What do you think?
Rate this book
What Do Presbyterians Believe?
Book by Clark, Gordon H.
303 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1965
1 person is currently reading
75 people want to read
About the author
Gordon H. Clark
94 books54 followersGordon Haddon Clark was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian. He was a primary advocate for the idea of presuppositional apologetics and was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years. He was an expert in pre-Socratic and ancient philosophy and was noted for his rigor in defending propositional revelation against all forms of empiricism and rationalism, in arguing that all truth is propositional and in applying the laws of logic. His system of philosophy is sometimes called Scripturalism.
The Trinty Foundation continues to publish his writings.
The Trinty Foundation continues to publish his writings.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
April 13, 2012
While I am not a Presbyterian, and therefore do not believe all that is contained in the Westminster Confession, this book is an excellent layman-level commentary on the WCF from one of the most brilliant minds since the Protestant Reformation.
April 19, 2017
This book has a chapter of commentary on each of the 33 chapters of Westminster Confession of Faith, explaining it and also raising questions for consideration (and sometimes answering those questions). The questions are useful for personal or group study. Bible references abound. Clark defends the Confession, and calls into question only a few minor phrasings. He's an ardent Calvinist, stating that "Calvinism proportions its emphases to those of the Bible." The book is a product of its time, frequently mentioning political and social issues of 1920s - 1950s.
Notes
God and the Holy Trinity
That God is without passions probably refers to His not having emotional ups and downs. His love is an unchangeable volition, not an emotion.
Providence
"God's relation to sin isn't that of bare permission … permission in the case of the Almighty has no specific meaning. … God bounds, orders, and governs all sinful actions for His own holy purposes. How could it be otherwise?"
Fall of Man, Sin
There's no reason to distinguish between God's permission and will. Calvin said, "But what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it is his will?"
God's Covenant with Man
Adam's perfect obedience would've been rewarded with eternal life for himself and posterity, because he was representative head. In the same way, his disobedience doomed posterity to spiritual death.
Christ the Mediator
1 Pet 3:18-22 speaks of preaching gospel, not releasing spirits. Spirits seem to be unsaved, because gospel was preached to them. Passage doesn't say Jesus preached to anyone while entombed. Passage refers to spirit of Christ, as He dwelt in Noah, preaching to the disobedient in Noah's day. This interpretation supported by 1 Pet 1:11.
Free Will
Man's conduct isn't determined by inanimate forces or physical conditions. This doesn't mean man is free from God's decree.
God controls the wills of men (Ex 34:24; 2 Sam 17:14; 2 Chron 10:15; Philip 2:12-13).
"Man does not have free will in the sense of the power of contrary choice" because sin binds the will of the unregenerate (Rom 3:11, 8:7).
"The question is not whether man has a will or not; the question is whether the will man has and the choices he makes are the results of prior conditions, such as early training, the power of sin, and God's grace. Undoubtedly we will and choose, but it is God who works in us to will according to His good pleasure." See Phil 2:13.
Man's responsibility isn't based on his free will; it's based on knowledge of right and wrong (John 15:22; Luke 12:47-48; Dan 5:22).
Bible never mentions free will. (Free-will offerings, those above requirements of law, are not relevant.)
Bible teaches that man has a will, makes choices, is responsible.
Justification
"Even faith itself is not the basis of justification. The ground or basis of justification is the object in which the faith rests; that is, Christ and His righteousness." Rom 3:21-26, 5:12-19.
Perseverance of Saints
Verses: Phil 1:6; John 10:28-29; 1 Pet 1:5; 2 Tim 2:19; Jer 31:3, 32:40; 1 John 2:19; Isa 55:11.
Assurance and Grace
We may obtain assurance of salvation if we love the brethren, are humble (1 John 2:3, 3:13, 19, 24, 5:13; 1 Cor 15:9-10; Gal 6:14), teach transgressors the way of the Lord (Ps 51:12-13; 2 Pet 1:5).
Divorce and Marriage
Polygamy was prohibited in OT by marriage institution being 1 man and 1 woman (Adam & Eve) and Deut 17:17.
Baptism
Reasons for infant baptism: covenant has always included children of believers (Gen 9:1, 9, 13, 12:2-3, 17:7; Ex 20:5; Deut 29:10-11; Acts 2:38-39), and sign of covenant (circumcision) was given to infants in OT. OT church and NT church are same church (Gal 3:8, 29; Rom 11:18-24; Eph 2:11-22), and since children received sign in OT, it would require an explicit command to deny it in NT. Baptism replaces circumcision (Col 2:11-12).
Last Judgment
WCF advocates no millennial views. Reformers were generally opposed to premil.
Arguments against amil: Bible mentions 1000 yr period in 4 consecutive verses, and passage refers to earth, not heaven. Idea of millennium is found in Rev 20, Ps 72:8, Is 2:4.
Reasons to prefer premil: If Rev has any place for Christ's return, it's Rev 19, and that's before 1000 yrs of Rev 20.
Notes
God and the Holy Trinity
That God is without passions probably refers to His not having emotional ups and downs. His love is an unchangeable volition, not an emotion.
Providence
"God's relation to sin isn't that of bare permission … permission in the case of the Almighty has no specific meaning. … God bounds, orders, and governs all sinful actions for His own holy purposes. How could it be otherwise?"
Fall of Man, Sin
There's no reason to distinguish between God's permission and will. Calvin said, "But what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it is his will?"
God's Covenant with Man
Adam's perfect obedience would've been rewarded with eternal life for himself and posterity, because he was representative head. In the same way, his disobedience doomed posterity to spiritual death.
Christ the Mediator
1 Pet 3:18-22 speaks of preaching gospel, not releasing spirits. Spirits seem to be unsaved, because gospel was preached to them. Passage doesn't say Jesus preached to anyone while entombed. Passage refers to spirit of Christ, as He dwelt in Noah, preaching to the disobedient in Noah's day. This interpretation supported by 1 Pet 1:11.
Free Will
Man's conduct isn't determined by inanimate forces or physical conditions. This doesn't mean man is free from God's decree.
God controls the wills of men (Ex 34:24; 2 Sam 17:14; 2 Chron 10:15; Philip 2:12-13).
"Man does not have free will in the sense of the power of contrary choice" because sin binds the will of the unregenerate (Rom 3:11, 8:7).
"The question is not whether man has a will or not; the question is whether the will man has and the choices he makes are the results of prior conditions, such as early training, the power of sin, and God's grace. Undoubtedly we will and choose, but it is God who works in us to will according to His good pleasure." See Phil 2:13.
Man's responsibility isn't based on his free will; it's based on knowledge of right and wrong (John 15:22; Luke 12:47-48; Dan 5:22).
Bible never mentions free will. (Free-will offerings, those above requirements of law, are not relevant.)
Bible teaches that man has a will, makes choices, is responsible.
Justification
"Even faith itself is not the basis of justification. The ground or basis of justification is the object in which the faith rests; that is, Christ and His righteousness." Rom 3:21-26, 5:12-19.
Perseverance of Saints
Verses: Phil 1:6; John 10:28-29; 1 Pet 1:5; 2 Tim 2:19; Jer 31:3, 32:40; 1 John 2:19; Isa 55:11.
Assurance and Grace
We may obtain assurance of salvation if we love the brethren, are humble (1 John 2:3, 3:13, 19, 24, 5:13; 1 Cor 15:9-10; Gal 6:14), teach transgressors the way of the Lord (Ps 51:12-13; 2 Pet 1:5).
Divorce and Marriage
Polygamy was prohibited in OT by marriage institution being 1 man and 1 woman (Adam & Eve) and Deut 17:17.
Baptism
Reasons for infant baptism: covenant has always included children of believers (Gen 9:1, 9, 13, 12:2-3, 17:7; Ex 20:5; Deut 29:10-11; Acts 2:38-39), and sign of covenant (circumcision) was given to infants in OT. OT church and NT church are same church (Gal 3:8, 29; Rom 11:18-24; Eph 2:11-22), and since children received sign in OT, it would require an explicit command to deny it in NT. Baptism replaces circumcision (Col 2:11-12).
Last Judgment
WCF advocates no millennial views. Reformers were generally opposed to premil.
Arguments against amil: Bible mentions 1000 yr period in 4 consecutive verses, and passage refers to earth, not heaven. Idea of millennium is found in Rev 20, Ps 72:8, Is 2:4.
Reasons to prefer premil: If Rev has any place for Christ's return, it's Rev 19, and that's before 1000 yrs of Rev 20.
August 30, 2018
There was little with which I disagreed in Dr. Clark's work here; and what disagreements I had were insufficient to give him anything less than five stars.
Being a Particular Baptist myself, holding to similar views on Covenant Theology, it was quite a joy to both read and listen to this commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith; seeing as to how it doesn't differ all that much from my own — the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If not for the levity in the chapter on Baptism, I might would have been less charitable. But then again, Dr. Clark is a Theological giant to whom any criticism given must be well thought out.
This book was systematically written, doctrinal, and its given anecdotes, apropos. Dr. Clark stayed true to the confession, in my estimation; and much of what he said was also consistent with the 1689 LBCF.
My only criticism is that I wish Dr. Clark would have spent more time on chapter XIX of the WCF; with further elaboration on the Law of God on the heart of man. Though the confession doesn't use the specific term "Natural Law" in this particular chapter (though it does in XX), it does infer from Rom. 2:14 God's Moral Law — a passage John Calvin uses (Inst. 2.2.22) in rendering another definition of the term "Natural Law;" a definition contrary to that of Aristotle and later, Aquinas.
Being that both the Westminster Divines and LBCF signatories interpreted Rom. 2:14 as the Law of God written on the heart, Clark could have joined the ranks of Augustine and Calvin in challenging further usage of the term, "Natural Law" in its original appeal to Natural Theology — a definition held to by Roman Catholic Scholastic, Thomas Aquinas, and many Presbyterians today (e.g. Van Drunen, et al.); See also the PCA Book of Church Order (3-1) which states, "The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events."
Fortunately, Clark did at least use the same exact language as Calvin and the WCF with reference to the Law of God on man's heart. From an epistemological perspective, it would have been immensely helpful had he challenged the former definition of "Natural Law." I say this because any nascent reader of the WCF/LBCF who sees the term "Natural Law" may end up confused, especially if the working definition they have is Aristotelian (Natural Theology) over against Augustinian (General Equity; Law of God on the heart of man). Clark affirmed the latter in his commentary, but failed to qualify the confession's use of the term, as well as Calvin's.
Apart from that, I highly recommend this book to anyone looking to study the Westminster Confession of faith without going to in-depth. Dr. Clark is accessible and doesn't use lofty language or sophistry to keep the reader's interest. He is blunt, precise, and above all, logical.
Being a Particular Baptist myself, holding to similar views on Covenant Theology, it was quite a joy to both read and listen to this commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith; seeing as to how it doesn't differ all that much from my own — the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If not for the levity in the chapter on Baptism, I might would have been less charitable. But then again, Dr. Clark is a Theological giant to whom any criticism given must be well thought out.
This book was systematically written, doctrinal, and its given anecdotes, apropos. Dr. Clark stayed true to the confession, in my estimation; and much of what he said was also consistent with the 1689 LBCF.
My only criticism is that I wish Dr. Clark would have spent more time on chapter XIX of the WCF; with further elaboration on the Law of God on the heart of man. Though the confession doesn't use the specific term "Natural Law" in this particular chapter (though it does in XX), it does infer from Rom. 2:14 God's Moral Law — a passage John Calvin uses (Inst. 2.2.22) in rendering another definition of the term "Natural Law;" a definition contrary to that of Aristotle and later, Aquinas.
Being that both the Westminster Divines and LBCF signatories interpreted Rom. 2:14 as the Law of God written on the heart, Clark could have joined the ranks of Augustine and Calvin in challenging further usage of the term, "Natural Law" in its original appeal to Natural Theology — a definition held to by Roman Catholic Scholastic, Thomas Aquinas, and many Presbyterians today (e.g. Van Drunen, et al.); See also the PCA Book of Church Order (3-1) which states, "The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events."
Fortunately, Clark did at least use the same exact language as Calvin and the WCF with reference to the Law of God on man's heart. From an epistemological perspective, it would have been immensely helpful had he challenged the former definition of "Natural Law." I say this because any nascent reader of the WCF/LBCF who sees the term "Natural Law" may end up confused, especially if the working definition they have is Aristotelian (Natural Theology) over against Augustinian (General Equity; Law of God on the heart of man). Clark affirmed the latter in his commentary, but failed to qualify the confession's use of the term, as well as Calvin's.
Apart from that, I highly recommend this book to anyone looking to study the Westminster Confession of faith without going to in-depth. Dr. Clark is accessible and doesn't use lofty language or sophistry to keep the reader's interest. He is blunt, precise, and above all, logical.
August 22, 2012
This book really warmed my heart, yet I didn't think it would. It has few of the distinctives that would later mark the worst aspects of the Trinity Foundation. I listened to the mp3 version of the book, courtesy of the Trinity Foundation (yes, I note the irony).
Clark is exceptionally strong on soteriology, ecclesiology, and ethics. He is somewhat weaker on the doctrines of God and Christ.
This book marks the best of old-timey American Reformed religion.
Clark is exceptionally strong on soteriology, ecclesiology, and ethics. He is somewhat weaker on the doctrines of God and Christ.
This book marks the best of old-timey American Reformed religion.
May 23, 2008
Really good commentary on the Westminster Confession. Very good book if you are looking for a Bible study on the doctrines of the Christian faith as it provides alot of support text.
August 1, 2024
Clark's Philosophical analysis of the Confession is helpful. He doesn't try to talk over your head and is straight forward in his presentation. His firm argumentation for the Confession and examples from his time made it worth thinking through.
May 12, 2023
Pretty good. Clark is always an interesting read.
May 4, 2024
I'm not sure Gordon Clark ever read a commentary on the Westminster Confession before the 20th century.
February 11, 2026
Good. This is a somewhat loose commentary on the Westminster Confession, as Clark is rather selective about what parts of the Confession he remarks on. Nevertheless, the book is quite enjoyable and surprisingly spicy, as Clark will just start to roast people on occasion. Overall, Clark is writing against the liberalism that was taking over what is now the PCUSA in the middle of the 20th century. The book reminds me in many ways of Machen's Christianity and Liberalism. Not quite as good as that, but also much more readable than Machen.
March 7, 2010
Muito bom!
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews