GHC Review 32: Faith and Saving Faith

ghc review 32; faith and saving faith

Faith and Saving Faith, by Gordon H. Clark, Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1983, 132 pp.

This is one of the most important of Gordon Clark’s books. He provides definitions for key terms and takes away the ambiguity around the discussions of what faith is and what kind of faith is necessary for salvation. It is volumes like this that make it frustrating to read less precise authors, which frankly is most other authors. In Faith and Saving Faith Clark improves over both the traditional Reformed view and the Sandemanian view.

Two articles I’ve written relative to this book should suffice for a review:

Gordon Clark’s View of Faith

Sandemanian Pandemonium

Faith and Saving Faith was later included in What is Saving Faith?

For the previous review in this series see here.

Posted in Gordon Clark Book Reviews | 1 Comment

GHC Review 31: God’s Hammer

ghc review 31; god's hammer

God’s Hammer, The Bible and Its Critics, by Gordon H. Clark, Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1982, 2nd edition 1987, 212 pp.

“Thank you for the copy of God’s Hammer. You are doing wonders. I may have some suggestions for future projects.” – GHC to John Robbins, March 9, 1982.

This volume, like all of Clark’s published with the Trinity Foundation, has a foreword by John Robbins. Technically—in this book only—Robbins’s part is called a preface. The foreword is written by Harold Lindsell.

As this is the only time where Lindsell contributes to one of Clark’s books this is a good opportunity to note some things about him. Harold Lindsell (1913 – 1998) had been a student of Clark’s at Wheaton College. He is most well known for his book The Battle for the Bible. I’ve found copies of this book in many places and seen it referenced in many writings which leads me to think that the book sold extremely well. Lindsell’s path mirrored Carl Henry’s in many ways. They each were Baptists, each went to Wheaton, each taught at Fuller Seminary, and each were for a time editor of Christianity Today. If I recall correctly from Henry’s autobiography and the personal letters of his I’ve read, the two men did not get along with each other at Christianity Today, and this contributed to Henry’s departure. From all indications Lindsell always remained an orthodox believers; unlike many at Fuller that is. There is a large collection of Lindsell’s papers at the Billy Graham Center Archives, Wheaton College. A student should take them up and write a biography.

But we move on to God’s Hammer. This volume is a collection of eleven previously published articles of Dr. Clark’s. This is the first collection of his articles to be published. That it was published yet during Clark’s life shows his approval of it. The book focuses on the doctrine of Bible’s inerrancy. No wonder Lindsell was chosen to write the foreword.

The book is somewhat front-heavy. That is, the best essays are first and then it drags out a bit.

Chapter 1 – How Many I Know the Bible Is Inspired? (Originally in Can I Trust the Bible, ed. Howard Vos, Moody Press, 1963)

This is quite an excellent essay, and so I have chosen to quote from it at length.

The Bible itself claims to be inspired. II Timothy 3:16 reads “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine.” “The Greek word does not mean breathed into, it means breathed out.” Plenary inspiration is the idea that all of the Scripture is inspired. Clark cites John 10:35 and II Peter 1:20. “Jesus (Matt. 11:9-15) asserted that John the Baptist was a prophet and more than a prophet. He was superior to all the Old Testament prophets. Yet the prophet who was least in New Testament times was a greater prophet than John. It follows, doe sit not that the New Testament prophets were no less inspired than their forerunners.” (p. 7) “Paul commands the reading of his letters in the churches. … Here we have an example of the apostolic imposition of the New Testament Scriptures.” (p. 8)

The modernists said “the Bible contains the Word of God.” “But now, in the middle of the twentieth century modernism has become somewhat antiquated, and Neo-orthodoxy has taken its place. This movement has invented a new deceptive phrase. The Neo-orthodox people say that the bible is a record of God’s revelation.” (p. 11)

“If the reader already accepts the Bible as the Word of God, the question that forms the title of this chapter, “How May I know the Bible Is Inspired,” has been answered. But perhaps the ‘I’ in the title, a reader of this chapter, does not accept the Bible as the Word of God. Such a person will say ‘No doubt the Bible claims inspiration, but is the claim true?’ The question they becomes, How may one prove Biblical inspiration to an inquirer?” (p. 12)

“Either the Bible is a worthless fraud and Jesus was a deluded martyr, or the Bible is in truth the Word of God written.” (p. 13)

“The attempt to show the Bible’s logical consistency is, I believe, the best method of defending inspiration.” (p. 15) “There is no proposition on which a consistent believer and a consistent unbeliever can agree.” (p. 16) “Logical consistency is evidence of inspiration, but it is not demonstration.” (p. 16)

Clark then moves on to “The Testimony of the Holy Spirit.” “Conclusions follow automatically; but what makes a man accept an initial proposition? Calvin’s answer is plain: belief in the Scripture ‘cannot be produced but by a revelation from heaven.’” (p. 17) “Peter had had neither trance nor vision, no had he heard an audible voice. In modern American slang we would say, it just ‘dawned’ on him. What happened was that the Spirit produced this conviction in Peter’s mind.” (p. 18)

“Christianity is often repudiated on the ground that it is circular: the Bible is authoritative because the Bible authoritatively says so. But this objection applies no more to Christianity than to any philosophic system or even to geometry. Every system of organized propositions depends of necessity on some indemonstrable premises, and every system must make an attempt to explain how these primary premises come to be accepted.” (p. 19)

It is “impossible by argument or preaching alone to cause anyone to believe the Bible. Only God can cause such belief.” (p. 20) But, “the witness or testimony of the Holy Spirit is a witness to something. The Spirit witnesses to the authority of the Scriptures. If no apostle or preacher expounded the message, there would be nothing in the sinner’s mind for the Spirit to witness to.” (p. 21)

“In the last analysis, therefore, although historical and archaeological confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy is of great interest to us and of great embarrassment to unbelievers, a conviction that the Bible is really the Word of God cannot be the conclusion of a valid argument based on more clearly evident premises. The conviction is produced by the Holy Spirit himself.” (p. 23)

Chapter 2 – The Bible as Truth (Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1957)

“The simply thesis of this paper is that the Bible is true in the literal sense of true.” (p. 25) “The double thesis of this paper … is that the Bible, aside from questions and commands, consists of true statements that men can know.” (p. 26)

This essay is Clark’s final foray in the Clark – Van Til Controversy. And so it is in this light that Clark continues from the previous quote saying “In fact, this is so elementary that it might appear incredible that any conservative theologian would deny it. Yet there are some professed conservatives who deny it explicitly and others who, without denying it explicitly, undermine and vitiate it by other assertions.” (p. 26) The next few pages that follow contain a critique of the epistemological errors of Van Til and his colleagues at Westminster Theological Seminary. Clark concludes that they “are confused and are attempting to combine two incompatible positions.” And, “the objectionable one is in substantial harmony with existentialism or neo-orthodoxy.” (p. 29)

To the contention of controversy itself that between man’s knowledge and God’s knowledge there is no point of coincidence, Clark responds, “But if both God and man know, there must with the differences be at least one point of similarity; for if there were no point of similarity, it would be inappropriate to use the one term knowledge in both cases.” (p. 31) Clark then argues that theories of analogy, “whether found in Thomas Aquinas, Emil Brunner, or professed conservatives, is unrelieved skepticism and is incompatible with the acceptance of divine revelation as truth.” (p. 34)

Clark then moves on to his own view in a section on “Truth is Propositional.” There he says, “The Bible nowhere suggests that there are any inexpressible truths.” (p. 34) “It may be that the phrase nonpropositional truth is a phrase without meaning.” (p. 35)

Chapter 3 – Verbal Inspiration: Yesterday and Today (The Southern Presbyterian Journal, Sep. 12, 1956)

Clark begins this essay by noting that in 1840 the Swiss theologian Louis Gaussen published Theopneustia, on the inspiration of the Scriptures. I’ve heard people claim inerrancy was a late 19th century American invention. The claim is made without any knowledge of Gaussen, or much knowledge at all. Clark then moves on to dispatch “the dictation objection” and “contemporary theories” while contending for the necessity of logic; the law of contradiction.

Chapter 4 – The Evangelical Theological Society Tomorrow (Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 9 No. 1, Winter 1966: 3-11)

Clark notes Dewey Beegle’s objection that “verbal inspiration relies on a few proof texts instead of following the true scientific method of induction from the Biblical phenomena.” (p. 53-54). In response, Clark notes that the doctrine relies on many texts and he rejects the contrast made between the two approaches. Clark also responds to comments made in a person’s letter of resignation from the society.

Chapter 5 – Special Divine Revelation as Rational (Originally in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl F. H. Henry, 1958)

“The existence of divergent concepts of God, of moral ideals, and above all of schemes of salvation show the power of sin in the mind of man; but they also show the inherent inadequacy of general revelation.” (p. 65) “The planets above and the plants below show some of the wisdom and power of God; that is to say, they show it to those who already believe that God has created them.” (p. 65)

Clark then proceeds to a defense of revelation as rational, first surveying the various definitions of faith and reason and their relationships given in history. A similar undertaking was made in Clark’s Religion, Reason, and Revelation. The present chapter however goes further into explaining and critiquing neo-orthodoxy. The remainder of the chapter argues similar to Language and Theology that language is capable of conveying literal truths.

Chapter 6 – Revealed Religion (Insert in Christianity Today, Dec 17, 1965)

Though not a bad article, the overlap in content of the articles in this volume leaves me with little to comment on that hasn’t already been noted. Here Clark does speak more about neo-orthodoxy; particular Emil Brunner.

Chapter 7 – Holy Scripture (Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 6, No. 1, Winter 1963: 3-6)

This short chapter is a response to an article written by four professors of PCUSA seminaries who argued against inerrancy. Clarks main point, in contrast to the professors, is that we do in fact need an infallible Bible.

Chapter 8 – The Concept of Biblical Authority

This chapter is copied from a previously published short pamphlet which I have reviewed here.

Chapter 9 – Hamilton’s Theory of Language and Inspiration (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1972)

Clark had previously devoted a chapter to Hamilton in Language and Theology. Here he returns with an additional critique.

Chapter 10 – What is Truth? (Presbuterion, Fall 1980)

Continuing on with the topic of inerrancy, this article pits the view of Clark and Carl Henry against that of James Daane and (Daniel?) Fuller who teach that the Bible is sometimes false. Daane was opponent of Cornelius Van Til’s as well. Van Til even wrote a volume against him.

Clark argues that he and Henry have a clear view of truth which Daane rejects, but that Daane “nowhere describes the form of truth he defends.” (p. 176) So I don’t suppose Daane’s theory is very enticing since it doesn’t appear that he has a theory.

The perennial problem with non-inerrancy supporters arises again; “if the Bible makes false assertions, there must be a criterion independent of and superior to the Bible by which its assertions must be judged.” (p. 182) Clark writes, “We challenge our opponents to state their epistemological criterion.” I don’t know that they have ever responded. Nor have I see any ant-inerrancy proponent respond to that question.

Chapter 11 – The Reformed Faith and The Westminster Confession (An address delivered at Weaverville, North Carolina on August 17, 1955. The Southern Presbyterian Journal Sep. 7. 7–12.)

Weaverville is not far from my present home. In fact, back even before Clark spoke there at the 1955 Weaverville Conference, the pastor of the Presbyterian Church there, Henry Dendy, had also pastored the church where I am currently assistant pastor. Dendy also was the editor for the Southern Presbyterian Journal which ran a number of Clark’s articles.

Clark notes, “Metaphorically the first chapter of the Westminster Confession is a continental divide.” (p. 187) Though other views are noted and critiqued, this essay again focuses on the error of neo-orthodoxy.

The original cover is shown above. The version I have has this cover which about maximized the space allotted to a picture of an actual hammer.

ghc review 31; god's hammer 2

For the previous review in this series see here.

For the next review in this series see here.

Posted in Gordon Clark Book Reviews | 2 Comments

GHC Review 30: Behaviorism and Christianity

ghc review 30; behaviorism and christianity

Behaviorism and Christianity, by Gordon H. Clark, Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1982, 106 pp.

The writing of this volume started around the time of March 22, 1979 when Gordon Clark wrote to his friend Howard Long saying, “As for the future, one subject I am considering is Behaviorism. So many students come to Covenant [College] already inclined to behavioristic views. The psychology department does not do much in disabusing them. Probably matters are worse elsewhere. But to write a monograph on this will take a year or more.”

In only half that time—exactly six months later—Clark had nearly finished writing the book. He wrote to Garrett Johnson on September 22, 1979 saying, “My monograph on Behaviorism needs only a few more pages typed + I’ll be sending it off – this month I hope.”

Before the book was published Clark noted to John Robbins (on March 18, 1980), “Another matter. I gave a ‘popular’ lecture on Behaviorism at Kennedy’s church in Ft. Lauderdale. I asked if they wanted to publish it. They gave me an affirmative answer, but not too emphatic. Perhaps you could question them on cooperation. The lecture is a summary of the monograph, simplified, and of course shortened. I judge it is about 5000 words because it took about 50 minutes to deliver.”

Robbins returned to this question (on August 1, 1980) writing to Clark “I have also received the lecture on behaviorism, and it will have to be cut by one-third in order to fit the Review. I will be sending an edited copy for your approval before we publish.” This became Clark’s article “Mindless Men: Behaviorism and Christianity” in the July-August 1980 issue of the Trinity Review.

Clark worked on getting the book published with Presbyterian and Reformed, but ultimately asked John Robbins to have the Trinity Foundation publish it. He wrote to Robbins (no month or day listed, 1981) saying: “Craig [Presbyterian and Reformed] delays interminably on my Behaviorism MS. Have you some idea how much it would cost to publish it? I could make some contribution and perhaps you could raise money for a special project.”

So much for the history of the volume. Now we must move on to its content.

The chapters on the secular positions of John B. Watson, Edgar A. Singer Jr., Gilbert Ryle, and B. F. Skinner are more difficult than average for Clark’s writings. They seem to be written for a more philosophical audience. Singer was a professor of Clark’s at Penn, and Clark thinks Singer’s understanding is better than the rest. I might add also that B. F. Skinner is notable for being the namesake of the Simpson’s Principle Skinner. But whether he too was an advocate of steamed hams I do not know.

In chapter six Clark comes to Donald M. MacKay who tries to gives Behaviorism a Christian blessing. To this Clark writes, “There is no such thing as Christian behaviorism for the same reason that there is no such thing as Arminian Calvinism or Augustinian Pelagianism.” (p. 81) Clark notes that Intervarsity published a volume of MacKay’s promoting his unbiblical theory. MacKay “thinks there are data, hard, given facts, uncontaminated by intellectual interpretation.” (p. 83) Naturally this conflicts with Clark’s presuppositionalism. And in a quote that perhaps summarizes Clark’s entire philosophy he notes, “Christianity is not based on empirical observations, but on the propositional revelation of divine truth.” (p. 83) MacKay’s behaviorism is mechanistic and there is no place in it for the Biblical teaching of the spirit or soul. Fortunately MacKay’s theory never seems to have taken off. I, for one, have never encountered a self-described “Christian Behaviorist.” If I do, I’ll return to this book for advice.

For the previous review in this series see here.

For the next review in this series see here.

Posted in Gordon Clark Book Reviews | 2 Comments

GHC Review 29: Language and Theology

ghc review 29; language and theology

Language and Theology, by Gordon H. Clark, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980, 152 pp.

Though this volume was printed by Presbyterian and Reformed, it is also labeled as “Trinity Paper No. 1” and says on the back of the first page “Copyright 1979, The Trinity Foundation.” I must think that The Trinity Foundation had Presbyterian and Reformed to print the volume for them. This would be their only joint-venture.

This is the single ugliest book cover I own. I’m frankly not sure how to describe the color. Perhaps “blinding orange.” But if any book should not be judged by its cover it is this one, for while the cover is hideous the contents are quite excellent.

A main thesis of Language and Theology is that human language is adequate to express truth under a Christian framework. Before presenting a “Christian Construction” in the final chapter, Clark surveys the field of language philosophy with chapters on Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Ayer, Feigl, Wittgenstein (II), Urban, Mascall, Bushnell, Gilkey, Hordern, and Hamilton. But it is Clark’s “Christian Construction” that is of particular note.

Just before the final chapter there is an important, constructive comment:

“Surely language, as God’s gift to Adam, has as its purpose, not only communication among men, but communication between man and God. God spoke words to Adam and Adam spoke words to God Since this is the divine intention, words or language are adequate. To be sure, on occasion, even on frequent occasions, sinful man cannot find the right words to express his thought; but this is a defect of man, not an inadequacy of language.” (p. 130.)

While I’m tempted to next quote the entire final chapter, perhaps a considerable amount of value is found in just these few quotes:

“Throughout the Bible as a whole the rational God gives man an intelligible message.” (p. 138)

“God gave Adam a mind to understand the divine law, and he gave him language to enable him to speak to God. From the beginning language was intended for worship.” (p. 138)

“[Augustine’s] solution was, briefly, not that two minds have the same sensations, but that two minds have the same ideas. The ideas are common because Christ is the Logos that lighteth every man that comes into the world.” (p. 142)

“St. Augustine, though he altered his views as he grew older, gave a different role to sensation; without too much distortion one might call it a stimulus to intellectual intuition.” (p. 144)

“Language is a bearer of meaning because words are arbitrary signs the mind uses to tag thought.” (p. 152)

Much of Clark’s view in Language and Theology was already developed in two articles (“Logic and Language” and “Language and Logic”) over two decades previous to the book.

Then, based on the book, Clark gave three lectures:

Language, Truth, and Revelation, Part 1 (57:41)

Language, Truth, and Revelation, Part 2 (50:20)

Language, Truth, and Revelation, Part 3 (1:02:32)

Clark’s view of language would make an excellent topic for a student to write on. Language and Theology might also have some bearing on Clark’s view of hermeneutics.

For the previous review in this series see here.

For the next review in this series see here.

Posted in Gordon Clark Book Reviews | 10 Comments

GHC Review 28: First John

ghc review 28; first john

First John, A Commentary, by Gordon H. Clark, Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1980, 2nd edition 1992, 184 pp.

This volume, along with Language and Theology, were the first of Dr. Clark’s to be originally published by the Trinity Foundation. They both came out in 1980 with Language and Theology given the honor of being labeled “Trinity Paper #1.” First John had to settle for second place as “Trinity Paper #2.” Up to this point Clark had had most of his books (nineteen of them) published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. (He also had published four books with F. S. Crofts and two with Eerdmans.) From this point forward all but three of his books would be published by the Trinity Foundation. (The exceptions are that two more would come out with Presbyterian and Reformed and one with Mott Media.)

Clark had had a lot of frustration with publishers through the years. On one occasion a publisher kept one of his manuscripts for over a year before opting not to publish it. In other instances publishers would ask for significant changes to the manuscripts. And so when John Robbins came with the proposal to publish Dr. Clark’s books through the Trinity Foundation it was a welcome relief to him; a way to avoid the hassle of the bigger publishing firms. Robbins’s dedicated efforts meant that at least two books of Dr. Clark’s would be published in each year from 1982 to 1987. This was vital to getting published valuable additions to the corpus of Dr. Clark’s writings and thereby more thoroughly detailing his philosophy.

But we must return to the subject at hand, reviewing First John. Again this cannot be a very thorough review as such a review would rival the book itself in length. Only some highlights will be noted.

Clark notes A. W. Pink as “a widely known commentator, and among strict evangelicals well esteemed.” (p. 11) Though he may reference Pink elsewhere in his writings this book contains the only references to him that come to my mind. Here Clark has made a mistake though in saying that Pink published a book on First John “in 1865 or thereabouts.” Pink’s years were 1886 – 1952.

Through this volume Clark regularly references from First John commentaries of A. W. Pink, R. C. H. Lenski, Rudolph Bultmann, F. F. Bruce, John Gill, John Stott, W. G. T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, B. F. Westcott, and John Cotton.

Clark argues that the logos of 1 John chapter 1 refers to both Jesus and the message he preached. (pp. 9-19) In this Clark mentions something he’ll later elaborate on in The Incarnation—his definition of person: “A person is his mind. A person is his thoughts.” (p. 18) Connecting back to the original point, Clark writes, “Christ, too, is his mind, of which the gospel message is part. God is a spirit, an intelligence, a mind: God is truth, and the message is part of that truth.” (p. 18-19)

On pages 44-48 Clark explains the difference between propitiation and expiation and why it is important. Following this, and in the midst of making additional points, Clark calls John Gill “the greatest Baptist theologian.” (p. 49)

On page 70-71 Clark has a short excursion into economics. There, in saying, “the economic fact is that all nations get rich together or get poor together” he may have David Ricardo’s law of comparative advantage in mind.

Clark makes the point that “the worst enemies [of the church of God] are to be found in the church organization.” He gives a number of historical examples of the church being strong through external oppression, and then notes that “Princeton Seminary and Fuller, as others, were corrupted within.” (p. 75) Princeton had gone liberal in the 1920s and neo-orthodox within a few decades later. A number of former Clark students had taught at Fuller in the 1950s through 1970s, but that school too went neo-orthodox. Clark’s The Concept of Biblical Authority which came out the year before First John was written in opposition to a number of Fuller Seminary professors who were contending against Biblical inerrancy.

A number of definitions are given in this commentary. Though not itself a complete definition Clark writes of the Gospel that “a most important part” is that “Christ has come in the flesh.” The good news also “includes Christ’s propitiation of the Father. (p. 83) Then on “eternal life” Clark writes, “Jesus in his High Priestly prayer said, ‘This is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent’ (John 17:3). If any verse defines eternal life, this is it. Eternal life is knowledge of the Father and the Son.” (p. 84)

More generally this volume focuses on themes present in 1 John including, but not limited to, truth, knowledge, and assurance. There are bits of Clark’s epistemology showing through, but the book is not a detailed account of it. Overall there are a considerable number of important points made in this volume, though I might suggest finding a more general commentary if you’re preparing sermons on the epistle.

Below is a review of First John from The Presbyterian Journal and a picture of the 2nd edition cover.

ghc review 28; first john 2ghc review 28; first john 3

For the previous review in this series see here.

For the next review in this series see here.

Posted in Gordon Clark Book Reviews | 2 Comments

List of Trinity Papers

The Trinity Foundation appears to have numbered each of the volumes they’ve published as a series of “Trinity Papers.” The first few books had the number labeled on the front cover. Over time it seems the number was less prominently displayed (on the back cover) or possibly omitted entirely. I’ve been able to accumulate information enough to put the follow list together for reference. This may also be of assistance in knowing which volumes are missing from your personal collection. If you know the solution to any of the remaining question marks below, please let me know and I’ll update the list.

Trinity Paper #1 – Language and Theology, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #2 – First John, A Commentary, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #3 – God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #4 – Behaviorism and Christianity, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #5 – Faith and Saving Faith, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #6 – The Pastoral Epistles, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #7 – The Biblical Doctrine of Man, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #8 – The Trinity, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #9 – Logic, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #10 – Scripture Twisting in the Seminaries. Part one, Feminism, by John W. Robbins
Trinity Paper #11 – Ephesians, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #12 – Clark Speaks from the Grave, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #13 – Religion, Reason, and Revelation, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #14 – First and Second Thessalonians, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #15 – Cornelius Van Til, The Man and the Myth, by John W. Robbins
Trinity Paper #16 – Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticisms by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #17 – The Atonement, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #18 – The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #19 – Education, Christianity, and the State, by J. Gresham Machen
Trinity Paper #20 – A Christian Philosophy of Education, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #21 – Three Types of Religious Philosophy, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #22 – The Johannine Logos, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #23 – The Incarnation, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #24 – Pat Robertson, A Warning to America, by John W. Robbins
Trinity Paper #25 – Colossians, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #26 – Thales to Dewey, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #27 – Gordon H. Clark: Personal Recollections, ed. John W. Robbins
Trinity Paper #28 – Today’s Evangelism, Counterfeit or Genuine, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #29 – First Corinthians, a Contemporary Commentary, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #30 – A Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, by James E. Bordwine
Trinity Paper #31 – A Christian View of Men and Things by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #32 – Essays on Ethics and Politics, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #33 – Sanctification, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #35 – What Calvin Says, by W. Gary Crampton
Trinity Paper #36 – New Heavens, New Earth, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #37 – The Holy Spirit, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #38 – An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #39 – Historiography, Secular and Religious, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #40 – Lord God of Truth, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #42 – Justification by Faith Alone, by Charles Hodge
Trinity Paper #43 – William James and John Dewey, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #44 – The Clark – Van Til Controversy, by Herman Hoeksema
Trinity Paper #46 – God and Evil, The Problem Solved, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #47 – Philippians, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #48 – Study Guide to the Westminster Confession, by W. Gary Crampton
Trinity Paper #49 – Ancient Philosophy, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #51 – Karl Barth’s Theological Method, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #52 – Ecclesiastical Megalomania, by John W. Robbins
Trinity Paper #53 – The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, by W. Gary Crampton
Trinity Paper #55 – New Testament Greek for Beginners, by J. Gresham Machen
Trinity Paper #57 – God-Breathed, by Louis Gaussen
Trinity Paper 59 – By Scripture Alone, by W. Gary Crampton
Trinity Paper #63 – The Current Justification Controversy, by O. Palmer Robertson
Trinity Paper #64 – A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy, by John W. Robbins
Trinity Paper #65 – What is Saving Faith, by Gordon H. Clark
Trinity Paper #66 – Not Reformed at All, by John W. Robbins and Sean Gerety

Posted in Theology | 1 Comment

GHC Review 27: 1 and 2 Peter

ghc review 27; 1 and 2 peter

1 and 2 Peter, by Gordon H. Clark, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980, ?? pp.

This commentary on Pete and Repeat is the combined edition of Peter Speaks Today (1967) and II Peter (1972). As I’ve previously reviewed each of those books, nothing additional about the content of this volume need be said here.

1 and 2 Peter was later revised and reprinted as New Heavens, New Earth (1993).

For the previous review in this series see here.

For the next review in this series see here.

Posted in Gordon Clark Book Reviews | 2 Comments