What do you think?
Rate this book
Three Types of Religious Philosophy
Book by Clark, Gordon H.
170 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1989
About the author
Gordon H. Clark
94 books55 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 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 11, 2013
Excelente!
February 25, 2016
This is a helpful evaluation of three basic religious philosophies (categorized by their ultimate authority/source of knowledge): Rationalism (which starts with logic), Empiricism (which starts with sensation), and Dogmatism (which starts with God's word/special revelation). Clark is certainly a philosopher and guides the reader through the rise and fall of the first two philosophies and the failure of the non-philosophy of Irrationalism. He then describes and defends Christian Dogmatism, the system of religious philosophy that begins with the first principle that the Bible is the word of God. I wouldn't describe myself as a "Clarkian," but thus far I find his writings beneficial.
November 25, 2019
I'm a Van Tillian presuppositionalist, so while I disagree with Clark's presuppositionalism [AKA Dogmatic or Axiomatic or Rational or Deductive Presuppositionalism], there are nevertheless some useful nuggets I can glean from his works and employ them in my apologetics. Anyone reading Clark's books should also read the online critiques of Clarkian Scripturalism by a person who uses the pseudonym "Aquascum". I don't know who Aquascum is, but since his website is hosted by well known Christian apologist James N. Anderson, it's reasonable to suspect that it might be Anderson himself. See, for example, Aquascum's paper, "A Response to Vincent Cheung". See also Greg Bahnsen's critiques of Clarkianism (both written and audio/visual materials).
Reading the book, I would agree that non-Christians, on their non-Christian ground(s), would have a difficult or impossible time justifying their empiricism and/or rationalism. Clark correctly affirms the propriety of rational thought while rejecting rationalISM. Unfortunately he further argues that empirical investigation is entirely useless even on Christian grounds. Van Til's approach that grounds the rational and the empirical in the Christian worldview does a better job at making sense of human experience in general, as well as Christian theology and practice.
The ending of the book was disappointing. He answers the question of how one determines which religious/sacred book to choose by appealing to predestination. As a Calvinist, I believe in a high and strong view of predestination, but Clark conflates the *cause(s)* OF belief with the *reason(s)* FOR belief. Yes, the ultimately reason why anyone becomes a Christian is because of God's efficacious grace that inexorably brings about their belief in the truth of Christianity. But that doesn't answer the question posed. On what grounds ought people to believe the Bible and Christian theology as opposed to some other religious book or belief system? Predestination doesn't leave humans as unthinking robots. We normally have reasons for believing what we do, including our Christian beliefs. Providing reasons is part of what apologetics is supposed to be about. Van Til's answer to the question is better and more Biblical than Clark's. I could say more, but other and more capable apologists have exposed the good and the bad in Clark's works.
Reading the book, I would agree that non-Christians, on their non-Christian ground(s), would have a difficult or impossible time justifying their empiricism and/or rationalism. Clark correctly affirms the propriety of rational thought while rejecting rationalISM. Unfortunately he further argues that empirical investigation is entirely useless even on Christian grounds. Van Til's approach that grounds the rational and the empirical in the Christian worldview does a better job at making sense of human experience in general, as well as Christian theology and practice.
The ending of the book was disappointing. He answers the question of how one determines which religious/sacred book to choose by appealing to predestination. As a Calvinist, I believe in a high and strong view of predestination, but Clark conflates the *cause(s)* OF belief with the *reason(s)* FOR belief. Yes, the ultimately reason why anyone becomes a Christian is because of God's efficacious grace that inexorably brings about their belief in the truth of Christianity. But that doesn't answer the question posed. On what grounds ought people to believe the Bible and Christian theology as opposed to some other religious book or belief system? Predestination doesn't leave humans as unthinking robots. We normally have reasons for believing what we do, including our Christian beliefs. Providing reasons is part of what apologetics is supposed to be about. Van Til's answer to the question is better and more Biblical than Clark's. I could say more, but other and more capable apologists have exposed the good and the bad in Clark's works.
July 17, 2024
A FAMED CALVINIST PHILOSOPHER/APOLOGIST CRITIQUES OTHER PHILOSOPHIES
Gordon Haddon Clark (1902-1985) was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian, who was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years. He wrote many books, such as 'A Christian View of Men and Things,' 'Thales to Dewey, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy,' 'Religion, Reason and Revelation,' 'God and Evil: The Problem Solved,' 'God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics,' etc.
He argues early in the book, "finite as I am, I have in my mind something that is eternal. Logic never began and will never end. Mathematics and morality likewise. Such eternal and immutable truths cannot be abstracted from any mutable matrix... Either the truths themselves are God and God is truth; or if there be something superior to truth, then this higher being is God. In either case it is proved that God exists." (Pg. 32)
He asserts, "an impersonal God cannot be a God at all. God must be good, and goodness exists only in persons." (Pg. 90) Later, he argues that "To know God, we do not pass from an unreal concept abstracted from sensory experience to a different reality. We know God directly, for in him we live and move and have our being." (Pg. 123)
He criticizes traditional "evidentialist" apologetics: "It is impossible by historical methods to prove beyond all doubt that Jesus was crucified. Even if the crucifixion be probable... empirical history would never prove that his death was a propitiatory sacrifice. And without this latter belief the former cannot save." (Pg. 100) He critiques John Warwick Montgomery by asking, "How can Dr. Montgomery convince a dogmatist of archaeology if he does not accept the first principle of empiricism?... Dr. Montgomery is equally unable to provide any evidence for his own first principle... what he calls evidence is evidence only on his presuppositions as to what the nature of evidence is." (Pg. 132-133)
This book is a substantial aid to students of Clark's philosophy and approach to apologetics.
Gordon Haddon Clark (1902-1985) was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian, who was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years. He wrote many books, such as 'A Christian View of Men and Things,' 'Thales to Dewey, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy,' 'Religion, Reason and Revelation,' 'God and Evil: The Problem Solved,' 'God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics,' etc.
He argues early in the book, "finite as I am, I have in my mind something that is eternal. Logic never began and will never end. Mathematics and morality likewise. Such eternal and immutable truths cannot be abstracted from any mutable matrix... Either the truths themselves are God and God is truth; or if there be something superior to truth, then this higher being is God. In either case it is proved that God exists." (Pg. 32)
He asserts, "an impersonal God cannot be a God at all. God must be good, and goodness exists only in persons." (Pg. 90) Later, he argues that "To know God, we do not pass from an unreal concept abstracted from sensory experience to a different reality. We know God directly, for in him we live and move and have our being." (Pg. 123)
He criticizes traditional "evidentialist" apologetics: "It is impossible by historical methods to prove beyond all doubt that Jesus was crucified. Even if the crucifixion be probable... empirical history would never prove that his death was a propitiatory sacrifice. And without this latter belief the former cannot save." (Pg. 100) He critiques John Warwick Montgomery by asking, "How can Dr. Montgomery convince a dogmatist of archaeology if he does not accept the first principle of empiricism?... Dr. Montgomery is equally unable to provide any evidence for his own first principle... what he calls evidence is evidence only on his presuppositions as to what the nature of evidence is." (Pg. 132-133)
This book is a substantial aid to students of Clark's philosophy and approach to apologetics.
June 30, 2025
Another knockout book by Clark. He speaks with refreshing clarity - for example, a favorite line: “The illustration is striking, but, like all illustrations, misleading." My only issue with the book is after thoroughly bashing empiricism for over half of the book, I haven't quite pinned down his critique of Rationalism. Dogmatism is thoroughly defined and defended, but (and this is probably my misreading), rationalism was left, for the most part, intact. Still, Clark outshines 99% of what could be called "Christian philosophy" in the 20th century. To get the full scope of Clark’s vision, one should read this in tandem with “An Introduction to Christian Philosophy.” The latter work gives a more positive vision of Dogmatism and is less concerned with critique.
THANK YOU to the Trinity Foundation for preserving and making available these invaluable works of scholarship.
THANK YOU to the Trinity Foundation for preserving and making available these invaluable works of scholarship.
November 1, 2015
Gordon Clark compares 3 systems of Epistomology with Dogmatism: Rationalism, Empiricism, and Irrationalism, demonstrating that ultimately there are only two worldviews Dogmatism or nihilism.
"If now one appreciates the present status of the argument, the dogmatic answer to the question can easily be given. The present status of the argument is the choice between dogmatism and nihilism" (pg. 138)
"What now is the question to be answered? It is not, Shall we choose? Or, is it permissible to choose? We must choose since we are alive we have chosen- either a dogmatic principle or empirical insanity" (pg. 138)
Clark defines Dogmatism as follows in contrast to strawman arguments that it is fideism, "the term dogmatism therefore designates that method of procedure which tries to systematize beliefs concerning God, science, immorality, etc. on the basis of information divinely revealed in the sacred writings" (pg. 8).
God is the standard of truth, so we must start with Scripture in apologetics,
"But God is truth. Therefore it is impossible to annihilate God in thought. He exists so truly that he cannot even be conceived not to exist" (pg. 39)
In the process of making a reductio ad absurdum of the opposing epistomologies of rationalism, empiricism, and irrationalism Clark also critiques faulty apologetic methodologies that reject scripture as their ultimate authority and lean more upon reason or the senses as their starting point to prove the existence of God with numerous examples such as the shroud of turin and Descrates' Cognito Ergo sum.
I particularly enjoyed when Clark implicitly used the doctrine of divine simplicity to argue against evidential apologetics since it makes God composed of parts, thereby denying God's immutability which undercuts God being the ultimate standard for truth, morality, logic, etc. because you cannot argue from an analogy to God's existence.
"God's essence and God's existence are identical; hence existence for God means something different from existence for man...therefore existence means one thing for God but a completely different thing for man. Thomas still calls this analogy, but it is an analogy without any univocal basis. This is another reason why his proof of God's existence is invalid. His premises speak of the existence of moving things, hot things, etc., but the conclusion speaks of God's existence. However, for an argument to be valid the concepts in the conclusion must appear in the premises" (pg. 63)
Aquinas tries to argue from composite entities, from creation, to the existence of the Creator which denies both the Creator-creature distinction as well as the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). You cannot argue from natural revelation to God's existence, you must begin with Special Revelation, Scripture as your starting point to begin with in your apologetic methodology.
"If now one appreciates the present status of the argument, the dogmatic answer to the question can easily be given. The present status of the argument is the choice between dogmatism and nihilism" (pg. 138)
"What now is the question to be answered? It is not, Shall we choose? Or, is it permissible to choose? We must choose since we are alive we have chosen- either a dogmatic principle or empirical insanity" (pg. 138)
Clark defines Dogmatism as follows in contrast to strawman arguments that it is fideism, "the term dogmatism therefore designates that method of procedure which tries to systematize beliefs concerning God, science, immorality, etc. on the basis of information divinely revealed in the sacred writings" (pg. 8).
God is the standard of truth, so we must start with Scripture in apologetics,
"But God is truth. Therefore it is impossible to annihilate God in thought. He exists so truly that he cannot even be conceived not to exist" (pg. 39)
In the process of making a reductio ad absurdum of the opposing epistomologies of rationalism, empiricism, and irrationalism Clark also critiques faulty apologetic methodologies that reject scripture as their ultimate authority and lean more upon reason or the senses as their starting point to prove the existence of God with numerous examples such as the shroud of turin and Descrates' Cognito Ergo sum.
I particularly enjoyed when Clark implicitly used the doctrine of divine simplicity to argue against evidential apologetics since it makes God composed of parts, thereby denying God's immutability which undercuts God being the ultimate standard for truth, morality, logic, etc. because you cannot argue from an analogy to God's existence.
"God's essence and God's existence are identical; hence existence for God means something different from existence for man...therefore existence means one thing for God but a completely different thing for man. Thomas still calls this analogy, but it is an analogy without any univocal basis. This is another reason why his proof of God's existence is invalid. His premises speak of the existence of moving things, hot things, etc., but the conclusion speaks of God's existence. However, for an argument to be valid the concepts in the conclusion must appear in the premises" (pg. 63)
Aquinas tries to argue from composite entities, from creation, to the existence of the Creator which denies both the Creator-creature distinction as well as the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). You cannot argue from natural revelation to God's existence, you must begin with Special Revelation, Scripture as your starting point to begin with in your apologetic methodology.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews