The following is a typed transcription of this scan of Gordon Clark's Examination in Theology, which took place on July 7, 1944. I've attempted to clean up stenographic typos and whatnot as much as can be expected, but those who wish to read the original scan may, of course, do so. I've included notes Clark wrote in the margins at the end.
1944. Examination in Theology. Orthodox Presbyterian Church. July 7.
MEETING OF THE PRESBYTERY OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, at 2328 GERMANTOWN AVENUE, PHILA. PA.On July 7, 1944
Commencing at 1:45 p.m., EWT.
IN RE: EXAMINATION IN THEOLOGY OF GORDON H. CLARK
MR. MARSTON: I move that a record of the examination be made by a Court Stenographer.
(This motion, having been seconded from the floor, was put to a vote and was carried).
GORDON H. CLARK, was examined in Theology as follows:
---
BY REVEREND CLELLAND: You have been examined before, Mr. Clark. by the Presbytery, and I do not think it is necessary for me to conduct a comprehensive examination in Theology at this time. Therefore, I shall confine myself to certain points which seem to me to be important in the case at issue. You accept a confession of the faith in our Church, as brought out in the Holy Scripture?
A I do.
Q You believe the statement in Chapter 2. Section 1, that the one only living and true God is incomprehensible?
A I believe that there are indications in Scripture that when we shall be glorified, our knowledge will continue to increase forever, and that in all probability there will be no end to such increase.
Q That there will always be then, something which we could not yet comprehend?
A It seems to me entirely likely, though the exegeses of it are a little weak, but it seems to me entirely likely that there will always be certain particular truths that we do not know.
Q I will ask you this question, which you may have already answered: Is all truth in the mind of God, capable of being addressed in propositions intelligent to the mind of man?
A I would not know what the word: "truth" meant unless as a quality of proposition. I cannot conceive of anything that is of truth that is not a proposition.
Q All right, then - how about the proposition being intelligible to the mind of man?
A I have no Scriptural basis for that, God can reveal any particular proposition to man, and if God Can make Sons of Abraham out of stones of the roadway, he can make even a stupid individual person understand a proposition.
Q Is the omniscience of God an incommunicable attribute?
A Yes.
Q Man then, will never be omniscient?
A I have already stated there will always be propositions that-man will not know and furthermore, if omniscience is supposed to be not only the proposition that God knows, but his manner of knowing them, naturally, we shall never have any knowledge in that manner.
Q Chapter 3, Section 1, of the Confession, this speaks of God Eternal Decree by which he has ordained whatsoever comes to past, yet, so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away -- do you subscribe freely to that statement?
A Yes, it includes the last three words: "But rather established".
Q Does not that seem to be a paradox, -- Let me ask you, can you accept doctrines that are paradoxical?
A By paradox you mean, I suppose, a pair of propositions which people cannot harmonize?
Q Yes.
A Yes, that is often the case. I have to accept certain propositions which are paradoxical, but of course. you don't mean paradoxical in the Barthian sense.
Q Are there any conditions paradoxical to God?
A No. sir.
Q There is no paradox in God?
A No.
Q Chapter 5, Section 3. under "Providence", reads as follows: "God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure". Do you subscribe to that statement of Confession?
A God works against men in a sense which a weak-kneed king would try to do something, use an Army or some device to over6 throw the People of God, and God would destroy the Army or the means that the King used. I know of only two cases in which God works without means, in the creation of the word - he used no means; and the only other case I know where God has worked without all means - is in his upholding the Universe as a whole. As for working above means, I must confess I don’t know what the word: "above" indicates in this connection. If you give me a definition, I will tell you what I think.
Q Chapter 21, Section 7, of the Confession, under: "Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day," - the statement is made: God, by a positive moral and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath”- under the Old Testament, it was the Seventh day of the Week, and from the Resurrection, Christ changed that to the First day of the Week Do you accept that Statement?
A Yes.
Q Do you hold then, that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath, which takes place of the Seventh Day of the Old Testament?
A Yes. In the Book of Acts, it is indicated Christians worship on the first day of the week.
Q In the 109th question of the Larger Catechism, under: “Sins Forbidden", in the Second Commandment, there is forbidden making any representation of God, of all, or of any of the Three Persons, either inwardly in our minds, or outwardly of any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever"-- Do you subscribe to that particular statement of the Larger Catechism?
A Very easily, there is no possible imagining of God.
Q Would you interpret that to forbid pictures of Jesus?
A No sir, that is his human nature, he had a body like anyone else and there is no reason that a likeness cannot be made of Christ, not to kneel before them, not to worship, but there is no objection to painting a scene of the Crucifixion or Christ before Pilate.
Q Chapter 33, back in the Confession, Section 1, on the "Last Judgment”, we are told that God appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, in which day, not only the Apostate Angels shall be judged, but likewise, all persons that have lived upon earth, shall appear before the Tribunal of Christ -- Do you feel you can accept that statement?
A Yes -- all shall appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ, God has given all judgment into the hand of Christ.
Q In one day, or a day?
A Well, there may be other Judgment Days, I'm not sure, but I'm quite willing to say they will all appear on one day, whether they have appeared previously. or not.
Q The thing I am getting at is this: It would seem to me here, the Confession teaches there is a day, one particular day in which all men shall appear, I’m trying to ask you whether you subscribe to that - whether you subscribe to it, and in case you don't, do you think it is put here, one Judgment.
A Well. the word: "day”, is not always a reference to exactly 24 hours, but it does seem to me that there is one great final judgment. Now, there may be certain other punishments and judgments preceding that and I think there is this one final judgment, meaning usually in the everlasting. final date.
Q Does God make a free Public and Sincere offer of Salvation to all men?
A God makes a perfectly free offer of Salvation through his Ministers, proclaiming the word of God. The word: "sincerely is not in the Confession. I don’t know just what it would mean under such conditions, it is perfectly free and general.
Q There is no question then about the free or public -- Under “Repentance or Faith" - I believe you are looking for.
A I was looking at that passage in the Confession a little while ago and I can agree with the word, that is, word for word right down, what the Confession says, Chapter 7. Section 3. I think it is. Yes, Chapter 7. Section 3: “Wherein He freely offered unto sinners, life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him. that they may be saved and promising to give unto all of those that are Ordained unto Life, His Holy Spirit. to make them willing and able to believe"
Q Well, when I used the word: “sincere", I mean - something that comes from my heart, something that 'I genuinely offer. You hold of course you cannot say all of these things about God, but about ourselves but you say, God makes a genuine offer of Salvation to all men?
A God is certainly sincere, he commands all men everywhere, to repent. that is a sincere command.
REVEREND CLELLAND: I have no other questions.
THE MODERATOR: Are there any other questions?
BY REVEREND E. H. RIAN: Q I have one or two things which I’d like to have cleared up. As to the word: "omniscient” - whether Dr. Clark holds or believes that man can become omniscient, and as to the definition of omniscient - it is defined for this purpose as the way in which God holds all things as well as the contents of his knowledge, that being an incommunicable attribute or attainment toward which man does not, or ever will, come, "Omniscience" is defined in the way in which God knows all things, as well as the contents of his knowledge, which is an incommunicable attribute - the attainment toward which man does not, or ever will, make progress.
A I subscribe to that.
Q I believe you spoke, or Mr. Clelland spoke about all truth in the mind of God is capable of being expressed in propositions intelligible to the mind of man. Wouldn't you say that according to the Scripture Revelation, we have no right to say - either all knowledge in the mind of God is capable of being expressed in proposition or - all proof is not capable of being expressed in proposition intelligible to the mind of man. In other words, we cannot dogmatically say either one of those, is that correct?
A I would put to it, the considerable knowledge to justify those statements and its basically a matter of English, it’s a matter of English, - it is simply a matter of common sense, what the word: "truth" means.
Q Wouldn't you say from Scripture, that you wouldn’t be able, dogmatically, to say either?
A You couldn't deduce that from the teaching of the Scripture. A great deal of this, not a great deal, various Parts of this cannot be deduced from Scripture. at least some or part of it gives a weak support to it, in my opinion.
Q Now, as to a paradox, this is an expression of what I mean by a seeming contradiction, God makes a free, public, sincere offer of the Gospel to all men at the same time, he wills some should be saved, isn't that seemingly a contradiction?
A It sees so to you.
Q All right, it seems so to me, and a lot of others.
A That is a paradox, yea.
Q Would you admit those two?
A yes. My only question is the word: "sincere", there is a peculiar adjective to use, or should I say - a word in English language?
REVEREND RIAN: I have no more questions at this time.
----
BY DR. WELMERS: Q I have three questions and it may turn out to be one or more less, or the parts of the questions may be in one: Apart from the argument as to whether God's knowledge can be spoken of as a series of propositions, would it be your opinion that some of those propositions, if they are propositions, are, of themselves, an infinite content? For example: The proposition - God is Love, that is a proposition as much as A plus B. Does that, in your opinion, have, in itself, an infinite content?
A No, in itself, it is just that one proposition, no more.
Q To further expound on that question: Do you believe that God’s Love, as well as other of his Attributes are Infinite?
A They are limited by nothing outside of himself.
Q You subscribe to the Doctrine that God is Infinite in his Being?
A Yes.
Q If God is Infinite in his ability and being, then, is not knowledge of those attributes also infinite?
A Why, no.
Q Why, not?
A Because it is just one piece of knowledge,
Q Does not God know all of the infinity of his attributes, all of their application?
A He knows that none of his attributes are limited by anything outside himself, that is knowing the Infinity of them.
Q To comprehend then, the proposition: “God is Love”, would seem to me like to ask if you agree that that denotes infinite knowledge?
A No more than it requires infinite knowledge to know the Rule of Infinite Theories in Geometry or Algebra, it is just one piece of knowledge, one proposition.
Q Well, we'll go on to the second one: You have in the past, attributed a great deal to what you call the premise of the intellect and all of us hold, I am sure, that an intelligent grasp of fundamental Scriptural truth is basic to saving faith. In that sense, we all hold to what might be called a priority of the intellect. However, would you agree that the intellect, the emotions and volitional aspect of man’s nature are equally fundamental to his soul and equally important, while still granting that the intellect might be first in order in much the same way that the Father is first in order, in the Holy Trinity.
A Well, if your statement isn't self contradictory, it is a paradox to me. How can A and B, be on a par, and yet one is first, that is beyond me.
Q Do you not believe the members of the Holy Trinity are absolutely on a par and yet, the Father is first in order?
A There is a distinction there: The Order refers to an economic suggestion and their being on a par refers to their substantial personalities. There are two points there, and what you say of one is not true of the other.
Q I believe it is a good illustration, and I don't want to get into odious comparisons here. It is my feeling that the intellect and emotion and will are equally fundamental as aspects of the Human Soul, yet, there is in the calling and serving faith, there is an economic precedent of the intellect, that is that. And, the intellectual grasp of the way of salvation, first requires the saving of faith to both.
A I am willing to admit the intellect and volition and emotion are equally essential to a human being. Now, if that is all you mean, that is that. But - they have different functions and I hold that the intellect is a supreme function.
Q To get farther into that, is my next question: I believe you said at the last examination, and I hope I am not misquoting you, that man's highest good is an intelligent apprehension of God.
A I said - that was his method of enjoying God forever and it was the greatest religious activity,
Q In the Scriptures, the greatest command is to love the Lord, our God, and man’s highest end is the love of God and to enjoy him forever. And, I would think it most obvious, the most obvious thing is the glorifying of God, if we are to indulge in volitional activities.
A So do I hold that.
Q Would you then say the intellectual apprehension of God is the most basic?
A No, I'd say it is the highest, - not the most basic.
Q You would not say - it is a means to an end of loving and glorifying God, but is the end?
A I should say the contemplation of God is - glorifying and enjoying God.
Q Rather than a means to the end of Glorifying him?
A Of course, you mean - I don't make your distinction between the end and a means to the end.
DR. WELMER: I think that is all. ----
BY REVEREND KUCHKE: Q Dr. Clark, is it true that God is Infinite?
A Infinite in the sense that there is nothing outside of him that bounds him or limits him in any way. He is not in the old Greek sense, Infinite, but He is Infinite in the sense that nothing outside of him limits him in any way.
Q Does God have infinite knowledge of His own being?
A Yes. his knowledge is not limited by anything outside of him.
Q Is this true, that the finite mind can know God as He reveals Himself in finite things and finite ideas?
A Yes.
Q Can the infinite mind know God apart from revelations also?
A You include under "Infinite" - individual propositions, that God reveals?
Q To me, yes.
A I say yes to that, if that is what you mean.
Q To me" a proposition is something in itself, finite.
A Then, I agree with that.
Q Will the infinite mind be able to know God directly in His wisdom, apart form God's revelation of Himself, in the finite?
A By “Infinite" you mean - proposition? No, I think only through propositions.
Q And, is the finite mind limited by the finite?
A Yes, we know by propositions, -- by means of propositions and that is the only way we do know.
Q And, can the finite mind penetrate ever beyond the range of the finite into the infinite?
A Well,· the proposition referred to infinite action such as algebraic and arithmetic theories - it is a finite proposition, but infinity is one of the terms of it. You can sum up an infinite series, you have an infinite number of terms in the proposition.
Q When the Confession. of Faith says: "God is without body parts - passion", Does it mean God is lacking in feeling or emotion?
A It does.
Q I’ll define feelings and emotions: I mean - affection in the sense of principal activity with reference to objections. Now, I'll repeat the question, if you wish.
A Go ahead.
Q The Confession says: "God is without body parts or passion“ Does it mean God is lacking in feeling or emotion?
A Go ahead--
Q And by feeling or emotion, I mean - in the sense of principal activity with reference to objects.
A I forget which way answer that - yes or no.
Q The Confession of Faith says: "God is without body or parts”
A The answer is yes, but I protest against the awful English of your statement, the word: "emotion" -- never mind that English.
Q You mean that God has never acted upon anything aside from himself?
A I don't understand you.
Q What I would like to know is this: We can call these feelings or emotions in God, and I would define them as analogous to our feelings and emotions and affections in the sense that they are active principles, active with reference to objects. For example: God is angry with the wicked. God loves His people eternally, - would you deny that?
A That is right right, what you say is right.
Q That is what the Confession means?
A No, what -- not what it means, right there - not what the Confession means --
Q The Fourth Commandment is binding upon us today?
A Yes.
Q And another is: "Does God sincerely offer the Gospel to the reprobates?"
A God makes a perfectly free and public offer of the Gospel to all men. I stand on the wording of the Confession.
REVERJND KUCHKE: That is all I have.
THE MODERATOR: Are there any other questions?
BY DR. WOOLLEY: Is there any difference in kind between the knowledge of God, subjective, and the knowledge that human beings have or possess
A That is entirely different.
Q Can you give any further explanation or definition of that difference?
A Briefly, I should say God's knowledge is intuitive and ours is discursive?
Q You consider that a difference in kind, rather than a difference in the method of knowledge or method of knowing?
A I thought kind and method meant the same thing.
Q I didn't mean them to mean the same thing, that is - I would say that to my mind when I use the word: "kind” I meant a description of knowledge which was much broader in extent than purely the method of acquiring which covered type of being or content that you might describe to knowledge, apart from acquisition.
A I know of two points, often this subject: That is - the method of knowledge - knowing, is, in the case of God not acquisitional, but in our case. it is. That is one point of it, and the only other point that has any reference to the subject ls.: The object known, such as 2 x 2, equals 4. I hold that that is the same as it is for God, but the method of knowing it, 1s entirely different.
Q Does that mean that the method which we use is less than the method. used by God, or simply that is the part of the method used by God. Is there a difference in perfection or simply a difference in quantity?
A No, the method is the same, but the objects are a matter of quantities.
Q That is quite a different point in connection with the question: What was previously asked was as to the pictorial representation of Christ, and you made some reference to those representations as to the human nature of Christ, does that mean the pictorial and only of the human nature of Christ?
A I wouldn't know how to paint on canvas, anything that was not physical.
Q Thank you.
A You can’t paint a picture of a man's soul, so obviously, you couldn't paint a picture of God's.
BY MR. CUMMINGS: Q I understand that your position, Dr. Clark is - that according to God's revelations in the Bible. we are not able to say all truth in the mind of God is capable in being expressed of propositions intelligently to the mind of man, nor, that all truth in fact, is not capable of being expressed in the mind of man. Now, if -- and nor can we say all truth in the mind of God is not capable of being expressed in propositions intelligent to the minds of man. Is that not to say that it is capable of being expressed in propositions intelligent to the mind of man?
A That simply means - the Bible does not give free expression on the lesson in logic.
Q How then are there any judgments and ways passed finding out?
A I would explain that by saying no endeavor on our part can discover certain truths about God but those truths can be obtained only by revelations and we cannot solve them out on our own incentive, on our own steam - if I may use that phrase.
Q Would you say that all propositions that have been revealed in the Scripture are capable of being intelligent now, to the mind of man?
A All scriptures - the doctrines are not all intelligent to man’s mind, sometimes.
Q Is it comprehensive to man's mind? A That means the same thing. Q: You would say then, that all that is revealed in the Scripture is capable of being comprehended by the mind of man?
A Oh yea, that is what it was given to us for, to understand it.
MR. CUMMINGS: Thank you.
BY MR, KIEPER: Q You would say of course, that God is infinite - or, is it infinity?
A Yes.
Q You would say the human intellect is finite?
A Yes.
Q You would also say subsequently, that the human mind can never comprehend God?
A Not for that reason, a finite man can know him in finite things.
Q Can it comprehend anything that is infinite?
A Certainly. One-half plus one one-half, plus one-quarter, plus one-sixteenth, that is an infinite series which is very easily comprehended.
Q Would you say that God possesses each of his Attributes infinitely?
A I wouldn't say it because I wouldn't know what it means.
Q God is infinite in his Being.
A None of His attributes are limited by anything outside of himself, I think I said that before.
Q If infinite in His being - is He not also infinite in His Attributes?
A That is just what I said.
Q I beg your pardon, I thought you didn't say that. Would you say that man can comprehend God in his incommunicable attributes?
A We can know that God has certain incommunicable attributes, yes.
Q Can we comprehend the exhaustive knowledge of his incommunicable attributes?
A Can we know the proposition like – God is Love? Yes.
Q Can we know the love of God fully and comprehend it fully?
A I don't know what you mean - can we experience it do you mean?
Q No, can we have a comprehensive and exhaustive knowledge, intellectual understanding of it - not just a knowledge that God is love. Can we know the love of God comprehensively and substantially?
A The only kind of knowledge which I am familiar - is the knowledge of the proposition, knowledge is the possession of truth, and the only truth that I know anything about is - a proposition. If you are talking about something else. I don't know just what you are talking about.
Q I think I am likely talking about something else but I thought it was clear what I was trying to say. I was going to ask the question next, whether a man can comprehend God in his communicable attributes, but perhaps you don't feel like answering that question. You spoke of the Gospel as a command. Isn't it also an offer?
A That word is frequently used, would you quote some verses you have in mind?
Q “Come unto me all thee that labor" -- that is a command and also an offer.
A If you want to use the word in that sense.
Q Would you say that God, in the Gospel offers Eternal Life to sinners?
A Yes.
Q Would you say God is perfectly since in making that offer to each one?
A If you insist on using that word instead of others --
Q Suppose, well, might we not have to deal here with a so-called paradox?
A Possibly it may seem a paradox, but it is simply a matter of definition.
Q Would you also say the Gospel is an invitation?
A Yes.
Q Would you say God sincerely invites everyone who loves God, to Eternal Life"
A He makes a perfectly public, free invitation.
Q You wouldn’t want to us e the word: “sincere”?
A No.
Q l’d like to ask you this: “All who are called should comply with the invitation. I’m going to ask you whether you would subscribe to such a statement, namely; all who are acceptable to Him, all who are called, should comply with the invitation.
A That is all right, that is a good statement.
Q You would agree that God has declared in His word, that it would be acceptable to him that all men who hear the Gospel should comply with the invitation?
A Yes, that is right.
Q That is acceptable to him?
A Right, it says so.
Q All right. All men who are called in what will be acceptable to him, namely; all who are called should comply with the invitation?
A That is correct. yes.
Q Would you say it would please God that all who are called accept the invitation?
A When we speak of the Gospel there, - after all, a good many are called, but few are chosen, and we must insist that.
Q Would you say that miracles are supernatural acts of God?
A Well, all acts of God are supernatural.
Q In other words, you wouldn't care to draw a line of demarkation between the supernatural and the natural?
A Oh yes, I would, definitely
Q Where would you draw that line?
A Between God on the one hand and all his creation on the other.
Q But, you wouldn't want to draw a line between the supernatural and natural, in the words of God?
A Well, the events which come to pass in accordance with the ordinary laws of physics are, of course, properly called natural work and miracles do not occur, some of them at any rate, some of the miracles do not occur in accordance with the laws of physics. Now, they are not supernatural in the sense that they take place outside the world. They differ from what we call ordinary natural phenomena in that they are inconsistent with the laws of physics and chemistry and whatever particular background you have.
REVEREND KIEPER: That is all.
BY MR. ANDREWS: Q Dr. Clark, you have said that man's knowledge is of a series of propositions, that is, discursively.
A Yes.
Q That God's knowledge is intuitive.
A Yes.
Q Do you mean by that, that God sees everything in all its infinite relation, all at one glance?
A Yes. that is awkward language but I don't know any better, if you don't press me too hard on it.
BY MR. MARSTON: Q Dr. Clark, Can we know all the propositions about the love of God?
A I think not, but I think that God can reveal any particular one of the propositions.
Q In some correspondence which I was privileged to have with you, we referred to 3:19, we have in this verse, the following thoughts: "To know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge--" l’d like to read a quotation of mine on the phrase: "Love of Christ" - "which passeth knowledge", and I'd like to hear your reaction to it, please: “The love of Christ transcends human capacity, but the relative knowledge of the same, opens up even higher, in higher degrees, the more the heart is filled with the Spirit of Christ. and thereby is its strength and in loving, which knowledge is not of the discursive kind but that which has its basis in the consciousness of experience -- In other words, to know the love of Christ which passeth understanding .. -
A Well, I don't follow Myers in everything he says, the passage, it is quite possible that when Paul says: “To know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge", it is quite possible that he means to experience it rather than to know, that is in the philosophical sense we have been using it, that is one possibility, or, if he uses it in the strict philosophical sense, the continuation of that passage which goes along to say that, well, to be filled to all the fullness of God, would indicate that Paul is speaking of a progression in knowledge.
Q Dr. Clark, will you give us a statement on your view of the incomprehensabi1ity of God?
A By the incomprehensibility of God. I mean - that God knows the -- he knows every propositions and that those propositions are infinite in number and that we shall not exhaust them when he reveal s them to us, one at a time.
BY MR. WElMERS: Q You have said Dr. Clark, that our knowledge must necessarily be confined to propositions. Would you say that God Clark apart from His Creation, let us say, in His knowledge of Himself, is also confined in his knowledge, the propositions which of themselves are necessarily finite, according to your own words?
A You are trying to get me to define intuition, or intuitive knowledge. Now, Mr. Andrews made a certain description of it which is satisfactory to me in ordinary conversations, but, to make a definition, there is no possibility of mistaking such a tremendous job, I am not prepared for that question at all.
Q Do you believe that God’s intuitive knowledge is the same as our discursive knowledge?
A Well, I guess not, two times two is four, both for God and for us, that is the expression of God's knowledge and if we don't know the object that God knows then we are in absolute ignorance.
Q Would you mind repeating your statement or Mr. Andrews statement, what it was?
MR. ANDREWS: As I recall it it was: “God’s knowledge is intuitive and He sees and knows every-thing in all of its infinite relations at one glance."
BY MR. WElMERS: Q You have said I believe, that man is - his religious action is an intellectual apprehension of God. Do you include in that intellectual apprehension, what the Scripture refers to as loving God and obeying God?
A The intellectual apprehension is the result of a voluntary act of paying attention. You can't know anything unless by an act of will, and yet, the knowing itself is an act of intellectual apprehension because of its volitional aspects.
Q I’m going to try to stay away from arguing and as much as possible stick to principle. Would you include in that intellectual apprehension of God, also what the scripture calls Love?
A I have always regarded love in the theological sense as a volitional act and not an emotional act.
Q In the Epistle of James, Faith is described in such terms that it is obviously confined to mere intellectual apprehension apart from volitional activities.
A I am not sure of that
Q Does not James say, he believed God is one --
A How can you get away from the volitional belief - that is a volitional act on their part, that is the object of their faith, that is different, they simply believe one God and --
Q Was the faith of Christ then, different from the Devil's?
A We believe Christ died for us, they only believe there is one God.
Q James make the distinction further that we must have faith plus work, and he cites work as willingness of Abraham to offer up his son Isaac and I take it, Paul, in his Epistle, when he says we are justified by faith - he says that our faith I think he says is apart from the work, Paul means by faith exactly what James means by faith, plus work. What I’m driving at is this question: Is it your idea of man’s highest religious action comparable to Paul's definition of faith which includes so much more than wha.t the Devil believes concerns God rather than being along the lines of James' definition of faith which considers apart from work?
A I don't think the distinction between Paul’s and Jame’s is anything like what you say it is. So, that part of the question is beside the point. I guess we can drop that out, will you ask your question over again?
Q Would you say that your idea of the highest religious act of man is comparable to the standard definition of stating faith as including the confidence in, and leaning upon Christ, rather than being comparable to the definition of faith which might suffice for the faith which the devils have?
A Well. of course I would agree with that - no, I’m not sure that is what you are driving at, what you say is perfectly true.
Q I think that satisfies me.
A The Confession says by this saving faith, faith is different in degrees - weak or strong, but gets the victory growing up, etc., if that is satisfactory.
BY MR, MARSDEN: Q Dr. Clark, you said that two plus two is four. That is a proposition and man knows that proposition exactly the same as God knows it.
A No, I said the proposition is known, that is, a known proposition is the same proposition, that is very different.
Q You do not mean then that man knows that proposition in all of its relationship, the same as God?
A I'm not talking about the implication as a proposition. I am talking about that one object, namely; two plus two equals four. A child in first grade can even know that, but the child in first grade doesn't see the implication of it which the children in the fourth grade and in high school see.
Q Do you believe that the answer to the first question of the Catechism is that that was the chief end of man?
A That is a perfectly good answer.
Q The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever?
A Yes.
Q What do you mean then by glorifying God?
A That takes in quite a lot of things. It takes in the ordinary act of obedience on a purely common plain such as "Thou Shalt Not Steal", it includes the worship of God, private and public, it includes the study of the scripture, prayer and in heaven it will also involve the contemplation of God. I suppose you can see and say that we contemplate God here in a way, although we are making little progress in it, I guess.
THE MODERATOR: Any other questions?
BY MR, THOMPSON: Q Dr. Clark, I presume you hold God has complete knowledge of himself?
A Yes.
Q I am speaking apart entirely from any question as to how such knowledge might be communicated, the manner: Would you say that it would ever be possible, whether in this life or the next life, for any of God's creatures to know God in the same way that God knows himself?
A I thought you wouldn’t be talking about the manner of knowledge.
Q I want to get out of the picture for the moment, the question of the proposition, the question of infinite or finite and whether you think, in this life or the next, God's creatures will ever have the same knowledge of God that he has of himself?
A I think right now we have items of knowledge exactly identical, two plus two equals four.
Q I began my statement by saying God has complete knowledge regarding himself --
A He knows all the propositions, everyone of them.
Q Do you think it is possible for man, either in this life or the next life, to have complete knowledge regarding God?
A There is only one verse in the scripture which seems to indicate and that is in First Corinthians 13:12: "Now we know in part, then we shall know even as we were known “That sounds as if we would have every proposition, the contrast seems to be between special knowledge and complete knowledge, although the word: "Complete" is not there. But, it says; "We shall known, even as we were known”, That is a puzzle to me. However, there is no other verse in scripture that would bear out the position that we shall know every proposition and hence, since it is impossible to base a doctrine on one verse when the exigencies of the verse itself is now clear even at that, it is impossible to make such an assertion and it is necessary to say that the Bible indicates that we shall continue forever to learn.
Q I believe you said earlier that God can reveal any proposition concerning himself?
A That is right.
Q Is there any reason why God could not reveal every proposition concerning himself?
A In a certain sense, we are temporal creatures, and that will never be exhausted.
Q Is it possible that God could make such revelations in the hereafter?
A That is like the proposition: "Can God make a stone, too heavy for him to lift”. And, that involves a self contradiction and is meaningless.
Q You said a while ago it seems to me that 2 times 2 equals four, and that is true for God as was man, is that correct?
A That is right.
Q Now, I'd like to ask you this simple question: How do you know it is true for God
A By the definition of one and the definitions of two, three and four, and certain operation of arithmetic it is so and also by the strict laws of logic.
Q Where do we get those laws of logic?
A “Every man that cometh into the world”
Q Is it possible that by the effective sin, man will not be able to deduce by the propositions concerning God?
A That is often the case.
MR. THOMPSON: That is all.
BY MR. CUMMING Q Pardon me for rising again, but one point is not clear to me: Since you state it is possible that all truth in the mind of God is capable of being express in propositions, intelligible to the minds of man, how do you reconcile this with your statement there is an apparent paradox in the Scriptures?
A Well, the two statements may seem paradoxical to one and not to another. Just as the early student in physics cannot understand why ono bucket of water and if there is twice the amount of water in another bucket, there is no more pressure, at least that seems strange to the young student and not at all strange to a person who understands it.
Q Would you not say that there are propositions that have been revealed. for instance: Referring to God making a free, public, sincere offer of salvation, would you not consider that to us is a seeming contradiction?
A If you say so, I must admit it.
Q How about in your own mind?
A It doesn't bother me at all, I don't see no contradiction, it just doesn't bother me.
Q In your mind, is there any paradox in the Scriptures?
A Yes, I have a bad one, the paradox of the Evolution of God and the Acts of Creation.
BY REVEREND RYAN: Q Might I bring back a question - I think you answered me to the effect that according to revelation of the Scripture, we were not in position to say all proof is capable of being expressed in propositions or that all truth is not capable of being expressed in propositions.
A I could not prove either "of those statements from the expression, of the statements in the scriptures.
Q In other words, you do admit that we cannot dogmatically say either one is true?
A That is right.
BY MR. STONEHOUSE: Q You would say there are laws of logic which compel you to decide in favor of one proposition?
A I cannot imagine anyone would say that in truth, that is not a proposition.
Q I want to carry now a little forward, the discussion about the incomprehensibility of God. Just a little while ago. a question was raised as to what might prevent on God’s part, the revelation of all propositions in his knowledge and you say there are an infinite number of those propositions - of course, the propositions are infinite and therefore --
A Because we are temporal creatures, that is what makes the impossibility of revealing all propositions - not that by itself.
Q Would you also say the incomprehensibility of God prevents revelation of all propositions?
A Because of his incomprehensibility and the reason for knowing, - you can't say one thing is because of itself.
Q The incomprehensibility of God is an attribute of his being. A What does it mean?
Q What does it mean?
A The meaning which I give to the word or phraseology - incomprehensibility of God is that in a sense, he sees all propositions and there are an infinite number of propositions and the infinite number cannot be indicated and known" by us who are temporal creatures.
Q It is then his incomprehensibility which prevents him from disclosing all knowledge that 'he has to them.
A Yes.
Q What is your - shall I say in the introduction, in connection with the term "omnisciened", the subject of the manner of God’s knowledge? I of course agree that subject is one of greatest importance when we consider the difference between God and man. God knows truth in a different way than man does know truth. But, why do you introduce that in connection with the subject of omniscience, and you won't -- why they are not restricted to the items of his knowledge.
A In the previous examination last March, I did restrict myself to the concept -- to the content or items of his knowledge -- and that produced misunderstanding among a few people and I found out since there are some gentlemen in the room who don't think that it mentioned God knows everything and hence, in order to make it quite clear, I make the distinction so that anyone can understand what I mean.
Q Would you say all the contents of God's knowledge is communicable to man?
A I would say any particular proposition is communicable.
Q But not all propositions?
A There is no all, I just said they were infinite and how can there be an all, if it is infinite.
Q I don't see there is a contradiction in that -- and a little humility and politeness would help too. In your argument on the premise on the intellect, you say the intellect is referring to that mode by which man comes in possession of religion and volition is the condition or act of striving to gain possession. In other words, the desire and love is a means to an end and cannot be the end itself. Now, do you not very clearly reduce love whether emotional or volitional, do you not clearly define love that it can be thought of as the end in itself, love of God can be a means to the end.
A I wasn't talking about things God does, I was talking about man's active love of God.
Q But God is the object, is he not?
A That is right.
Q We are in agreement on that point.
A Yes.
Q You state in the first section that intellect is a fact or mode of action by which man comes into possession or of contact with religion and you say as to love, that means to say it cannot be the end in itself. Love cannot.
A That is right.
Q Do you not therefore imply the love of God on man's part, toward God is definitely subordinated to the intellectual contemplation of God and that is a means to that end?
A That is exactly what that says, it also says that is being argued on the assumption that intellect and volition are different.
Q How much of that is contrary?
A All of it.
Q The whole article?
A It is directed against a very fixed position and I have discussed what I believe to be the inacceptable conclusion from the position from which I am talking from.
Q When you say obedience is far from nonsense, and the respective rules of God and man are changed, how can this be described as the Union of God and man, is that part of your argument?
A Part of it.
Q Intellectual contemplation of God -- A I think the contemplation of God itself is in obedience to His command. I think that is not the point. Of course, in obedience and to his command might involve volitional acts.
A That is right.
Q The point is whether intellectual contemplation of God is regarded as the goal of let us say, the love of God or obedience of God.
A That is right.
Q Does not that imply the love of God and obedience to God may not be regarded probably to the end?
A Its a means to the end.
Q Would you defend such a position from Scripture?
A Well, this is Life Eternal, they should know, they, the only True God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent".
Q You think the verb, "to know" in that particular passage is the same as intellectual comprehension of God and the contemplation of diety.
A Yes.
Q Don’t you think the Scriptural verb, “to love” - definitely includes the act to Love, to love God, the verb, "to know" .. involves ·the act of love toward God?
A Yes, sometimes, at any rate, not always, of course.
Q In other words, if you admit it is applied to a passage like this, you could hardly appeal to that passage which you take as to the position of the contemplation of God is the goal which Love of God must have in view. What I am setting over against, what seems to be your position the comprehension of God, the total responsibility of man’s personality must involve in the intellectual contemplation it must involve the same level not subordinate to it, the Love in the Holy Scripture, contemplates the relation of God and man, and that is put in jeopardy if you allow obedience to God that that may be put in some secondary phrase subordinate to the comprehension of God.
A There may be anti-scriptural forms of intellect, but intellect is in itself not necessarily anti-scriptural.
Q Intellectual comprehension defined in this article is subordinating love and obedience to the intellect or intellectual contemplation of the Diety.
A I can't see how obedience is an end in itself, it is always for a purpose. I think obedience is purposeful.
Q Then, you say intellectual contemplation of God is not purposeful?
A That is the end.
Q At that point I do think there is a deep-seated difference between our conception. what the Scriptures set forth as to God and man --
BY MR. ELLIOTT: Q I’d like to ask concerning called work joined into the Lord, is one Spirit, is that intellectual Union?
A I have no idea, I don't know what it is.
Q The context refers to the union, in a lustful union of the flesh, compared to the Union which the believer has, with the Holy Spirit.
A Without some study of the matter, I don't think I should say anything on that particular passage.
BY MR. WELMERS: Q Dr. Clark. what do you take to be the meaning when Christ asked a young man, asked him, which was the greatest command, that is, "you shall love the Lord, God, etc”
A That means that command meant - summarizes all the Ten Commandments or at least the First Table.
Q Would that Commandment summarized, include your statement that an intellectual contemplation of God is man's highest end?
A I think that is included in the First Commandment of the Ten, "Thou shall have no other God or Gods before me".
Q Would you feel free to use the word: "Love”, with regard to your own statement of man, of man's highest religious end, which you call "intellectual contemplation of God"?
A Somehow or other, intellect and volition sometimes merge, but I cannot give you a theory in one, two, three order, I cannot do that.
Q I'm trying to confine myself to Scripture, the whole idea of the Covenant is obedience. Christ said, shortly before in John's, 17, "This is my command that Ye love one another as I have loved you", and frequently, in the 15th Chapter of John, he refers to obedience, to doing his command and to love both for himself and for each other. Is that all a part, the essential part of the word in John’s 17: "This is Life Eternal that they might know Thee".
A It seems to me that when God gives us a Commandment, the purpose is not exhausted in simply going through the motions, but there is a further purpose and if he tells us to study the Scripture or example, it is not just to exercise our minds, but to learn what is there so that the knowing what the scripture teaches is the end of obedient act of study and therefore, I don't want to make the final end just the act of obedience, but the purpose of that action, I don’t think the purpose is all in itself.
Q Do you believe that Jesus meant, when he said: "Thou shall love the Lord, God, in order to know Him better”, that that is what he meant?
A Yes.
Q Do you think Jesus ever said anything about the question whether he meant: "Thou shall love -- learn about God, in order to love him better"?
A He said - those are attributes.
Q That is not a paradox?
A No, not to me.
BY MR. ALLEN: Q I want to know this: I think you said it about 10 times, and I want to make sure that is what you meant, that every act of intellect - in every act of intellect, there is volition. A That is right. And love is included in intellect?
A That is right.
BY MR. KEIPER: Q Just a few more questions, you said some time ago, Dr. Clark, that omniscience is incommunicable attribute of God. A Yes.
Q It follows from that, does it not, that man’s knowledge can never equal the knowledge of God.
A That is right.
Q Would you say holiness is a communicable attribute of God?
A No, no, in fact, I wouldn't say Holiness is an attribute at all, but Holiness is the fact that God is in a class by himself and he is in a class by himself because of the attributes, but that may at times become --
Q Would you say man's holiness will one day, equal the holiness of God? -
A No.
Q God is infinite, you said that Goa is infinite and as to the question of man’s mind being infinite, I think you said yes?
A Yes.
Q Would you say just for that reason, because God is infinite and man is finite, for that reason, man cannot comprehend God?
A I don’t think that is sufficient reason. We do not know God because -- that is, we do not know every attribute or proposition of God because we are temporal --
Q Would you call God an infinite item?
A Well, I object to the word, "item" but it is hard to use a word when you want to include God and other things at the same time. I was trying to include a word as empty of meaning us possible. "Object" -- if you wish, that would do.
Q Would you say that man would never comprehend God or would you say that man cannot comprehend God, or, would you say both?
A Oh, both - they seem to me to mean the same thing.
Q I asked previously a question - whether you could explain or subscribe rather to this statement: "God cannot fully reveal himself to his creatures" - because in that case, these creatures would themselves have to be God".
A Well, I would not have given that reason, that is such a peculiar way of putting it.
Q To me it is a paradox that God offers salvation freely and sincerely, I don’t hesitate to use the word, to all who hear the Gospel, now He also said that to the reprobates, and those two teaches of Scripture, seem to me a paradox, I think I heard you say for you, they were not a paradox.
A Yes.
Q Just what do you mean when you say that, can you reconcile those two teachings or do you believe those teachings or reject one or the other or hold to both?
A I gave an answer to that in my particular response before, and I have proved to my own satisfaction that they are not contradictory and I have tried to indicate that they fit together and hence, that is no longer one of my problems.
Q I don't remember just what you said in that article. I’m sorry, would you mind stating briefly what you did say? It might be helpful to me.
A I tried to base the responsibility on the Sovereignty of God so that instead of making responsibility and sovereignty anthesis, one shall be subordinate to the other and there seems to me that the paradox has disappeared.
Q Well, what bearing does that have on God's sincerity in making the offer?
A I thought that was part of the paradox, that God gives a command which some men cannot obey.
Q God, in all sincerity in inviting even the reprobates to Eternal Life and is pleased to have them accept the invitation. How can God, who already from eternity decided that certain men would be damned make such an offer, that is a paradox to me.
A The solution to that paradox, is the distinction between the outward public call and the actual call of the Holy Spirit. The call of the spirit comes to God Elect only, I don't see a paradox there, it seems perfectly clear to me.
Q Even in the outward call, God is certainly sincere, He would be pleased to have all men accept.
A I don't think that, all men should accept the call of the Gospel or the Sovereign pleasure of God.
Q In other words, you don't think he willed, from eternity at all that men should accept the Gospel, that is, that all men should accept the Gospel.
A That is correct.
Q How do you explain when he says: “The wicked turn from evil in their way of life".
A I should suppose their pleasure would mean something from what it means where it occurred.
Q In other words, the reference is not to God’s decree?
A It would not Please God to effectually call every man.
Q You are not ready to say that the offer and invitation which God makes in the Gospel are sincere in the case of every individual.
A The word "sincere” is not a word in the Confession and it seems to me to be a peculiar word attached to a command.
Q Also an invitation and offer.
A I would quite agree with the statement in the Canon of Dort, an unfamed command.
Q All who are called should comply with the invitation that is acceptable to God, that all who hear the call should comply. It is their moral obligation to comply with the call of the Gospel, is that what you say?
A Yes, it is their moral obligation to comply with the call of the Gospel.
Q Would you say acceptable here means - pleasing?
A Yes, you could.
Q You think it would please God that every single individual believe?
A When you say - please God, it should be his reaction.
Q Please God, all who are called should comply with the invitation.
A That is an expression of his preceptive will.
Q Its not only that, it is more than that, not only an expression of his preceptive will, it is also an expression what would please him, namely; men should obey his command?
A I know only two wills of God preceptive and descriptive and certainly its not a matter of his decree -- his descriptive will, obviously it is a matter of preceptive will.
Q It might be a matter of his emotions? Clark
A God is without passion.
REVEREND HAMILTON: I move that Dr. Clark be sustained. (Seconded from the floor).
THE MODERATOR: It has been moved and seconded, are there any remarks? We are discussing the motion to sustain the examination in Theology of Dr. Clark.
BY MR. THOMPSON: Q One more question of Dr. Clark, please, to help round out in my mind, so I can understand clearly what he holds. I believe Dr. Clark said that God could reveal any particular proposition concerning himself and my first question is, Dr. Clark. is the proposition - God is just - is that a proposition regarding God?
A Yes.
Q Do you believe that God can reveal that proposition to his creatures? A I believe he has done so.
Q Do you believe he has fully done so? A Why, yes.
Q When you say that God - or, would you say that God is infinite in his justice? A No, I would say he is perfect in his justice.
Q Would you say from the proposition - God is Just that there might flow an infinite number of infinite things, is that what you mean?
A Yes.
Q How could God reveal that proposition fully'?
A Why couldn’t he?
Q I’m asking you. A Just by telling it to him.
Q I thought you said awhile ago that man could not receive an infinite number of propositions.
A I am not talking about impressions. I am talking about propositions.
Q I am talking about implications.
A I thought you asked whether he could reveal?
Q. I asked whether God could completely reveal that proposition to man.
A Certainly. in three words: "God is just:.
Q You think then, God reveals a proposition, then man has a complete knowledge of what the justice of it is?
A Not knowledge of the implication, just the proposition. Two plus two. equals four.
Q Either I don’t make myself clear or you don’t respond to my question. It seems to me the proposition - God is just is a very profound statement and it is a statement which gathers within itself, an infinite number of truths regarding a particular attribute of God. How could God reveal all of those truths regarding his justice to his creatures?
A I said they would never all be revealed.
Q You think however, God cannot reveal all propositions but nevertheless, he has revealed the proposition concerning himself when, he tells man, he is just.
A That is right.
Q That is not however a complete revelation of that attribute of God, is it?
A The implications aren't there but the proposition is there.
Q You say that God cannot reveal an infinite number of propositions concerning himself, is that correct?
A We are temporal and we always be temporal and never will have everything revealed by God because those two things go in conjunction, one with the other.
BY MR. BETHOLD: Q Is there any knowledge which God has by virtue of which he has, that he cannot reveal to man and still be God?
A I think God can reveal to us any particular proposition ho wishes, or he chooses to
Q Are there some propositions which God may not choose to reveal, the revelation of which and in which, he would thus deny himself?
A I don’t know of any phrase in Scripture which says - there is a proposition that God will not reveal to us and certainly whatever proposition he reveals to us does not make us God, it simply increases our knowledge.
Q I wasn't talking about making us God, I am talking about reducing God from the very essence which he has, as God, I must confess I fail to attain satisfaction through that answer.
A It seems to me, if I understand the Scripture right, there is -
Q I believe the Scripture says or contains that there is an essential character to God's knowledge which he cannot reveal, there is a certain essence to God, which, as God he cannot reveal save as denotes himself
A God can reveal any proposition he chooses but that doesn't make our knowledge such as God. We may know the proposition itself and that would be the proposition revealed to us but that does not make our knowledge so that we are of the character of God’s knowing which we will never possess.
Q I don't mean the method of attaining knowledge, I mean - the very character that God has the content of knowledge, not the manner in which he perceives it in a different way than we do.
A Nothing that God reveals makes of himself, no longer God. How a proposition reveal like two plus two equals four, or those justified by faith shall live, I don't see how the revelation makes God, not God.
Q Then you would limit the infinite theories of propositions which God could reveal?
A No.
Q Then I believe you said God could not reveal anything which would deny himself?
A That is correct.
Q Doesn’t that limit the infinite theories of propositions which God could reveal?
A No, sir.
DR. STRONG: I should like to go on public record that I am very satisfied indeed with the examination of Dr. Clark and I’d like to pay public tribute to the clearness and coolness and patience with which Dr. Clark has taken this examination. And, I want to say I tremendously admire the grasp of this man's mind and I most earnestly desire an opportunity of voting on this question.
(There was a long discussion at this time, off the record)
(A vote was taken at 5:20 p.m., to allow the official court stenographer to leave, which was passed, and the court stenographer left at 5:21 p.m.)
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me during the hearing on the above cause and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same.
---
Reported by:
Nathan C. Shapiro, Esq.,
[Marginal notes by Clark:
only propositions are true
Man never knows in the manner God knows.
Paradox = 2 propositions people cannot harmonize
What can sincere mean?
God is sincere
Definition of omniscience
Certain logical truths are not deduced from Scripture by exegesis
Can a proposition have infinite content?
No.
A knowledge of infinity is not itself infinite
Intellect and emotion equally essential but not on par
Contemplation glorifies God - it is not just a means of glorifying Him.
God is infinite but not indefinite]
No comments:
Post a Comment