# Why did Gordon H. Clark say, "If Christ be one Divine Person, NO PERSON was crucified and died. What then died on the Cross?” in his INCARNATION book?



## Stillwaters (May 28, 2021)

I'm literally praying for someone to please make sense of all of this seeming insanity. I am so sad.

*Please know that I did read the PB thread entitled "Dr. Gordon Clark - NeoNestorian?"*

But, a sermon by a Pastor recently pointed me to Gordon H. Clark's Book _The Incarnation_, and I am still IN SHOCK.

And now I'm aware of many on Facebook currently discussing the following issues, and have learned much.

These are two of the most difficult quotes:

*“Who suffered and died in the suffering and death of Jesus?” “On the cross Jesus said, ‘I thirst.’ No trinitarian Person could have said this because the Three Persons are pure incorporeal spirits . . . Who then, or what, thirsted on the cross?”* (p. 73).

* “Let us then take it for granted that God cannot die. 

Now, if Christ be one divine person, no person was crucified and died. What then died on the cross?” *(p. 69)

I can't come to terms with the things Gordon H. Clark said in his book _The Incarnation_.

And I've heard him say similar things elsewhere. I can't find him ever defending the "human nature" that Christ assumed as "impersonal" in accordance with Chalcedon.

And have heard him say elsewhere that it violated God's Impassibility & Immutability if the Divine Person *wept, wearied, thirsted, hungered, suffered, and died* and therefore insisting that He didn't.

And then he says many time in many places "a man is what he thinks" referencing Proverbs 23: 7 "_For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee."_

And then he infers that Christ's human mind is person because for Jesus to be a "real human being" it is in his human mind what he is by way of what he thinks (and I am referring to Christ with the *lower case "he"* because Gordon H. Clark is _*not *_referring to the Divine Person being con-substantial with the humanity! And he even complains here, and many places elsewhere, that the theologians who wrote the Creed of Chalcedon didn't have proper definition for what *"con-substantial"* means.

How could Clark's Christ be the "Person of the Mediator"?

How could Clark's Christ Atone?

*Additionally, in his Book on the Trinity he has rather odd definition of what each divine person (subsistence) is, that influences his definitions of other things elsewhere, calling the Trinitarian Persons "bundles of thoughts".*

Doesn't the being of God have 1 mind and 1 will?

I recall reading complaints of his about Christ having 2 Wills and 2 minds.

And if you read on the Trinity Foundation's website the description of his book _The Incarnation_ you will discover that it mentions controversies and misunderstandings through the Millennia about Christ having 2 wills, and also calls into questions the competency of the theologians who wrote the Creed of Chalcedon claiming they lacked proper definitions of every term they use.

Doesn't every human being know intuitively with the good common sense the Lord gave us that a person says "I" and is Self-Conscious and is the "who"?

Doesn't John 3:13 prove that Christ is 1 Divine Person who was on Earth and in Heaven simultaneously?

Isn't this a simultaneity of consciousness of the one Divine Person?

John 3:13 _*“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”*_

But things get even worse, causing me further SHOCK, when I learned his protege *John R. Robbins* describes Jesus Christ as being an "individual" (a composite being) who is* "a human person indwelt by the Logos*".

John R. Robbins denies that Christ is the 2nd Person of the Trinity Incarnate who is a human being and the being of God (an "impersonal" human nature and a personal divine nature), therby denying the Hypostatic Union.

How can this painful collection of such strange sayings not be considered Unorthodox, Anti-Chalcedon Creed, Anti-Athanasian Creed, Un-Confessional, and rooted in the ancient "2 person" Heresy (known as nestorianism)?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> I'm literally praying for someone to please make sense of all of this seeming insanity. I am so sad.
> 
> *Please know that I did read the PB thread entitled "Dr. Gordon Clark - NeoNestorian?"*
> 
> ...



The simple answer is that Clark was wrong. The heart of the problem, as you note, comes from his defining a person as a bundle of thoughts. To be fair, that book was published after Clark died and several of his disciples urged Robbins not to publish it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## GillespieWestminster (May 28, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> I'm literally praying for someone to please make sense of all of this seeming insanity. I am so sad.
> 
> *Please know that I did read the PB thread entitled "Dr. Gordon Clark - NeoNestorian?"*
> 
> ...


I've read Dr. Gordon Clark a lot and I admire some of his insights, but his opinion about the natures of Christ is very strange and unorthodox, it seems to me that Clark finds it difficult to understand that in Scripture many things proper to a nature are attributed to the person of the God-Man (Acts 20.28).
Furthermore, I want to make a small provocation about the definition of 'person', is there any consistent definition of 'person' that serves so much for the doctrine of the natures of Christ and the Holy Trinity?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2021)

GillespieWestminster said:


> , is there any consistent definition of 'person' that serves so much for the doctrine of the natures of Christ and the Holy Trinity?



A subsistence or mode of a nature. That's what Basil and Turretin and almost the entire tradition has said.


----------



## Irenaeus (May 28, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The simple answer is that Clark was wrong. The heart of the problem, as you note, comes from his defining a person as a bundle of thoughts. To be fair, that book was published after Clark died and several of his disciples urged Robbins not to publish it.



How wrong was he? Was it a simple error of wording, a slight misunderstanding? or is this anti-Chalcedonian heresy that should be openly condemned as such?

If Socinus had kept his anti-Trinitarian thoughts to himself, only to have them published after his death against the will of some of his followers, would we say "to be fair..."?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> How wrong was he? Was it a simple error of wording, a slight misunderstanding? or is this anti-Chalcedonian heresy that should be openly condemned as such?
> 
> If Socinus had kept his anti-Trinitarian thoughts to himself, only to have them published after his death against the will of some of his followers, would we say "to be fair..."?



I think it was an error of philosophy. He knew that defining a person was difficult and he held to a somewhat idealist understanding of person, which prevented him from affirming several other truths.

I said to be fair because he didn't openly promote error (at least not on this point). I'm not fan of Clark but I don't want to come across like I have an axe to grind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (May 28, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think it was an error of philosophy. He knew that defining a person was difficult and he held to a somewhat idealist understanding of person, which prevented him from affirming several other truths.
> 
> I said to be fair because he didn't openly promote error (at least not on this point). I'm not fan of Clark but I don't want to come across like I have an axe to grind.


That's helpful - thank you!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stillwaters (May 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The simple answer is that Clark was wrong. The heart of the problem, as you note, comes from his defining a person as a bundle of thoughts. To be fair, that book was published after Clark died and several of his disciples urged Robbins not to publish it.


Yes,

*First,* please know

I'm well aware that it was published posthumously.

That is why I didn't include the following quote because it was written by J.R. Robbins when he finished the book.

_*"Jesus Christ was and is both God and man, a divine person and a human person. To deny either is to fall into error." (p. 78)*_

*Second, *the "Thought Bundles" (or bundles of thought) was in his Book entitled _ Trinity _that was published when he was still alive.

In his Book the Incarnation he defines "person" as a "Collection of Propositions".

*Third,* his "mantra" about Proverbs 23:7 was in most of his writings, and he taught a "person is what he thinketh"

When applying that to the Incarnation this becomes a Nestorian "human person".

*Fourth*, some theologians see the seeds and breadcrumbs of his ever maturing "2 person" incarnation construct over the course of many years in some of his other writings including 
when extrapolating from his writings on the Image of God, and also his Book entitled 
_The Johnannine Logos: The Mind of Christ.
_


----------



## Stillwaters (May 29, 2021)

GillespieWestminster said:


> I've read Dr. Gordon Clark a lot and I admire some of his insights, but his opinion about the natures of Christ is very strange and unorthodox, it seems to me that Clark finds it difficult to understand that in Scripture many things proper to a nature are attributed to the person of the God-Man (Acts 20.28).
> Furthermore, I want to make a small provocation about the definition of 'person', is there any consistent definition of 'person' that serves so much for the doctrine of the natures of Christ and the Holy Trinity?


Yes,
there many definitions throughout church history of what a person is. But essentially nearly all of them acknowledge the person is the self-conscious subsistence who is the subject of the nature. Additionally, the person is the moral responsible subject. Personal pronouns (and often proper names) in Holy Scripture are attributed to the person (_not_ to the person's nature). The person is the "who" (_not_ the "what"). The person is the "I" of the being.

In the Hypostatic Union it is the 2nd "Person" of the Trinity who is the "I" as Himself as a human being, and also as Himself as the being of God.

The Nestorian construct of Christ yields 2 "selves" who are each self-conscious, and each say "I".


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (May 29, 2021)

Friend, why would you let someone's interpretation of the Bible trouble you so much? Why not forget about it and read someone else, or just read the Bible? Most Christians I know have a different understanding over many things in the Bible. Their choices are their own choices, and they have to answer to God for what they do. Please don't let the writings of a man trouble you, their are more important things to focus on. 

Have a blessed day!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stillwaters (May 29, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Friend, why would you let someone's interpretation of the Bible trouble you so much? Why not forget about it and read someone else, or just read the Bible? Most Christians I know have a different understanding over many things in the Bible. Their choices are their own choices, and they have to answer to God for what they do. Please don't let the writings of a man trouble you, their are more important things to focus on.
> 
> Have a blessed day!


Tragically,
there are a great many of my acquaintance in Reformed circles who are now Nestorians because of Gordon H. Clark's teachings.

So even though he is dead, his teachings live on, and many are becoming Nestorian.

I am heartbroken because some of them were friends I cared deeply about.

But now they believe in a False Christ who they think was a "human person" in team with the Logos.

It is tragic. And R.C. Sproul's teachings about only the human nature atoning (in and of itself) has also contributed heavily to the confusion.

This is spreading in a number of denominations with members I know who are personally infected with this heresy.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (May 29, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> Tragically,
> there are a great many of my acquaintance in Reformed circles who are now Nestorians because of Gordon H. Clark's teachings.
> 
> So even though he is dead, his teachings live on, and many are becoming Nestorian.
> ...


I see, sorry to hear about this. Is that a heresy that would affect one's salvation?


----------



## Stillwaters (May 29, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I see, sorry to hear about this. Is that a heresy that would affect one's salvation?


Do you agree,
1) Nestorianism denies the con-substantiation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity with humanity.
2) the "human person" of the Nestorian Christ is unqualified to be the "Person of the Mediator".
3) Nestorianism removes the "Divine Element" from the "Passion of the Lamb" resulting in the suffering and dying of a "Mere Mortal" incapable of satisfying the infinite divine justice of God.
4) All of the Reformed Confessions teach the object of the Eph 2:8-9 gift of saving faith is Christ who is identified as the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
5) Jesus said: " And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
6) Nestorianism is a species of "Unbelief" in who the Bible teaches the Savior is.
7) Nestorianism denies the Incarnation .

Would you allow someone to become a Church member who believes a "CREATED" human person (teamed up with the Logos or indwelt by the Logos) was the mediator, and atoned for their sins?

Is the profession of faith in a Nestorian Christ a true profession of Christian faith?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (May 29, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> Do you agree,
> 1) Nestorianism denies the con-substantiation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity with humanity.
> 2) the "human person" of the Nestorian Christ is unqualified to be the "Person of the Mediator".
> 3) Nestorianism removes the "Divine Element" from the "Passion of the Lamb" resulting in the suffering and dying of a "Mere Mortal" incapable of satisfying the infinite divine justice of God.
> ...


I understand your concerns. I honestly haven't studied what you're writing about, and that topic isn't even one I get tangled up in. It might sound too shallow, but I just read the Bible and believe what it says about Jesus. I don't personally feel a need to try to go beyond that.

There can definitely be endless thought about this topic, and it is very mysterious to say the least. It is sad though to see how much division happens over topics that are so shrouded in mystery. 

As for myself though, I do believe what the confessions teach about Jesus.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 29, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> But essentially nearly all of them acknowledge the person is the self-conscious subsistence who is the subject of the nature.



The move toward "self-consciousness" as a definition really happened after Descartes. The rest of your definition is correct. A person is a mode of a nature.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 29, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I understand your concerns. I honestly haven't studied what you're writing about, and that topic isn't even one I get tangled up in. It might sound too shallow, but I just read the Bible and believe what it says about Jesus. I don't personally feel a need to try to go beyond that.
> 
> There can definitely be endless thought about this topic, and it is very mysterious to say the least. It is sad though to see how much division happens over topics that are so shrouded in mystery.
> 
> As for myself though, I do believe what the confessions teach about Jesus.



The problem is that the Bible really doesn't define what person or nature means.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (May 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem is that the Bible really doesn't define what person or nature means.


Yes, very true. Does that mean we should then, and then divide with anyone who doesn't agree with us? I ask this sincerely and respectfully. Just trying to rationalize it.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 29, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Yes, very true. Does that mean we should then, and then divide with anyone who doesn't agree with us? I ask this sincerely and respectfully. Just trying to rationalize it.



If someone, like many of those in CBMW, disagrees with Creeds like Nicea 381, then yes, we divide from them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (May 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If someone, like many of those in CBMW, disagrees with Creeds like Nicea 381, then yes, we divide from them.


Yeah, that's just interesting to me. I wonder if we tend to make things more complicated than they should be. I wonder if we go into territory that is just too deep for us. I speak for myself, but it seems like all that Christians really need to do is just read the Bible, and say "yes I agree with everything that this says about Jesus", and not try to go beyond that. If we just agree with the Bible, and not try to hold people accountable to a system which tries to understand the Bible, there would be no worries about who has the right Jesus and who is and isn't a true Christian. I guess this all started when people tried to figure out the mystery which has not been fully revealed to us.

But I get it, we all have our systems now, and we can't really go backwards, so we have to believe one and reject the others, but sadly this leads to division when God would want us in unity.

But just for clarity, I do believe in our confession because to me that is what most aligns with the Bible.


----------



## Irenaeus (May 29, 2021)

How can we agree with the Bible without understanding it? Were not the creeds just that - attempts to explain what Scripture is saying, or at least to set parameters on what it ISN'T saying?

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (May 29, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> How can we agree with the Bible without understanding it? Were not the creeds just that - attempts to explain what Scripture is saying, or at least to set parameters on what it ISN'T saying?


Yes, I suppose. I know, my thought works for some things, but not others. There's always going to be false teachers.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 29, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> How can we agree with the Bible without understanding it? Were not the creeds just that - attempts to explain what Scripture is saying, or at least to set parameters on what it ISN'T saying?


"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

(WCF 1.7)

The reason Christ gave the church teachers, Eph.4:11, is so that people could have a lifetime of instruction in the faith. Not everyone has the same gifts, not everyone grasps truth with equal strength or comprehension. The needful thing is to have good hope the Jesus one is trusting is the true Christ, and not a counterfeit. The pew-sitter needs pastors and teachers, themselves well-taught and grounded in the true and historic faith, who will faithfully and doggedly over time teach the truth about God, man, Christ, and salvation, and all the rest of the whole counsel of God (comprising a consistent body of truth). In this way, the saints are guided on their upward way, and helped to avoid the snares of error--the falsehoods that, left unchecked and uncorrected might (but for grace and election) lead away from the Christ who saves.

Jesus, Mt.13, warned his disciples of a condition in which men gladly received the truth--someone pointed them to Christ and they heard his voice--but evil turned them aside from the truth so they withered. How tragic to think one has found safety and nourishment in the Vine, only to discover too late the devil's trick. Think of those who have abandoned the "Jesus" they were taught, finding him false (though it was not really Him). Such persons are often hardened to the true gospel. Think of those who struggle endlessly for comfort from the false "Vine." They starve, while believing they were fed as best as could be.

The creeds of the church aim to express carefully and condensedly vital truth about God, man, Christ, and salvation so that in all generations the same safe hope will be accessible--if men will use such tools, like spikes driven into the mountainside, marking the best route to ascend. Ignore those markers at your peril. God did not promise those who would draw near to him a broad, smooth highway and a palanquin borne by angels.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Irenaeus (May 29, 2021)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The creeds of the church aim to express carefully and condensedly vital truth about God, man, Christ, and salvation so that in all generations the same safe hope will be accessible--if men will use such tools, like spikes driven into the mountainside, marking the best route to ascend. Ignore those markers at your peril. God did not promise those who would draw near to him a broad, smooth highway and a palanquin borne by angels.


Thank you for these edifying thoughts, Pastor Bruce. In my relatively short time as a Christian, one of the things that has drawn me (/is drawing me) deeper into confessional orthodoxy is the number of people who say "I prefer to just read my Bible and take it at face value," invariably followed by "...and it plainly says -insert errant belief here=".

That plus two observations, which others wiser than I have helped me to grasp. 1) Everybody reads the Bible through a filter, so it's simply a question of which filter, and I am coming to appreciate the need for a filter better than me and my own cultural context. 2) In what other vocation or hobby would people dismiss further study and pursuit of the area of interest? In what other field would people say "no think, I don't want to be burdened by demands that I more deeply study this area of interest; I just want to be free to love and enjoy it without having to do x and y" and expect to be taken seriously?

I am coming to see that creeds and confessions answer both of these questions. They provide a sound filter through which to view Scripture, and they offer nourishment and instruction for those seeking to understand Scripture (alongside, of course, the outward and ordinary means by which Christ communicates to his children the benefits of redemption). They guard against error and shallowness.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## Stillwaters (May 29, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I understand your concerns. I honestly haven't studied what you're writing about, and that topic isn't even one I get tangled up in. It might sound too shallow, but I just read the Bible and believe what it says about Jesus. I don't personally feel a need to try to go beyond that.
> 
> There can definitely be endless thought about this topic, and it is very mysterious to say the least. It is sad though to see how much division happens over topics that are so shrouded in mystery.
> 
> As for myself though, I do believe what the confessions teach about Jesus.


Agreed.

It is good that you read the Bible and believe it's clear teaching that Jesus is God.

If your child asked you if the 2nd Person of the Trinity (who is God) suffered and died to save His people from their sins, what would you teach your child?

Do you agree that we are to protect our families, friends, and the congregation from ALL false teachings including that Christ was a human person?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stillwaters (May 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The move toward "self-consciousness" as a definition really happened after Descartes. The rest of your definition is correct. A person is a mode of a nature.


Respectfully,
I disagree.

For example, the ancient Church fathers understood the implications of John1:13 as a simultaneity of focus and awareness as Himself as a human being -and- as the being of God.

John 3:13 _*“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”*_


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 29, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> Agreed.
> 
> It is good that you read the Bible and believe it's clear teaching that Jesus is God.
> 
> ...


I am with you friend, we need to protect our churches from false teachers and heretics. If someone truly is Nestorian and will not repent than that is a good thing to divide over. Just as we would not fellowship with a morman or JW. Hopefully before dividing though, there is an attempt to correct the person.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Stillwaters (May 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The move toward "self-consciousness" as a definition really happened after Descartes. The rest of your definition is correct. A person is a mode of a nature.





BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem is that the Bible really doesn't define what person or nature means.


?
Sadly, you sound exactly like Gordon H. Clark and J.R. Robbins (founder of the Trinity Foundation).

If you believe that the Bible doesn't teach us what a person is or what a nature means, then what do you say when sharing the Gospel when someone asks you: "Who is Jesus Christ?" and "What is Jesus Christ"?

How do you explain the Bible referring to each of the 3 Divine Persons using personal pronouns (and proper formal names)?


----------



## Stillwaters (May 29, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Yes, very true. Does that mean we should then, and then divide with anyone who doesn't agree with us? I ask this sincerely and respectfully. Just trying to rationalize it.


?
First ==> If you believe the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, then when you ask "if we should divide with anyone who disagrees with us", are you saying we should't divide with anyone who claims Jesus is not God?

Shouldn't we really be asking if we should divide with anyone who disagrees with God's clear salvific teachings in His Word?

Second ==> Do you agree that God teaches us explicitly in John 14:16-20 & 23-27 that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are 3 Divine Persons (subsistences) -and- that Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trinity?

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Third ==> And then in John 1:1-3 clearly teaches that Jesus is the Word (Logos), and is God, and is with God?

Fourth ==> And then in John 1:14 clearly teaches that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (therefore teaching us that the 2nd Person of the Trinity became flesh and is referred to by personal pronouns indicating that He is 1 Person in the flesh (not 2)?

FYI: @BayouHuguenot


----------



## RamistThomist (May 29, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> ?
> Sadly, you sound exactly like Gordon H. Clark and J.R. Robbins (founder of the Trinity Foundation).
> 
> If you believe that the Bible doesn't teach us what a person is or what a nature means, then what do you say when sharing the Gospel when someone asks you: "Who is Jesus Christ?" and "What is Jesus Christ"?
> ...



Using a personal pronoun is not defining a nature. The Bible does not give a formal definition of prosopon/hypostasis or phusis/ousia

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 29, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> Respectfully,
> I disagree.
> 
> For example, the ancient Church fathers understood the implications of John1:13 as a simultaneity of focus and awareness as Himself as a human being -and- as the being of God.
> ...



That verse doesn't have anything to do with reflecting upon one's own conscious awareness. The church was clear on what a person is: a mode of a rational nature.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (May 29, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> If your child asked you if the 2nd Person of the Trinity (who is God) suffered and died to save His people from their sins, what would you teach your child?
> 
> Do you agree that we are to protect our families, friends, and the congregation from ALL false teachings including that Christ was a human person?


Yes, this is what they are taught about Jesus. Truly God, and truly man, lived a sinless life on our behalf, suffered and died for us, and rose from the dead.

Yes, I agree that we want to have the most accurate doctrine as possible.

I was just talking to a coworker yesterday about a pastor she listens to who denies the Trinity. It does matter to me.

I appreciate your desire to keep the Church's doctrine pure!

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (May 29, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> ?
> First ==> If you believe the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, then when you ask "if we should divide with anyone who disagrees with us", are you saying we should't divide with anyone who claims Jesus is not God?
> 
> Shouldn't we really be asking if we should divide with anyone who disagrees with God's clear salvific teachings in His Word?
> ...


This all sounds good to me as far as I can tell, not that my opinion matters, but honestly it's a bit over my head right now. We just got the kids to bed after a long evening of playing, so now I'm drained  I admire your desire to know the true Jesus.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 30, 2021)

And for the record, I don't believe Jesus was a human person. I also believe Clark was wrong. But it is also evident that the Bible isn't a glossary for terms like energia, ousia, and hypostasis.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 30, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And for the record, I don't believe Jesus was a human person. I also believe Clark was wrong. But it is also evident that the Bible isn't a glossary for terms like energia, ousia, and hypostasis.


You are correct the bible would not be a glossary for those terms, but at the same time, 99% of Christians will never even hear those terms sitting in the pews.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 30, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> You are correct the bible would not be a glossary for those terms, but at the same time, 99% of Christians will never even hear those terms sitting in the pews.



Which is unfortunate, since most people would then read modern definitions of "person" into the concept


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 30, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which is unfortunate, since most people would then read modern definitions of "person" into the concept


I think it's possible to teach on the trinity without needing to use those terms. The forgotten trinity by James white I thought did a good job without getting overly technical.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 30, 2021)

I have to post a correction. And I figured this would be the case once I thought about it more, that the terms do have use. I checked the book I mentioned and both ousia and hypostasis are used. I would mention a deep explanation is given before using them, but I am sure you would do the same before using them.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 30, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I think it's possible to teach on the trinity without needing to use those terms. The forgotten trinity by James white I thought did a good job without getting overly technical.



Since the trinity hinges on "nature" and "person," I would say it is impossible. The term "nature" didn't drop out of the air. It has a very complex history. No, I wouldn't firebomb old ladies with Greek terms, but I would introduce them later on.

On James White: in the old days on "VintageAomin" he said will was a property of person, not nature. That is the monothelite heresy. I think he has corrected himself since then.


----------



## Taylor (May 30, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The term "nature" didn't drop out of the air.


Yes. These terms also aren’t technically foreign to the Bible. For example, Hebrews 1 says that the Son is the express image of God’s υπόστασις. That has huge Trinitarian implications.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 30, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Yes. These terms also aren’t technically foreign to the Bible. For example, Hebrews 1 says that the Son is the express image of God’s υπόστασις. That has huge Trinitarian implications.



That, too, is tricky. At the time of Athanasius, hypostasis meant nature. By the time of Basil and Constantinople 381 it meant person. That's the danger of reading later concepts into earlier terms. John McGuckin summarized the problem best:

Ousia: Essence, substance, being, *genus*, or nature.

Physis: Nature, make up of a thing. (In earlier Christian thought the concrete reality or existent.)

Hypostasis: The actual concrete reality of a thing, the underlying essence, (in earlier Christian thought the synonym of physis.)

Prosopon: The observable character, defining properties, manifestation of a reality.

Even at first sight it is clear that the words bear a range of meanings that overlap in some areas so as to be synonymous. This is particularly so with the terms Physis and Hypostasis which in the fifth century simultaneously bore ancient Christian meanings and more modern applications..* In relation to Physis, Cyril tended to use the antique meaning, Nestorius the modern. In relation to Hypostasis the opposite was the case.”*

McGuckin, 138-139.

7. “Ousia is the genus of a thing. Once can think, for example of the genus ‘unicorn.’ Such a genus exists, *but only theoretically*, not practically or concretely. It does not exist, that is, ‘in reality’ as we would say today. Nonetheless, it makes sense to talk of the necessary characteristics of a unicorn such as its magical horn, its horse like appearance, its whiteness, its beard and lion’s tail, and so on. Thus the genus of unicorn is the ousia, that which makes up the essential being of a thing.. The notion of the physis of our unicorn is intimately related to this. It connotes what we might call the palpable and ‘physical’ characteristics of a unicorn such as outlined above-but always understanding that his possession of a physis-nature *still does not necessarily imply that such a creature is real*…In some circles, especially those represented by the Christian thinkers of Alexandria following Athanasius, the word physis signified something slightly different from this sense of ’physical attributes’ and had been used to connote the physical existent-in the sense of a concrete individual reality. *In the hands of Cyril* the word is* used in two senses*, one in what might be called the standard ‘physical usage where it connotes the constituent elements of a thing, *and the other in which it serves to delineate the notion of individual existent-or in other words individual subject.* This variability in the use of a key term on Cyril’s part goes some way to explaining Nestorius’ difficulties in following his argument over the single Physis of the Incarnate Word (Mia Physis tou Theou Logou Sesarkoene). By this Cyril meant the one concrete individual subject of the Incarnated Word. Whereas Nestorius heard him to mean the one physical composite of the Word (in the sense of an Apollinarist mixture of fusion of the respective attributes of the natures of man and God.)

McGuckin, 139-140.

“*The prospon is the external aspect or form of a physis as it can be manifested to external observation and scrutiny. It is a very concrete, empirical word, connoting what appears to outside observation. * Each essence (ousia) is characterized by its proper nature (physis), everything that is, which makes it up,* and in turn every nature that is hypostatically real presents itself to the scrutiny of the senses in its own prosopon*-that list of detailed characteristics or ‘propria’ that constitute this thing individually and signal to the observer what nature (physis) it has and thus to what genus (ousia) it belongs. In the system Nestorius is following, every nature has its own prosopon, that such of proper characteristics (idiomata) by which it is characterized in its unique individuality and made known to others as such. The word carried with it an intrinsic sense of ‘making known’ and appeared to Nestorius particularly apt in the revelatory context of discussing the incarnation.”

McGuckin, 144.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## earl40 (May 30, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And for the record, I don't believe Jesus was a human person. I also believe Clark was wrong. But it is also evident that the Bible isn't a glossary for terms like energia, ousia, and hypostasis.



Though I take it you believe Jesus is a person Who is both human and divine?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 30, 2021)

earl40 said:


> Though I take it you believe Jesus is a person Who is both human and divine?



He is a divine person who assumed a human nature. His identity is a divine person with human and divine predicates. This is Chalcedon 101

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 30, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That, too, is tricky. At the time of Athanasius, hypostasis meant nature. By the time of Basil and Constantinople 381 it meant person. That's the danger of reading later concepts into earlier terms. John McGuckin summarized the problem best:
> 
> Ousia: Essence, substance, being, *genus*, or nature.
> 
> ...


Do you believe knowing all these definitions and terms exactly as stated is essential to salvation?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 30, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Do you believe knowing all these definitions and terms exactly as stated is essential to salvation?



No. My point, along with the historic tradition, is that these terms safeguard orthodoxy. Not knowing these terms almost always leads to sloppy reasoning, however.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 30, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. My point, along with the historic tradition, is that these terms safeguard orthodoxy. Not knowing these terms almost always leads to sloppy reasoning, however.


I agree, but tradition in some cases is also what lead to the "sacred tradition" of the RC and EO churches and necessitated the reformation. Orthodoxy, as well, is defined differently among different groups. My assumption is you are presupposing reformed orthodoxy. In any case, I hope you have a great day of fellowship at church as well as the others on this thread.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 30, 2021)

My advice is generally to ignore Gordon H. Clark and those of his ilk. The claim made by one of his disciples that he is the greatest theologian since Augustine is about as ridiculous as it gets. I realise, however, if you are dealing with people who have been influenced by Dr Clark, it may not be an option for you. An approach that you could try with them is to encourage them to read better, older authors instead and hope that they acquire some better theology, not to mention some common sense, while doing so.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 30, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> My assumption is you are presupposing reformed orthodoxy. In any case, I hope you have a great day of fellowship at church as well as the others on this thread.



I am presupposing Reformed orthodoxy, but they themselves would have thought they were simply transmitting the received tradition. Turretin's definition of person is almost identical to Basil's (mode of nature/mode of existence).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 30, 2021)

And then there’s this — varying translations

Hebrews 1:3 and translations of ὑπόστασις, _hypostasis_

KJV NKJV the express image of his / His person
Geneva 1599 the engraved form of his person
MKJV the express image of His essence
NIV ’84 the exact representation of his being
Lamsa the express image of his being
NASB the exact representation of His nature
MEV the express image of Himself
YLT the impress of His subsistence
RV the very image of his substance

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Stillwaters (May 31, 2021)

Contra_Mundum said:


> "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."
> 
> (WCF 1.7)
> 
> ...


Yes,
Agree 100% with everything you said including your statement ==> 

"The creeds of the church aim to express carefully and condensedly vital truth about God, man, Christ, and salvation so that in all generations the same safe hope will be accessible--if men will use such tools, like spikes driven into the mountainside, marking the best route to ascend. Ignore those markers at your peril.

Tragically,
Gordon H. Clark had contempt for the Creed of Chalcedon, and never ceased to criticize it.

Many of his followers including J.R. Robbins became full blown Nestorians because of Gordon H. Clark's illogical "Definitions" in his teachings & writings leading to a Nestorian construct of the Incarnation.

I know many who love Clark and are now Nestorians, and I am praying for them.


----------



## Stillwaters (May 31, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Using a personal pronoun is not defining a nature. The Bible does not give a formal definition of prosopon/hypostasis or phusis/ousia


?

A Person Pronoun refers to the person. 

Of course it doesn't refer to the nature. 

Each of the Trinitarian Persons are referred to by personal pronouns (and also by proper names).


----------



## Taylor (May 31, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> ?
> 
> A Person Pronoun refers to the person.
> 
> ...


He said that personal pronouns do not _define_ what "nature" is. And the very fact that the Father, Son, and Spirit are each referred to as a Person in Scripture, and each referred to as deity in Scripture, necessitates the need for a definition of each in order to make some sense of scriptural teaching. Hence Chalcedon. Jacob is addressing the "just believe the Bible" sentiment that has been expressed in this thread. With regard to Trinitarian theology, yes, Scripture gives us all we need to believe, but in order to make sure we stay within the bounds of what Scripture teaches, definitions are needed. Again, hence Chalcedon.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stillwaters (May 31, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am presupposing Reformed orthodoxy, but they themselves would have thought they were simply transmitting the received tradition. Turretin's definition of person is almost identical to Basil's (mode of nature/mode of existence).


?
Do you agree that those who created the Creed of Chalcedon knew what a person is, and knew what a nature is, and knew what con-substantial means, and know what co-essential means, and defined the human nature as "body & soul", and defined a human being as "person & nature"?

Gordon H. Clark did not believe so and ultimately denied the Hypostatic Union (and denied the Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

The truths in the Creed of Chalcedon clearly explain the Hypostatic Union to those who have "ears" to hear, and Holy Scripture clearly teaches the Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, who is God, taking upon Himself an "impersonal" human nature. 

Why didn't Clark have the ears to hear? 

It is so tragic, and dangerous to the souls of those who have followed him.


----------



## Stillwaters (May 31, 2021)

Taylor said:


> He said that personal pronouns do not _define_ what "nature" is. And the very fact that the Father, Son, and Spirit are each referred to as a Person in Scripture, and each referred to as deity in Scripture, necessitates the need for a definition of each in order to make some sense of scriptural teaching. Hence Chalcedon. Jacob is addressing the "just believe the Bible" sentiment that has been expressed in this thread. With regard to Trinitarian theology, yes, Scripture gives us all we need to believe, but in order to make sure we stay within the bounds of what Scripture teaches, definitions are needed. Again, hence Chalcedon.


Yes,
I agree the personal pronouns do not define what nature is. 

And yes the 3 Divine Persons are united in the being of God that the Creed of Chalcedon explains so well as "Co-Essential". 

The 3 Divine Persons are Co-Essential (of the same substance, essence, and being). 

It is tragic that Gordon H. Clark rejected the Creed of Chalcedon claiming it didn't define anything.


----------



## Stillwaters (May 31, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And for the record, I don't believe Jesus was a human person. I also believe Clark was wrong. But it is also evident that the Bible isn't a glossary for terms like energia, ousia, and hypostasis.


?
The Bible does teach the truths and meanings behind what leads us to develop theological words and terms. 

For example, Trinity is clearly taught by Scripture and led to the development of the word to reflect the truth of the doctrine, essentially becoming a summary and symbol of the doctrine.

But Christians knew that God was Triune BEFORE that word came to be used.

Therefore: the truths behind what the words energia, ousia, and hypostasis mean is absolutely in Scripture or we wouldn't be applying them in theology.

Can someone unfamiliar with theological terms understand all of the truths of Holy Scripture? Yes.


----------



## Stillwaters (May 31, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> You are correct the bible would not be a glossary for those terms, but at the same time, 99% of Christians will never even hear those terms sitting in the pews.


Yes!
It seems you agree that Christians sitting in the pews who may never hear those terms still learn the truth of what Scripture teaches about them via the Holy Spirit's illumination of the truths. Correct?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 31, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> Yes!
> It seems you agree that Christians sitting in the pews who may never hear those terms still learn the truth of what Scripture teaches about them via the Holy Spirit's illumination of the truths. Correct?


I do think that is a large part of it, but I do also think worshipping God with all our heart, soul, strength, and specially MINDS, requires that we put in the effort and truly put in the work when studying scripture. Church on Sunday and nothing else won't do this. I know so many people that say they are Christian and never read/study their bible. The latest survey I saw is I think around 70% of professing Christian's do not regularly read their bible. In this conversation I think I fall somewhere in between your view and Jacob's. I have experienced the illuminating work of the Spirit while reading scripture, but at the same time I don't believe we are to just say well I'm on auto pilot and there is no work to be put in on my side.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Stillwaters (May 31, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> And then there’s this — varying translations
> 
> Hebrews 1:3 and translations of ὑπόστασις, _hypostasis_
> 
> ...


Thank you!

Wonderful points!. 

And you reminded me that Christ as "Son of God' meant to the Jews that Jesus was being described as equal with God (of the same divine being).

So if the Jews understood that then surely every Christian should.

And many theologians teach that the TR's (μονογενὴς υἱός ) "Only Begotten Son" -&- the CT's ( μονογενὴς θεός) "Only Begotten God" both indicate that Christ is the same substance of the Father (of the same divine being).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stillwaters (May 31, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I do think that is a large part of it, but I do also think worshipping God with all our heart, soul, strength, and specially MINDS, requires that we put in the effort and truly put in the work when studying scripture. Church on Sunday and nothing else won't do this. I know so many people that say they are Christian and never read/study their bible. The latest survey I saw is I think around 70% of professing Christian's do not regularly read their bible. In this conversation I think I fall somewhere in between your view and Jacob's. I have experienced the illuminating work of the Spirit while reading scripture, but at the same time I don't believe we are to just say well I'm on auto pilot and there is no work to be put in on my side.


Yes,
Agreed.

Those Christians sitting in the pews are commanded by Scripture to study scripture. 

2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> ?
> The Bible does teach the truths and meanings behind what leads us to develop theological words and terms.
> 
> For example, Trinity is clearly taught by Scripture and led to the development of the word to reflect the truth of the doctrine, essentially becoming a summary and symbol of the doctrine.
> ...



No one is saying that the truths behind those terms aren't in the Bible. Nonetheless, these terms have a very nuanced and complex history, and if one is doing to do historical theology he has to come to grips with them.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> Do you agree that those who created the Creed of Chalcedon knew what a person is, and knew what a nature is, and knew what con-substantial means, and know what co-essential means, and defined the human nature as "body & soul", and defined a human being as "person & nature"?



Yes


Stillwaters said:


> Gordon H. Clark did not believe so and ultimately denied the Hypostatic Union (and denied the Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity.



Okay.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> ?
> 
> A Person Pronoun refers to the person.
> 
> ...



I agree, but that doesn't define what a person is. It just identifies them as persons (which no one disagrees with). I've already explained how these terms were used in several of my posts, which you didn't deal with.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2021)

I, on the other hand, am actually defining the terms. Here goes (again).

Turretin: person = subsistence of a rational nature.
Boethius: person = individuation of a rational nature
Basil the Great: person = huparxeos tropos, mode of existence (my personal favorite).

Before Athanasius, hypostasis meant concrete existent, which is why it is dangerous to read too much into Hebrews 1:3. A concrete existing thing could either be a person or a nature. Depends on context. That's why Basil the Great had to sharpen the terminology and from then after hypostasis meant person, not nature.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 31, 2021)

Hello Mair @Stillwaters,

Thanks for your remarks! With regard to the CT's "only begotten God" you had mentioned, here is a little more info on it from an older thread, and my post #10 (scroll down a bit to see re John 1:18).

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Stillwaters (May 31, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes
> 
> 
> Okay.


*Please know ...
I'm praying for this comment to be well received.*

*1) *The main reason I came to Puritan Board and created this post is because of what you said in the other thread entitled *"Dr. Gordon Clark - NeoNestorian?*"

I found that thread during my research.

I was hoping this post would change your mind about some things.

Do you still stand by your words in that thread? 

*2)* In the other thread discussing Clark's possible Nestorianism, 

*you claimed there was only 1 Quote in that book that seemed Nestorian*.

But here are 3 Nestorian quotes from his book.

So, why did you state as fact that there was only 1 quote? 

*==> “Who suffered and died in the suffering and death of Jesus?” “On the cross Jesus said, ‘I thirst.’ No trinitarian Person could have said this because the Three Persons are pure incorporeal spirits . . . Who then, or what, thirsted on the cross?” *_(p. 73)

*==> “Let us then take it for granted that God cannot die.

Now, if Christ be one divine person, no person was crucified and died. What then died on the cross?” *(p. 69)_

*==> "Jesus Christ was and is both God and man, a divine person and a human person. To deny either is to fall into error." (p. 78)

3)* You also said:

"I don't put too much stock *in that one quote *for the following reasons ... *It's one quote*.

Well ... now you know there were at least 3 quotes. And from my post you now know of problems in other writings of his.

*4) * You also defended Clark's statements by saying

"There really isn't a good definition of "person."

*5)* You inferred that Clark's book on *The Incarnation* should *not* be considered because it was published Posthumously ( even though it is advertised heavily on the Trinity Foundation by the Nestorian JR Robbins who said Christ was " a human person indwelt by the Logos" in writings of his own and in an interview.

*6)* *Since you are influential in this Forum *(and many from the public have read that thread) would you *PLEASE PRAYERFULLY* consider changing your statement ... PLEASE?
*
I know for a fact that those statements of yours have misled people *into thinking only 1 little tiny trivial quote was all that is behind those like myself who have built cases against Gordon H Clark's error filled teaching about the Incarnation, the Person of the Mediator, the Atonement.

And, his* faulty Trinitarian* ontology of *Divine Persons as "Bundles of Thoughts"* *-&- the Divine Essence as being "Mute" *that were written in his book on _*The Trinity*_ .
was published when he was alive, and later factored into his writings on the Incarnation when he claims the definition of a "person" is a "Collection of Propositions". 

************************

*THESE ARE YOUR WORDS from the other thread ==>*

"The infamous quote is from a book published posthumously by Robbins. I don't put too much stock in that one quote for the following reasons (and note: I am defending Clark, not Robbins or the Trinity Foundation)

1. It's one quote.
2. It was put in a book form after he died
3. There really isn't a good definition of "person."
4. Whether Clark said two persons or not, that's not actually what Nestorius taught. Nestorius said the hypostasis of the Word is formed by the coming together of the two prosopa (Nestorius is still wrong, but it isn't the crass two-person theory).
5. In his commentary on the Confession he attacks Nestorianism."





__





Dr. Gordon Clark - NeoNestorian?


I've read in a number of places that Gordon Clark toward the end of his life declared that Christ existed in two persons espousing a form of Nestorianism, though he had been orthodox on that point theretofore. If I have it right he said so in the book "The Incarnation," published posthumously...




www.puritanboard.com





*PLEASE prayerfully consider editing this in the other thread ... please? *


----------



## Stillwaters (May 31, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Mair @Stillwaters,
> 
> Thanks for your remarks! With regard to the CT's "only begotten God" you had mentioned, here is a little more info on it from an older thread, and my post #10 (scroll down a bit to see re John 1:18).


HI again!

I can't respond to you in the other thread because it is closed, so I'll respond here.

I researched this topic very deeply recently.

The CT's "Only Begotten God" always has seemed wrong to me too.

However,

I was studying the "Autothoen Controversy" about Calvin where he believed only the "personal subsistence" is begotten, but the essence is "of Himself".

And then how Berkhof and others claimed only the "Personal Subsistence" was begotten, and the Essence was "communicated".

The Athanasian Creed say "Essence of the Father" in such a manner as to indicate the agreement with Nicae.

The Nicaean fathers taught that the Person & the Essence is begotten.

All of the theologians and Pastors of my acquaintance who have been helping me with my research for the 2 books I am writing agree with Nicae.

And since it is the Divine Essence referred to in John 1:18 with Theos,
they claim since Nicae teaches the essence is begottten then it is ok to say as the CT rendered in the NASB "Only Begotten God" because the "God-Ness" (substance, essence, being, Deity) is begotten wth the Personal Subsistence (according to Nicae).

But personally, I prefer the TR's μονογενὴς υἱός that has the full meaning "the Unique ,one and only, begotten Son" (at least that is what I was taught it means from the Greek).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> *Please know ...
> I'm praying for this comment to be well received.*
> 
> *1) *The main reason I came to Puritan Board and created this post is because of what you said in the other thread entitled *"Dr. Gordon Clark - NeoNestorian?*"
> ...



I vaguely remember that thread. Maybe in the future you might want to make your intentions clearer when you start a thread. Had you led off what with that, perhaps I could have responded better. 

I don't see anything controversial in what I wrote. I am not nor have ever been a Clarkian. I think he is wrong on many, many matters. I would never go to him for Christology. And lest I am misunderstood, Clark. Was. Wrong. On. Nestorianism.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2021)

I've spent roughly 14 years studying Patristic Christology. I can assure you I do not go to Gordon Clark on Christology.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 1, 2021)

Well, this thread took a strange detour through Awkwardville...

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Stillwaters (Jun 1, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I've spent roughly 14 years studying Patristic Christology. I can assure you I do not go to Gordon Clark on Christology.


You say: " I can assure you I do not go to Gordon Clark on Christology." 
I rejoice to hear that. Why in that other thread didn't you say that? PLEASE re-read that thread I mentioned. PLEASE correct it, especially about the "1 quote" because that is provably not true. Have you even read his book on the Incarnation? Many who follow Clark are turning into Nestorians. PLEASE help to prevent others from falling.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 1, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> You say: " I can assure you I do not go to Gordon Clark on Christology."
> I rejoice to hear that. Why in that other thread didn't you say that? PLEASE re-read that thread I mentioned. PLEASE correct it, especially about the "1 quote" because that is provably not true. Have you even read his book on the Incarnation? Many who follow Clark are turning into Nestorians. PLEASE help to prevent others from falling.



I stand by what I said. Unless by "one quote" I meant not a substantial reflection of Clark's writing. I largely don't care about Clark. No one is turning into a Nestorian based on what I said about Clark.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 1, 2021)

Stillwaters said:


> You say: " I can assure you I do not go to Gordon Clark on Christology."
> I rejoice to hear that. Why in that other thread didn't you say that? PLEASE re-read that thread I mentioned. PLEASE correct it, especially about the "1 quote" because that is provably not true. Have you even read his book on the Incarnation? Many who follow Clark are turning into Nestorians. PLEASE help to prevent others from falling.


Why all this begging in ALL CAPS? You are behaving as if Jacob’s “only one quote” comment (which was the better part of a decade ago) is practically Nestorian itself, or as though a single post from a random guy from Louisiana in a forum no one except maybe 6,666 people care about was the cause of the downfall of many into rank heresy.

I would just admonish you to chill out a bit. This thread has been weird, to put it mildly. You’ve been a member here for less than a week, and you’re already using a thread to backdoor your way into an open and quite preachy criticism of someone who joined this board when I was in sixth grade.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 2, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Why all this begging in ALL CAPS? You are behaving as if Jacob’s “only one quote” comment (which was the better part of a decade ago) is practically Nestorian itself, or as though a single post from a random guy from Louisiana in a forum no one except maybe 6,666 people care about was the cause of the downfall of many into rank heresy.
> 
> I would just admonish you to chill out a bit. This thread has been weird, to put it mildly. You’ve been a member here for less than a week, and you’re already using a thread to backdoor your way into an open and quite preachy criticism of someone who joined this board when I was in sixth grade.



Even stranger is that I have been a fairly hostile critic of Clarkianism for almost 20 years. And I know from personal experience that NOBODY is becoming Nestorian these days. There are like 20 Clarkians in the world and maybe 12 of them know what Nestorianism is. If anything, people are more likely to become Roman Catholic or EO than Nestorian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rainee (Jun 2, 2021)

WRT: @BayouHuguenot

Apparently you and the PB are unaware of the many debates currently raging amongst the reformed about Gordon H. Clark and his Nestorianism. Many are researching it. Among the top search engine results for Nestorianism is the PB thread about Clark's Neo-Nestorianism featuring BayouHuguenot's seemingly knowledgeable comments with an air of authority but filled with untruths. His repeated insistence of there only being 1 quote has led those in the know to suspect he was commenting on a book based on here-say and never has read it himself because there are far more than 1 Nestorian pronouncement made in Gordon H. Clark's book entitled The Incarnation! BayouHuguenot's unfamiliarity with other things mentioned in this thread indicates he never read Clark's book on the Trinity either. Many have been adversely influenced by having been convinced by his comments to dismiss the claims against Clark. The PB Administrator would do well to have that thread corrected for accuracy. It seems you are also unaware that many are now being exposed among the followers of Clark as being full blown Nestorians. Others are publicly acknowledging that they are considering Nestorianism! BayouHuguenot's comments in that thread have contributed to these departures from the true Chalcedonian Christology. 

The PB Administrators would do well to have that thread corrected for accuracy.

The following reviews from the year 1989 are truly knowledgeable and scholarly reviews of Gordon H. Clark's Books on the Trinity, and also The Incarnation.









Brief Analysis of the Views of Gordon H Clark on the Incarnation and the Trinity____Engelsma and Hanko.pdf







drive.google.com





May God bring forth His truth and purposes through this in Christ's name. Amen.


----------



## Rainee (Jun 3, 2021)

To: Puritan Board Administrators and BayouHuguenot

Perhaps you are unaware that for years the Puritan Board thread with BayouHuguenot's comments defending Clark has been in the top 3 results for Google Search (see attachment) questions asking "Was Gordon H. Clark Nestorian?". 

And he is quoted saying, "There really isn't a good definition of "person." 

Currently many are questioning the Creed of Chalcedon and they use statements like his (in keeping with statements made by followers of Clark and Clark himself) to claim that Chalcedon's terms are undefined and therefor meaningless.


----------



## KMK (Jun 3, 2021)

PB Administrators and Moderators are not editors or 'fact-checkers'. We establish the boundaries for discussion and do our best to make sure everyone stays in bounds. If you feel Jacob has promoted unconfessional views on the Puritanboard, then cite them and let him defend himself. 

Please don't complain about the moderation of all the volunteer Moderators on this board. We are thankful for their time and effort.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2021)

Rainee said:


> WRT: @BayouHuguenot
> 
> Apparently you and the PB are unaware of the many debates currently raging amongst the reformed about Gordon H. Clark and his Nestorianism. Many are researching it. Among the top search engine results for Nestorianism is the PB thread about Clark's Neo-Nestorianism featuring BayouHuguenot's seemingly knowledgeable comments with an air of authority but filled with untruths. His repeated insistence of there only being 1 quote has led those in the know to suspect he was commenting on a book based on here-say and never has read it himself because there are far more than 1 Nestorian pronouncement made in Gordon H. Clark's book entitled The Incarnation! BayouHuguenot's unfamiliarity with other things mentioned in this thread indicates he never read Clark's book on the Trinity either. Many have been adversely influenced by having been convinced by his comments to dismiss the claims against Clark. The PB Administrator would do well to have that thread corrected for accuracy. It seems you are also unaware that many are now being exposed among the followers of Clark as being full blown Nestorians. Others are publicly acknowledging that they are considering Nestorianism! BayouHuguenot's comments in that thread have contributed to these departures from the true Chalcedonian Christology.
> 
> ...



I have a hard time believing people are becoming Nestorians simply based on my comment that was only one of the many things Clark said. In fact, if anything my comments on the Church Fathers have led people to attack Nestorianism.

And as I have said probably a half dozen times on this thread, Clark was wrong on Christology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2021)

Rainee said:


> And he is quoted saying, "There really isn't a good definition of "person."



That's true. Both Basil and Augustine said they called the hypostases "persons" simply because they didn't know what else to call them. This is common knowledge in Patristic studies. And even if there isn't a good definition of person, that doesn't make Clark's view right. A bundle of propositions is silly.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Rainee (Jun 6, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's true. Both Basil and Augustine said they called the hypostases "persons" simply because they didn't know what else to call them. This is common knowledge in Patristic studies. And even if there isn't a good definition of person, that doesn't make Clark's view right. A bundle of propositions is silly.


You are misquoting Clark. You say "bundle of propositions". That is not what Clark said. His book on the _Trinity_ says "thought bundles" for the Divine Persons, and his book _The Incarnation_ uses "a collection of propositions" for his definition of person including his definition of a human person.

It has been dismaying the past many years how Gordon H. Clark's construct of the Incarnation (deemed by many good scholarly pastors and theologians as being the "2 person Heresy" of nestorianism) is defended by simply saying "there is no good definition of what person means".

And this defense is now used constantly by those defending their departure from Chalcedon due to adverse effects Clark has had upon their Christology.

And how weary we are in debates of hearing you quoted from their Google Searches within the top 3 results saying "there is no good definition of what person means" when you defended Clark in that PB thread about his book on _The Incarnation. 

I_n addition, for years your word has often been taken that there was only "1 Quote" in Clarks book _The Incarnation _that seemed Nestorian (and you defended it saying there is not a good definition of the word person), and many also chose not to read the book because they took your word for it. This PB OP (the original post) combined with the scholarly PRCA article I included in a previous comment prove your claim that there was only "1 Quote" that seemed Nestorian is false because the entire book outlines the "2 person" incarnational construct in opposition to orthodoxy. In his book _The Incarnation_, Clark denied the incarnation, the atonement, and the divine person of the mediator by removing the divine element from the passion of the Lamb yielding a mere mortal incapable of satisfying the infinite divine justice of God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2021)

Rainee said:


> years your word has often been taken that there was only "1 Quote" in Clarks book _The Incarnation _that seemed Nestorian


I just find that hard to believe and since 1) you continue to ignore every quote of mine on person 2) and you refuse to identify these mythical clarkians, I’m going to dismiss what you say


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 6, 2021)

@Rainee - Let me state at the outset that I agree with you in relation to Gordon Clark's obvious Nestorianism, which is as clear as day to anyone who has eyes that are willing to see. Still, I find it hard to believe that one comment by Jacob on a PB thread from about eight years ago is really having the influence that you claim. Are you able to verify this assertion through citations or have you just encountered Clarkians in-person or online who have used one post on a PB thread as an excuse to ignore Gordon Clark's books?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 8, 2021)

Thread closed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

