Jeff,
I think the main problem, as I see it, is that variations of Clark's thought end up being presented as if what is in view in Gospel preaching is getting the hearers to become convinced of the facts of the matter as in a logical set of propositions. I would not be surprised to see someone using logical notation to express what faith looks like according to some of the conceptions about it.
I really think it would be beneficial for folks to download Packer's
History and Theology of the Puritans at
RTS on iTunes U to get an idea about how the Puritans viewed especially the Preaching enterprise (just listen to the last two if you don't have time to listen to them all). The contrast in thinking and speaking becomes readily apparent. The Puritans can hardly be accused of depreciating logical formulation or precision but their idea that preachers were "Physicians of the Soul" and ought to even know how to appeal to the broad category of weak and strong, immature and seasoned, members of the congregation is incredibly rich.
Rev. Winzer's observation was spot on regarding definitions of words. The Puritans would have no patience for the man who failed to be precise in his words but also would have no patience with any that believed that the enterprise ended simply with a flawless presentation of the facts. A man who was unable to understand his flock and could not "rip up" the consciences of his hearers with the application of the Word was not considered a good preacher.