Divine Simplicity and Gordon H. Clark

 

In a recent podcast I did on the doctrine of divine simplicity, someone complained that I was confusing James Dolezal's doctrine of divine simplicity with that of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  I have read both of Dolezal's books, and I did recommend the one based on his doctoral dissertation.  I have hesitated to review Dolezal's book because of the time it would take to critique his work.  I did have a few problems with Dolezal's remarks because at times it sounds as if he is making contradictory remarks such as love is the same thing as God's justice or wrath.  But I will save my critique for a later time.  (See:  Reasonable Christian: Divine Simplicity, Logic, and the Foreknowledge of God,  YouTube, April 23, 2025.)

However, someone commented on my podcast that Clark apparently did not believe in divine simplicity:

In outlining Dolezal's position, you said: "God is not composed of parts or composite parts."

Clark believed: "...we shall define person as a composite of truths. A bit more exactly, since all men make mistakes and believe some falsehoods, the definition must be a composite of propositions. As a man thinketh in his (figurative) heart, so is he. A man is what he thinks.

Since technical terms are used to avoid ambiguity, and since the Trinity consists of Three Persons, the definition will fail if it does not apply to God. That it does apply appears more or less clearly in verses that call God the Truth." (Gordon Clark, The Incarnation).

Clearly, Dolezal's position is different from that of [elder] Clark.

Although this is a complicated subject, my brief response shares a quote from pages 54 to 55 in the paperback edition of Clark's book, The Incarnation.  To be fair, Clark never finished his book because he died shortly after nearly completing it.  I'm not happy with John Robbins's adding the final chapter because he seems to have missed the whole argument.  That being said, here is my response to the comment on the Reasonable Christian podcast on YouTube:

I do not think the difference is as clear as you say.  First of all, Clark was referring to the three Persons, who are all equally God.  You took the quote out of context.  Since all three of the Persons of the Godhead are equally omniscient, and all three Persons are the same God, it logically follows that all three Persons know exactly the same propositions, and they know those propositions intuitively.  That is, they do not think one thought or one proposition after another.  They know the entire system of propositions as one complete and intuitive system, not in partial or discursive thoughts.  The only difference between the three Persons is when those three Persons think propositions that pertain only to their own identity within the Godhead.  The Father cannot think, "I am the Son," or "I am the Holy Spirit."  The Athanasian Creed makes this plain enough.  The Athanasian Creed is included in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, by the way.

Dolezal did his doctoral work under the supervision of his advisor, Scott Oliphint.  Oliphint has had his own theological contradictions in recent years, including a book where he said that God changes according to "covenantal properties" in order to relate to humans.

The Bible says that God is Truth.  Since all three Persons are equally God, does it mean that the Father is Truth, but the Son and the Holy Spirit is not Truth?  Gordon H. Clark stated clearly that God thinks in propositions.  If not, how could God communicate special revelation to humanity in the written propositions in the Bible?  God is Logic.  John 1:1.  That is divine simplicity.

You quoted Clark's book out of context.  The entire quote says:

"Therefore, since God is Truth, we shall define person, not as a composite of sensory impressions, as Hume did, but, rejecting with him the meaningless term substance, we shall define person as a composite of truths. A bit more exactly, since all men make mistakes and believe some falsehoods, the definition must be a composite of propositions. As a man thinketh in his (figurative) heart, so is he. A man is what he thinks."

"Since technical terms are used to avoid ambiguity, and since the Trinity consists of Three Persons, the definition will fail if it does not apply to God. That it does apply appears more or less clearly in verses that call God the Truth." 

"Deuteronomy 32:4, 'a God of truth.' Psalm 25:5, 10, 'Lead me in Thy truth…. All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth.' Psalm 31:5, 'O LORD God of truth.' Psalm 108:4, 'Thy truth reacheth unto the clouds.' Isaiah 25:1, 'Thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth.' Isaiah 65:16, 'the God of truth…the God of truth.' John 1:14, 'the Word…full of grace and truth.' John 4:23-24, '…worship the Father in spirit and in truth…must worship him in spirit and in truth.' John 14:6, 'I am…the truth.' John 15:26, 'The Spirit of truth.' John 16:13, 'The Spirit of truth.' First John 5:6, 'The Spirit is truth.'''

"Aside from whatever objections will be immediately raised against this uncommon conclusion, theologians will complain that this reduces the Trinity to one Person because, being omniscient, they all have, or are, the same complex. This objection is based on a blindness toward certain definite Scriptural information. I am not at the moment referring only to the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit. I am referring to the complex of truths that form the Three Persons. Though they are equally omniscient, they do no[t] know all of the same truths. Neither the complex of truths we call the Father nor those we call the Spirit, has the proposition, “I was incarnated.” This proposition occurs only in the Son’s complex. Other examples are implied. The Father cannot say, “I walked from Jerusalem to Jericho.” Nor can the Spirit say, “I begot the Son.” Hence the Godhead consists of three Persons, each omniscient without having precisely the same content. If this be so, no difficulty can arise as to the distinctiveness of human persons. Each one is an individual complex. Each one is his mind or soul. Whether the propositions be true or false, a person is the propositions he thinks. I hope that some think substance to be a subterfuge."

Gordon H. Clark. The Incarnation (Kindle Locations 802-822). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

Gordon H. Clark.  The Incarnation.  (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1988).  Pp. 54-55.

It seems clear enough that in the first sentence of the quotation Clark affirms the doctrine of divine simplicity by stating that God is truth.  Then Clark quotes several portions of Scripture to affirm that God is truth.  And, if you will recall, Clark affirms the creedal affirmation that God is one God, yet three Persons.  God is therefore one in one sense and three in another sense.  This is not a contradiction and even R. C. Sproul said so.  

Cornelius Van Til, on the other hand, said that God is both one Person and Three Persons.  His defenders try to second guess Van Til and excuse his error by saying that Van Til was only referring to the doctrine of perichoresis.  But I will save that discussion for another blog post and another podcast.