Gordon Clark and the “non-problem” of the One and the Many

In a letter from Gordon Clark to Cornelius Van Til, August 28, 1937, he writes: ;

“Perhaps you will admit this criticism so far as it goes, and reply that you rest your proposition on the necessity of solving the one and many problem. To this I would suggest that Christianity does not face the same difficulties here as does a pagan system. A pagan monism cannot logically derive its multiplicity. But Christianity does not have to derive multiplicity from logic. The creation is not a syllogism, but a voluntary choice. In paganism the supreme principle is deprived of volition to ensure continuity to the universe. Volition savors of anthropomorphism. Hence they have manufactured their one and many problem by insisting on logical derivation as opposed to volitional creation. Conversely, we do not have to solve a problem that is peculiarly theirs.”

Advertisements

About douglasdouma

I am a graduate of the University of Michigan (BSME), Wake Forest University (MBA), and Sangre de Cristo Seminary (Mdiv). I've learned far more from books than in school. I'm particularly in debt to Martin Luther, Ludwig von Mises, and Gordon H. Clark for any thoughts I have.
This entry was posted in Notes on the thought of Gordon H. Clark. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Gordon Clark and the “non-problem” of the One and the Many

  1. Ron says:

    I struggle with Clark at times because I have no idea what he is saying. Another challenge for you Doug. Re-write all of Clark’s book for dimmer of us.

    • douglasdouma says:

      Yes, like most Philosophers he uses an unusual vocabulary. But, unlike Van Til, he does use words with their proper meanings.

      You’ll be glad to know that I’m working on a summary of thought of Gordon Clark as an appendix to the biography. One difficulty in reading his 40+ books is that much of the material is a critique of other philosophers and rarely a construction of his own views. I hope to simplify everything in 40-50 pages.

  2. Cameron says:

    This was the most frustrating thing about Van Til, the self-satisfied and (so far as I can tell) historically and scripturally unwarranted way he uses Trinity to solve the problem of the one and the many. At least in A Survey of Christian Epistemology, he doesn’t even try to defend it; just calls it “the” theistic position. Clark’s position seems much more sensible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s