” than of “theology.” That is, they, and Nash with them, rarely argue from the Scriptures or provide any Biblical exegesis. Reformed Epistemologists don’t seem to be seeking truth per se but are primary concerned with whether beliefs are “rational.” I’ve never found much distinctly “Reformed” in Reformed Epistemology. Nash’s scripture-lacking approach lends him to seek to “prove” God’s existence rather than assume it, and to deny a young-earth creation. (p. 55)

Nash’s critique of Gordon Clark’s “deductive presuppositionalism” is that Clark “uses the word knowledge in a very idiosyncratic way.” (p. 61) This is really just saying he doesn’t like Clark’s view; Nash does not provide an argument against it. Nash’s contention is that “one major difficulty with Clark’s theory is its obviously incompatibility with all kinds of human knowledge not attainable in the way he describes.” (p. 61) This, of course, is not an argument; it is merely begging the question.

Nash calls his own view “inductive presuppositionalism” though he never seems to give any reason as to why it is presuppositional. You might call his view a cumulative case apologetic or a stacked leaky bucket approach. While admitting that the proofs for the existence of God have problems, he yet believes that they are valuable. His theory relies on the cumulative “probability” of these arguments. Nash, however, never once puts a single number to an individual argument’s probability nor does he put a number to the cumulative probability of all of the arguments. He doesn’t even attempt a qualitative analysis that might allow one to conclude that the existence of God is more probable than improbable. And, as the proofs have admitted problems, Nash changes the nature of “proof” to be “subjective” or “person-relative” (p. 109) so that their value is found not in whether they are sound but in whether they convince some people. I contend that this is, in fact, “idiosyncratic.”

Nash quotes “atheologian Anthony Flew” arguing against the view he takes in saying, “A failed proof cannot serve as a pointer to anything, save perhaps to the weaknesses of those who have accepted it. Nor, for the same reason can it be put to work along with other throw outs as part of the accumulation of evidences. If one leaky bucket will not hold water that is no reason to think that ten can.” (p.117) To address Flew’s argument Nash quotes Richard Swinburne saying, “if you jam ten leaky buckets together in such a way that holes in the bottom of each bucket are squashed close to solid parts of the bottom of neighboring buckets, you will get a container that holds water.” (p. 118) But what is there to not think that the entire bottoms are missing out of each of the buckets? Stack as many bottomless buckets as you wish and not an ounce of water will cease to fall right through.

The book then has chapters on each of Nash’s leaky buckets including the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, religious experience, and “a potpourri of other arguments.” In each of these Nash admits the leaks. Maybe he needs a bucket that does not leak? Maybe he needs to assume the truth of the Scriptures.

Review of Christian Philosophy Made Easy by W. Gary Crampton and Richard Bacon

Christian Philosophy Made Easy, The Basics for Developing a Christian Worldview by W. Gary Crampton and Richard Bacon, Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2010, 106 pp.

The second half of this volume reprints essays of Gordon H. Clark, John W. Robbins, and W. Gary Crampton found elsewhere. Thus it is the first half of the book that should receive the most attention. While much of the philosophy here merely reflects and summarizes the views published by the Trinity Foundation in previous places, I was benefitted by a number of insightful points of the authors.

Along with Gordon Clark (Three Types of Religious Philosophy, p. 131) and John Robbins (in many places), Crampton and Bacon argue that “all inductive arguments are formal logical fallacies.” (p. 12)

I found particularly interesting the comment on page 14 that 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 gives a Biblical refutation of empiricism and rationalism while supporting revelation. The authors comment on the verse: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard [empiricism], nor have entered into the heart [mind] of man [pure rationalism] the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit.” I had seen this passage as anti-empirical, but had failed to note the anti-rationalism part. I’m thankful to the authors for pointing out both the anti-empiricism and anti-rationalism in the passage. And probably no Biblical passage more aptly summarizes the difference between secular and Christian epistemology with the latter explained with the phrase “God has revealed them to us through His Spirit.”

Regarding a definition of knowledge, Crampton and Bacon have it that knowledge is “justified true belief.” (p. 18)

They also have a good paragraph on the coherence theory of knowledge over the correspondence theory of knowledge. They write, “Christian philosophy holds to the coherence theory of truth, rather than the correspondence theory of truth. That is, the coherence theory of truth avers that whenever a person knows the truth, he knows that which exists in the mind of God, he does not have a mere representation of the truth (as in the correspondence theory of truth); a representation of the truth is not the truth.” (p. 18)

There is an argument, however, that seems Van Tillian to me and quite incomplete. They write, “Only Christian philosophy can adequately answer ‘the one and the many’ question. And the answer lies in the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.” (p. 19) They explain, “God is ‘one’ in essence yet three (‘many’) distinct persons. He is the eternal ‘One and Many.’ As sovereign God, He created all of the many things in the universe, and He gives them a unified structure. The universe then, is the temporal ‘one and many.’ Thus, the particular things of the universe act in accordance with the universe dictates of God (Psalm 147:15-18). There is order in the universe because there is a sovereign God who created a providentially controls it.” But, I don’t understand how this is supposed to solve the problem of the one and the many. The authors go on to Augustine who seems to say something slightly different than they just contended. “Augustine asserted that the one and many problem finds its solution in that the particulars of this world have their archetypes in the mind of God. Augustine called these archetypes the ‘eternal reasons.’ God’s eternal reasons are the architectural plans from which he created the world. The world is patterned after the divine propositions of the triune God. Therefore, there is unity amongst diversity.” (p. 20) I don’t see how the “therefore” follows. Is the solution in the Trinity as original contended, or in the relation between archetypes and the created world? And what exactly is the solution? Richard Bacon is my very intelligent friend, and so maybe he can help me out here. Certainly their answer in this book is not “made easy” enough for me.

One more point I’d like to note is that I fully agree with the authors when they contend that Clark’s God and Evil: The Problem Solved is “the best book ever written on the subject of theodicy.” (p. 34n)

Review of The Captives of Abb’s Valley, Revised and Annotated

The Captives of Abb’s Valley, by The Reverend James Moore Brown, D. D., Revised and Annotated by Dennis Eldon Bills, New Martinsville, WV: ReformingWV Publications, 1854, 2019, 110 pp.

This is the true story of a pioneer family in southwestern Virginia who is raided by Shawnees Indians. The first raid sees the capture of a son, the second raid the death of the father and others and the capture of all of the family then present. The story then follows the plight of the captives (and the pursuit of them by other family members) across the Ohio river, to Detroit, and into Canada. Throughout the volume Brown emphasizes the trust that each of the captives had in the Lord. The book concludes with biographical details of the survivors and their descendants, many of whom were members or ministers in the Presbyterian church.

As the revision editor Dennis Bills tells us, The Captives of Abb’s Valley is “one of the few books written by a nineteenth-century Presbyterian minister from West Virginia.” The author, James Moore Brown, was a descendant of one who survived the events recorded in the book. The reader is benefitted by the addition of a historical sketch of him. Not having read the original but only the present revised edition I can at least say that I found this version eminently readable while I suspect the original might have had more challenging period language.

I was fortunate to read a review copy of Bills’s revision of this book which is expected to be available March 1, 2019.

GHC Review 33: The Pastoral Epistles

[image error]

The Pastoral Epistles, by Gordon H. Clark, Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1983, 294 pp.

This is Clark’s commentary on 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus with the addition of appendices on “The Ordination of Women” and “The Presbyterian Doctrine.” It is lengthier than his other commentaries, but it does cover three Biblical books.

For his commentary Clark regularly references a number of other commentators, some of whom are less than orthodox or even completely unbelievers. He challenges these critics where need be. But he also notes true difficulties in the text and translation; in at least one place (p. 111) even admitting his own ignorance to understanding. As the pastoral epistles clearly give direction on the ordination of elders (as men) the addition of the appendix critiquing women’s ordination is well-added in this volume.

Some of which caught my attention in reading this volume are the following:

1. “One of the strangest doctrines is that doctrine is not of much importance.” (p. 7)

2. “But Timothy commands the Ephesians to love. Love them is something volitional, not emotional.” (p. 12)

3. “Practice is always the practice of a theory.” (p. 17)

4. Clark approves of Christ as “auto theos.” (p. 36)

5. “the idea of a descent into hell is, I assert, a misunderstanding of what Peter says.” (p. 68)

6. “As a college professor I think I shocked some younger colleagues by remarking that any professor who has to prepare for his classes is incompetent.” (p. 99)

7. Relevant to the discussion of Clark’s views on alcohol that I touched on in The Presbyterian Philosopher, here Clark notes, “But if our pollution [of the water] goes too far we may have to drink a little wine for our stomach’s sake. Since I don’t like the taste at all, I shall choose fruit juices.” (p. 103)

8. “Though the phrase ‘will of God sometimes refers to a precept, it would preclude the common confusion if we agree to denote the eternal decree as God’s will, and distinguish his commands as precepts. This accords with Romans 9:19: No one has ever resisted his will, but we all violate his precepts.” (p. 125)

9. “ordination is not a recognition of gifts previously possessed. This gift or charisma is the authority preach the gospel.” (p. 130)

10. “We are justified by faith alone; but we are regenerated without any previous faith or works; we are sanctified by faith and works; and we shall be glorified by neither.” (p. 133)

11. “Some of the writers speak as if the doctrine of inerrancy was the invention of Warfield and the old Princeton theologians. Such assertions derive from incompetent scholarship. … Quenstedt, a major Lutheran theologian of the seventeenth century, two hundred years before Warfield, wrote, ‘The canonical Holy Scriptures in the original text are the infallible truth and are free from every error.’” (p. 182)

12. “For myself, in my various travels, I have never discovered any dead orthodoxy.” (p. 210)

For the previous review in this series see here.

Review of Presbyterians in the South, Volume 2: 1861-1890

Presbyterians in the South, Volume Two: 1861 – 1890, by Ernest Trice Thompson, Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1973, 490 pp.

This book is the second of three volumes of Ernest Trice Thompson’s Presbyterians in the South.

That which most sticks out in this volume is Thompson’s desire for mergers; particularly merger between the Southern and Northern branches of Presbyterians. It seems this was a large reason for his writing this history of the church. That is, he was chronicling the Southern Church as a soon to be past entity once swallowed up in the National scene. Thompsons frequently writes about the reasons in each period for the failure of merger attempts.

At times it seems Thompson has antipathy for the very Southern Church of which he spent so many years researching and writing. Or, at least he has antipathy for many of the conservatives there while sympathizing with others like the theistic evolutionist Dr. Woodrow in the controversy over his teaching at Columbia Seminary.

Despite some evident and inevitable biases, I must contend though that Thompson generally does a solid job with the history. There is much to learn from this volume.

As I did in the review of Vol. 1, I’ll list ten important notes from this volume.

1. Thompson notes the well-accepted Southern Presbyterian doctrine of “the spirituality of the church.” This, he notes, is the doctrine that “The provinces of Church and State are perfectly distinct, and the one has no right to usurp the jurisdiction of the other.” I found in this history that some thinkers commonly abused this doctrine in their advocacy of slavery by saying the church is not to speak on it, but leave it purely to the state.

2. Thompson discusses the revivals in the ranks of Confederate soldiers and their later taking the Gospel back to their homes. He notes, in fact, “Only after the Civil War can the South be regarded as the more religious portion of the nation.” (p. 51) This quote might be surprising to some Southern apologists.

3. A quote from Rev. A. D. Pollock of Culpepper Virginia well-described the destruction of warfare. Thompson quotes him saying, “The War passed and repassed over the heart of the country, back and forth, during four years or more, like a huge and terrible saw over a log.” (p. 92)

4. Thompson notes that after the war, “The white churches in the South did not expel their Negro constituency; rather, the Negroes, now freedmen, deserted the white churches in masse.” (p. 98) This was the case often among Presbyterians as they did not give equal standing to the blacks in their churches. And their attempts to support black presbytery were half-hearted as best. Few churches made any donations to black church plants.

5. An attempt was made by the Southern Church to merge with the Associate Reformed Church but this ultimately failed in the latter synod by a 20-12 vote. (p. 117)

6. Perhaps my favorite character of the era was Rev. Allen Wright, a Choctaw Christian who learned English, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, became a Presbyterian minister, and was later governor of his nation. And lastly he was friends with President Fillmore.

7. Chapter XVI on “Jure Divino Presbyterianism” is worth a read in its own right.

8. Thompson notes that the “Most successful of all Presbyterian journals in this period was the Christian Observer.” (p. 438) My friend and fellow Presbyterian minister Bob Williams runs this still-existing publication today. It would be a fascinating study if somewhat wrote a detailed history of its over 200 years of existence.

9. Thompson devotes a considerable number of pages to controversy over Dr. James Woodrow’s views. My favorite part of this is that when the various synods made motions condemning or supporting Woodrow, the Synod of Virginia merely voiced approval of their Union Seminary rather than critique Columbia Seminary where Woodrow taught.

10. At the end of this volume Thompson contends that with the passing of leaders like Thornwell, Dabney, and Girardeau, the Southern Presbyterian church produced essentially no new ideas or literature for a couple of generations. There was a general conservatism.

For the previous review in this series see here.