Section Summary: Truth, contrary to what contemporary philosophers and theologians tell us, is a unified system. Although the unity of truth does not prove the existence of an omniscient God, it does accord well with Christian belief in such a being. Christianity is the system of truth in the mind of this omniscient God, and there is no room in this system for “truth” derived from any other source. Naturalism and Christianity do not mix. Divine omniscience and the systematic unity of truth do not imply that one must know everything in order to know anything. Partial knowledge is still knowledge.
In the previous section of this chapter titled The Questions of Philosophy, Gordon Clark raised a number of basic philosophical questions: What is the best kind of government? What is the purpose of life? Is there any distinction between right and wrong? As discouraging as it can seem to pose such questions – Clark points to the myriad sources of deception and distortion that make it appear hopeless to ever get a satisfactory answer to any of them – there is a benefit in asking them. Clark notes,
“Discouraged though one may be by this time and paralyzed at the immensity of the task, yet even the asking of these questions results in a gain. Throughout the pages ahead this point will be illustrated constantly so as to develop a detailed understanding of the matter; but the reflective reader must already see what had previously escaped his attention, that these questions are all interrelated. An answer to any one of them affects the answer to every other. And this is an extremely important conclusion.” (CVMT, 22)
For those new to Clark, note well what he says here: Truth is systematic. The questions of philosophy are not intellectual islands wholly unrelated to each other, but rather are linked together with the answer to one bearing on all others. For example, the political question “What type of government is best?” cannot be separated from the epistemological question “How do you know what type of government is best?” But while Clark is absolutely correct in what he says here, nevertheless many philosophers deny his point. One such thinker was William James, who, as Clark notes, stressed the disconnectedness of things. But if James is right, what hope do we have for regaining any stability in our civilization? The answer, it seems to me, is none. Or as Clark points out in rather understated fashion,
“It would be surprising, would it not, if social stability could be based on incoherence, or even large-scale disconnectedness?” (CVMT, 23)
One could make a good argument that the increasing instability of our civilization is due to the fact that the prevailing modern worldview sides with James rather than Clark. This disconnectedness shows up throughout our society. For example, I have long been of the opinion that the contemporary philosophical denial of systematic truth explains much of the decline in Western art over the past century. Modern architecture is unsightly, modern painting unattractive, modern music unlistenable.
In the case of music, I can draw on my own personal experience to provide a case in point. Back in the day when I was a music student, I used to play in the conservatory’s brass choir. One evening when I was approaching the rehearsal hall, I heard the cacophonous sound of a group of musicians warming up. If you have ever been to an orchestra concert, you know the sound. Before the concert starts, the musicians all show up on stage, each one playing by himself with the sound being something like a great roar. As I stepped into the rehearsal hall, I looked up and, much to my surprise, saw the conductor on the podium waiving a baton before an assembled group of musicians. The cacophonous roar that I heard, that was the sound of a piece of music. “Good grief,” I thought to myself, “if I can’t tell the difference between random noise and an actual composition, the art of music is in serious trouble indeed.”
In contrast to dissonant modern philosophical systems that offer us no hope – in art, politics or religion – Clark proposes a system of philosophy based on the idea that an omniscient God has furnished us with systematic truth. Clark writes,
“The discouragement, the reflection, the suspicion of the previous pages do not prove or demonstrate the existence of an omniscient God; but if there is such a God, we may infer that all problems and all solutions fit one another like pieces of a marvelous mosaic…
Instead of a series of disconnected propositions, truth will be a rational system, a logically-ordered series, somewhat like geometry with its theorems and axioms, its implications and presuppositions. Each part will derive its significance from the whole. Christianity therefore has, or, one may even say, Christianity is a comprehensive view of all things: It takes the world, both material and spiritual, to be an ordered system.” (CVMT, 23)
Good Presbyterian that I am, I’m not accustomed to outbursts of enthusiasm. But for all that, it’s hard to read Clark’s comments and not shout “Amen!” at the top of my voice. Seriously. What a blessed relief from the depressing nonsense you usually hear from philosophers. It’s like hearing a Bach sonata suddenly break forth from the midst of some awful 12- tone cacophony or a cool, watery oasis in a scorching, pitiless desert.
Clark continues,
“Consequently, if Christianity is to be defended against the objections of other philosophies, the only adequate method will be comprehensive…This comprehensive apologia is seen all the more clearly to be necessary as the contrasting theories are more carefully considered. The naturalistic philosophy that engulfs the modern mind is not a repudiation of one or two items of the Christian faith leaving the remainder untouched; it is not a philosophy that is satisfied to deny miracles while approving or at least not disapproving of Christian moral standards; on the contrary, both Christianity and naturalism demand all or nothing: Compromise is impossible…Politics, science, and epistemology must all be one or the other.” (CVMT, 23)
In my pre-Clarkian days I suffered from the false idea that while the Bible was authoritative in matters of salvation and morals, truth in politics, economics and science was found by reading real experts like Plato, Locke and Darwin. Nope, says Clark. There can be no compromise between the system of truth found in the Bible and the philosophical systems of the world. The Bible is authoritative in all areas of philosophical inquiry.
Finally, Clark ends this section by making an important point about the possibility of partial knowledge. Clark writes,
“The hypothesis of divine omniscience, the emphasis on the systematic unity of all truths, and the supposition that a particular truth derives its meaning or significance from the system as a whole does not imply that a man must know everything in order to know anything.” (CVMT, 23)
Suffice it for now to say that this statement has some bearing on the Clark-Van Til controversy that has plagued American Presbyterianism for nearly seventy years. Clark claimed that if a man and God held at least one idea in common, it could be said that their knowledge coincides. This is important for the reason that if God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge can be said to coincide at even one point, this makes it is possible for man to possess truth about God. God and man both know two plus two equals four.
Van Til, on the other hand, argued that God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge do not coincide at a single point, because God’s knowledge of a truth is infinite – he knows any given truth, two plus two equals four for example, in relation to all other truths – while man can never have this exhaustive knowledge of even one truth. This means that man can never know a truth as God knows it. But if God knows all truth, and man does not know any truth as God knows it, this implies that God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge do not coincide at a single point. And if God is omniscient, if he possesses all knowledge, this leaves man to wallow in complete ignorance. A depressing state of affairs, that. But then, I’m a Clarkian and not a follower of Van Til, so this is not an issue for me. To paraphrase Machen: I’m so thankful for God’s systematic, knowable truth. No hope without it.
Lux Lucet 
You do a good job of making Clark understandable to me. In all honesty I could understand Robbins better than I did Clark. I am looking forward to each post – Thanks.
Thanks, Bruce. That’s really what I’m after in this series, to help make Clark understandable.
John Robbins was a masterful writer. I’ve never seen anyone who could communicate complex ideas in a simple, concise fashion the way he could.
Clark’s stuff is brilliant, but his style is a bit more difficult. But with Clark, unlike a lot of other writers, study actually pays dividends. I know the first time I read Clark, I struggled to get much out of his work, but I found that it got easier over time.
Please feel free to ask questions or make suggestions regarding areas that you would like to see discussed.
Hi Steve,
When I first began reading Clark and Robbins back in the early 1990’s, with virtually no background in philosophy or theology, I had to have the Clark book in one hand and a dictionary in the other! Add to that the fact that I was a new Christian, not a Presbyterian or a Calvinist, only converted a few years before, and it was like jumping into the deep end when you don’t know how to swim; I flailed around a lot.
Now I can at least do a passable backstroke. I encourage any of your readers who are new to GHC to persevere. Reading Clark is like eating an elephant. It’s best to start with small bites and chew it thoroughly!
LJ
Hi LJ. It sounds like you took the headfirst plunge with Clark! I admit, I felt the same way when I started reading him as well. Like you, I didn’t have any real background in philosophy when I started with Clark. That made it tought to deal with all the new vocabulary. Most of us don’t go around discussing the problems of empirical epsitemology in our everyday lives, so it’s a bit of a shock when we first come to Clark.
But at least with Clark, the study pays off. With some writers, you just spin your wheels.
Dear Steve,
May I distribute yor posts to those interested students (High school) in my Biblical Hebrew and Greek classes. Our discussions often turn to Clark’s method: Scripturalism.
Your essays are extremely helpful and stimulating. My sincere “thank you” for sharing them with us.
Regards,
Louis Breytenbach
PS. Of course I would want to credit you fully. Perhaps you could even make available PDF copies of your series as they become available
It’s good to hear from you, Louis. Thanks for the kind words. I’d be honored to have you use my work in your class and will email you the pdfs.
Hi Louis,
Did you get the PDFs I sent to you?
Reblogged this on The Sovereign Logos.
Good series. However, I would [and have] argue[d]that even the possibility of the unity of truth presupposes an omniscient mind.
Interesting argument, Ryan. I’ll have to think that one over. But for now, I’ve got to get to bed.
“An Introduction to Christian Philosophy” by Gordon Clark would also be very helpful here.
I won’t argue with you there. I’d love to pull in material from Clark’s other works, but I’ve got limited time right now and am trying to stay focused. Maybe you could blog his Intro.
Steve, I meant that it would do you and your readers good to read “An Introduction to Christian Philosophy.” I am currently rereading it. Here are some helpful quotes:
Is it possible to speak of zoology without suggesting views on creation? Or, vice versa, can we assert creation without implying something about zoology? No, truth is not thus disjointed. It is systematic. And by the systems they produce, axioms must be judged. P.60.
…if we know anything at all, what we must know must be identical with what God knows. God knows all truths, and unless we know something God knows, our ideas are untrue. P.76-77.
…that the Christian system leaves some or many gaps in our desired knowledge is not a pertinent objection. Furthermore, one should not assume that the postulate of revelation provides only a bare minimum of knowledge. Its extent remains to be examined. P.63-64.
…the postulate of revelation puts at our disposal all the accounts of historical events that it contains. If it does not give us Russian history, it surely gives us Jewish history. But what is more important, … the postulate of revelation supplies an explanation of the events. Therefore, instead of depriving us of knowledge otherwise obtainable, revelation gives us the most important knowledge otherwise unobtainable. P. 92.
Sorry about that. Yes, you’re right. Clark’s Into to Christian Philosphy is and excellent companion volume to CMVT.
It should be remembered that special revelation in Scripture is not an exhaustive commentary on general revelation in the larger world. To confuse the two would be similar to the error of the Van Tilians in their adoption of the semi-Arminian doctrine of common grace. On the other hand, properly understood, the Scriptures do apply to every other area of life.
Logic requires consistency, coherence, congruency, and a systematic worldview. No one this side of eternity is absolutely perfect in their logical and theological worldview–not even Gordon H. Clark and John Robbins. Only Scripture is the inspired and inerrant and infallible Word of God.
A critical reading of every theologian and philosopher is necessary since it is Scripture that is the final authority, not our favorite theologian. As a confessional Reformed believer I have a commitment to a Reformed confession of faith rather than to any single theologian, although I do follow Clark’s apologetics in general.
Oddly enough, I’m reading CVMT at the present.
Peace,
Charlie
I agree that we should read all authors critically. That’s Luther Scripture principle, the idea that all human writing must be tested by the word of God. I call myself a Clarkian not because I think Clark was perfect, but because I believe his system of thought is faithful to what the Scriptures teach.
Charlie, Scripture does not speak exhaustively on any subject. The point is that it speak authoritatively and conclusively on any subject. Whatever can be known about General Revelation can ONLY be known from the Scriptures.
“No one this side of eternity is absolutely perfect in their logical and theological worldview–not even Gordon H. Clark and John Robbins. ”
You can’t know that. Yes, the noetic affects of sin would seem to make such not likely but the Scriptures do not indicate that such to be impossible.
Confessions should be tested as well as every man’s thought. And one man’s thoughts can be correct and those of the majority wrong. We shouldn’t base our doctrines and/or beliefs upon who holds to it and/or how many. Not for anything, but Clark, like Calvin, I believe is above any of those who were part of those putting together Confessions or Creeds. But again, that’s not what makes him right. Logic, that is unassailable and cogent arguments, is what makes him right.
I can know that because Clark himself admitted it. And so did John Robbins. But even more than that, since Scripture says that the creature is limited I can know it from Scripture. Unless, of course, you’re saying that Scripture does not say that men are not gods with omniscience and inerrancy.
Of course, I can’t “prove” any such thing. But I can presuppose it since I start with Scripture.
What Clark said was that we can know single truths the same as God knows that single truth. He did not teach that we exhaustively know all the propositions that God knows or that we know all the propositions that Scripture teaches–the noetic effects of sin on the mind and the body make it sure that we are often illogical and that we are forgetful. And some of us more intelligent and some less intelligent. I fall on the stupid side of the divide:)
Charlie, can you provide references where Clark and Robbins admitted that their worldview was not perfectly correct?
In what way do you believe the Scriptures teach that man is limited? It does not teach that he is limited in his capacity to understand its propositions or their implications or inferences. No, man is not omniscient nor incapable of error. But does that not mean he MUST make errors. Clark did not teach that we all know all the propositions of Scriptures. But he also did not teach that no one knows all the propositions of Scripture. That is something he could not know. And the teaching of Scripture regarding the noetic affects does not demand such. Again, the noetic affects of sin ( on the mind only-noetic means “of the mind”) results in our “often” illogical thinking. But it does not demand that we must be illogical. For example, I could read ten statements in Scripture, and could understand and infer properly regarding all ten statements. Nothing demands that I think illogically regarding at least one of the statements. Thus, nothing prevents an individual from understanding and reasoning properly regarding all of the statements of Scripture.
Clark did teach that no one knows all the propositions that God knows. It is clearly stated in The Answer to the charges brought against him when he was falsely accused of rationalism. It stands to reason that since none of us are perfect, no one knows all the propositions of Scripture perfectly. That’s due to the noetic effects of sin. To put anyone on the pedestal of papal infallibility, including Clark, is a serious error.
If confessions of faith may err, so may individuals. Individuals are as likely to err as anyone else. In fact, if we take Clark at his word, then he himself says that he erred. He claimed that the Westminster Confession of Faith is wrong when it calls Christ one person. Yet Clark changed his view on that. So Clark claims to have erred.
Of course, I believe he erred. Only I believe his error is the Nestorian error, not that the Westminster Confession erred.
“In other words, the complainants imply that Dr. Clark holds that regeneration does not renew the mind or that sin has not affected it; whereas Dr. Clark said specifically that sin often causes men to commit logical fallacies.” The Answer
There is a huge difference between rejecting Van Til’s theory of analogy and assuming that it is possible for men to overcome perfectly the noetic effects of sin–even in Clark himself. To say that is to commit the error of claiming infallibility for the intellect.
We are fallible. We need to learn and we would have to have a perfect memory to never forget anything, including all the propositions in Scripture:
“However, God neither learns nor forgets. “He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Psalm 121:4). I Corinthians 2:11 says, “What man knows the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” This verse indicates, what is otherwise not surprising, that God knows himself; and if God is eternal and uncreated, the original Self Existent, then his knowledge of himself must be eternal.”
Omniscience, by Gordon H. Clark
Clark did indeed teach that “no one knows all the propositions that God knows.” For God has not revealed all of His mind. But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether no one knows all the propositions of Scripture, which “No one this side of eternity is absolutely perfect in their logical and theological worldview,” denies.
“It stands to reason that since none of us are perfect, no one knows all the propositions of Scripture perfectly.”
No, it does not stand to reason. The fact that “none of us are perfect” does not imply “no one knows all the propositions of Scripture perfectly.” Again, the fact that we all make mistakes mean we can never everything right. We are not so prone to error. If it were so, no one could ever get a 100 on an exam.
No one is placing anyone on a pedestal of papal authority. No one is claiming that Clark is or has to be right all the time. I’m simply saying that there is no necessity that he be wrong in some things. I don’t think he is in any wrong in his view of the world. But there are some things I do think he is wrong. His view of the Incarnation is not one of them. It is not the Nestorian error, if such can even be called an error. I believe his view of the Incarnation is one of the best, if not the best contribution of insight in all his writings.
Edit:
Again, the fact that we all make mistakes DOES NOT mean we can never GET everything right.