# Gordon Clark's "Johannine Logos"



## shackleton (Sep 20, 2007)

I just finished reading this book by Clark and want to run what I learned by anyone else who has read it and see if I have come to the right conlcusions. 

First of all, Logos for the Greeks was the logic and order behind everything in the universe. For the Hebrews, it was the word spoken by the prophets and written down in the Law and the Prophets. This logic and written and spoken word then became flesh. 

Secondly, Clark talks about what saving fatih is. This is based on propositional truth since all truth is propositional truth. Jesus spoke the truth in the form of spoken word in logical propostitions. When people have faith in a person this is the same thing as saying that they believe in what the person says. So, to believe Christ is to believe in what he said and believe this to the point of action, like James spoke of. It is not intelectual assent, because the Devil and his minnions have this kind of believe. 

I am new to the whole concept of propostitional truth, so I am curios if anyone else has read this and if I am close to what Clark was trying to say. Next I am going to read "Saving Faith" by Clark which I am guessing is related to "Johannine Logos." 
Thanks


----------



## Civbert (Sep 20, 2007)

shackleton said:


> Secondly, Clark talks about what saving faith is. This is based on propositional truth since all truth is propositional truth. Jesus spoke the truth in the form of spoken word in logical propositions. When people have faith in a person this is the same thing as saying that they believe in what the person says. So, to believe Christ is to believe in what he said and believe this to the point of action, like James spoke of. It is not intellectual assent, because the Devil and his minnions have this kind of believe.



I think Clark would say saving faith _is_ intellectual asset. That is to say, that intellectual assent does lead to action. And Clark would reject a need for any other kind of assent than intellectual. We do not justify are faith based on our emotional reaction - although genuine saving faith will frequently cause an emotional reaction. So intellectual assent is all that is required - what more is needed?

As for the belief of demon's - the following is a good explanation: Demonic Theology.


----------



## Theogenes (Sep 20, 2007)

Hi Erick!
Yes, The Johannine Logos and What is Saving Faith are very similiar in content and both are quite excellent. I appreciate Clark's corrective demonstration of the propositional nature of truth, for nothing else can be true or false but a proposition. Single words, questions, commands, exclamations are neither true nor false. But propositions , A is B, are either true or false. With this understanding Clark refutes the Neo-Orthodox view that there is non-propositional truth or that there is It-Truth and Thou-Truth (Martin Buber's invention). It-Truth they say are those sterile, dry propositions that Clarkians like to dwell on and then there is Thou-Truth. Thou-Truth is personal, alive, relational. Now, I challenge anyone who holds such a view to describe non-propositonal truth but without using propositions. They are left with silent mysticism. That's the conclusion Clark came to and he said that it wasn't Christianity.
Read all the books, Trinity Reviews and listen to all the lectures from the Trinity Foundation.
Let it soak in, take a brief break and then do it all over again.
May God bless your studies!
Jim


----------



## shackleton (Sep 20, 2007)

Civbert said:


> I think Clark would say saving faith _is_ intellectual asset. That is to say, that intellectual assent does lead to action. And Clark would reject a need for any other kind of assent than intellectual. We do not justify are faith based on our emotional reaction - although genuine saving faith will frequently cause an emotional reaction. So intellectual assent is all that is required - what more is needed?



I guess it is intelectual assent in what Jesus said in the form of propositional statements.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 21, 2007)

shackleton said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > I think Clark would say saving faith _is_ intellectual asset. That is to say, that intellectual assent does lead to action. And Clark would reject a need for any other kind of assent than intellectual. We do not justify are faith based on our emotional reaction - although genuine saving faith will frequently cause an emotional reaction. So intellectual assent is all that is required - what more is needed?
> ...


 Or more specifically - assent to the propositions of the gospel.


----------

