Letter of GHC to Floyd Hamilton, Jan. 28 1947

[I’m glad to have received this letter from Wayne Sparkman of the PCA Historical Center who has been working on the newly acquired papers of Floyd Hamilton. This is the first new discovery of a Gordon Clark letter in a while. And it is an important letter as it was written during the Clark – Van Til Controversy and pertains to that matter.]

Butler University

Indianapolis, Indiana


January 28 1947

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

I do not have two copies of my book on Education. I have given away about thirty copies or so and would have to order more.

Whether I ought to order some more for resale, I do not know. This might be immoral. At any rate I don’t have them. Please order from Eerdman’s. Probably they will give you a bookseller’s discount.

If at any time you want copies for personal use, as long tracts for example, I think I could get some at my reduction and let you have them for cost.

Bob Strong doubts that Kuschke and Bradford will publish their paper. What a waste of energy. What a fine target we shall be deprived of. Can’t you encourage them to make their excellent work available to the waiting world. Tell them we shall read it carefully.

Sloat’s question, which I suppose you wrote down virtually at his dictation, is “Can the Knowledge of an unregenerate man . . be the same as the knowledge of a regenerate man of the same proposition.”

I assume that since Sloat said “knowledge of a proposition” and not knowledge simply, he had to mean the activity of knowing and not the information itself. And may I assume that by the same he means identical, in all respects. Of course the moral aspects cannot be the same.

The joke in the question is this: your activity in knowing x cannot be the same as mine in knowing x in all respects, simply because you and I are two persons. Sloat never thought of that. Hence somebody could answer No to Sloat’s question, without even being a Christian. Perhaps the word “regenerate” has Christian connotations. But at any rate, two regenerate, or two unregenerate persons cannot have the same knowing of a proposition.

What amazes me, if anything amazes me any more, is how those supposed scholars can be satisfied with such slipshod questions and unsatisfactory answers. Maybe after all the Presbytery was hasty in ordaining me – and everybody else.



2 thoughts on “Letter of GHC to Floyd Hamilton, Jan. 28 1947”

  1. One of the things I appreciate about Clark is his univocalism of scripture. This letter seems to be contradicting this. What good is “In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth” if no two people can know it the same? Why can’t unregenerate man know this?

    1. He’s not here backing away from his position elsewhere stated. He is talking not about propositions (which are the same for God and all men) but the “activity of knowing.”

Comments are closed.