# Is Chalcedon Nonsense?



## Semper Fidelis (May 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Semper Fideles_
> ...



As you can see above, Sean Gerety has called portions of Chalcedon nonsense. I think this is a serious charge - one that would cause a minister of the Gospel to be brought up on charges.

I'd like for him to give a defense of this view. I would also like for him to harmonize his belief that neither mystery nor paradox nor apparent contradiction can be accepted in the Christian faith with the above Creed. I would like him to remove all issues of mystery in this Creed or deny the Creed because he disagrees with it or it presents apparent contradictions that he cannot submit to.

I would like people to present the tensions and mysteries that are difficult to unravel to give ample opportunity for Sean and others to show how human reason can remove all mystery from this historic Creed. This also gives him, and others, opportunity to show where the above is nonsense.

Here's one for starters

God is immutable. 
The Persons of the Trinity are immutable. 
The Second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature which was mutable. 
Not only did this "change" the Person (from one to two natures) but the Person that was immutable took on a mutable nature.

[Edited on 5-27-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Magma2 (May 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> As you can see above, Sean Gerety has called portions of Chalcedon nonsense. I think this is a serious charge - one that would cause a minister of the Gospel to be brought up on charges.



Blah, blah, blah. I've asked you twice now to define substance. Please do so now so that we may proceed.


----------



## Civbert (May 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...
> 
> I would like people to present the tensions and mysteries that are difficult to unravel to give ample opportunity for Sean and others to show how human reason can remove all mystery from this historic Creed.



I don't think anyone has said anything about removing mysteries in ancient creeds, or mysteries in general. I'm more interested in "apparent contradictions" in Scripture. If it was impossible to remove the "mysteries" in the Chalcedon in-so-far as I've never made in vows to it, nor is it something asserted by my church as God's Word, it world be irrelevant. It might be interesting to try to figure out what the authors of Chalcedon meant by some of the things they said, but that's about all. 




> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> Here's one for starters
> 
> ...



Not sure how you get this from Chalcedon. Does it say something about human nature being mutable?

Why do you think that mutability is a defining characteristic of human nature? Wouldn't this also apply to sin?

Paul Manata correctly pointed out that since Christ was fully man, yet without sin, then sin is not a defining characteristic of being human. I've made the same augment myself in a debate on what it means to be fully man and fully God. (BTW. I am both an engineer and a father at the same time.)

Any how, I don't mind looking at the Chalcedon if you want. It's a little vague. And being so short, it may be difficult to figure out what the terms mean (like substance). Do you have any references you can give a link too?




[Edited on 5-27-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Jon (May 27, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> The Second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature which was mutable.
> Not only did this "change" the Person (from one to two natures) but the Person that was immutable took on a mutable nature.



Actually, this isn't quite correct. The Second Person of the Trinity, the _Logos_ did not change. What changed is a child was born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, Jesus of Nazareth. This Jesus is the Christ. The _Logos_ did not change and cannot change. The divine nature is completely immutable. You see, God is not restricted by human frailty even though his Son resides in Jesus Christ. In fact, because the divine nature is divine and not human, neither nature is affected by this arrangement, but where the divine nature wills it. For two natures to reside in one man is not difficult to understand. Consider demonic possession. Consider how many demons can exert their wills over a single person. Much more benevolently does the eternal _Logos_ also reside in the person of Jesus Christ and in perfect harmony with Jesus' human nature.

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## Jon (May 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Blah, blah, blah. I've asked you twice now to define substance. Please do so now so that we may proceed.


I'm curious if you, Mr. Gerety, fully subscribe to Dr. Clark's Christology, especially as is presented in _The Incarnation_.

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## DTK (May 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jon_
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> ...



This is correct. In the incarnation, the eternal Word became what He had never been, without ceasing to be what He ever was.

DTK


----------



## Magma2 (May 27, 2006)

> I'm curious if you, Mr. Gerety, fully subscribe to Dr. Clark's Christology, especially as is presented in _The Incarnation_.



I am still waiting for Rich to answer my question. If you'd like to take a stab at it for him, please do.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > I'm curious if you, Mr. Gerety, fully subscribe to Dr. Clark's Christology, especially as is presented in _The Incarnation_.
> ...


Sean,

You are truly remarkable. I don't know why you called it nonsense. It was you who did so. I'm not going to go down rabbit trails trying to figure out why you think so. All I know is that you reject portions of a historic Creed that forms the basis for all orthodox Christianity.

Are you man enough to stand up and answer for your assertion or not? I think there are orthodox Christians here on this board that deserve an explanation.

If you don't care to engage the topic of the OP then leave the thread. This is not your topic and you don't set the terms.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


You don't need more of Chalcedon to deal with the Paradox. Do you believe Christ was born as a fully grown person with a beard in Bethlehem? He obviously "...grew in wisdom and stature."

I need not define it more than that. Deal with that paradox as Pastor King has affirmed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jon_
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> ...


I may have been imprecise but I think I did say that Christ's divinity is immutable.


----------



## Civbert (May 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



Who? Where? 

I did deal with the "paradox" you gave - you just didn't like my answer. I suppose it might not work, I'll try again. 

I'm guessing you produced your "paradox" from this part:



> ... the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, ...



which explains why Sean wants to know what you think "subsistence" means. 

Anyhow - it seems to me that "distinction of natures" means that there were still two different natures, one human and one divine. It doesn't say they came together to form "one nature" but "one person". 

You still had to add "mutability" but I'll give you that one. Still, there is no paradox because the mutable nature is human, and the immutable nature is divine. 



> ... one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; ...



Clearly "two nature". You said "Not only did this "change" the Person (from one to two natures) but the Person that was immutable took on a mutable nature.". 

There's no paradox here really. The person that was immutable (by divine nature), took on a mutable (human) nature. "Two natures, without confusion" and "distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather  the characteristics of _each nature_ being preserved " clearly means that the person of Christ was not of one nature but two, and the characteristics of the two natures were not confused, but "preserved". And mutibility is a characterisc of the human nature, and so it is seperate from the devine nature.

Two natures, one Person, no "apparent contradiction", no paradox. How there is two natures in one person I don't know, but it's not paradoxical because the is no apparent contradiction. The Chalcedon clearly went to pains to make sure there was no contradiction in what was written by clearly and explicitly preserving the *two* distinct natures with *different* and unconfused characteristics. 

You couldn't ask for a less paradoxical statement. Even if you find it difficult to understand "how" there can be two natures in one person, it's plain that that is *exactly* what Chalcedon is asserting. 








[Edited on 5-28-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Magma2 (May 27, 2006)

> You are truly remarkable. I don't know why you called it nonsense. It was you who did so. I'm not going to go down rabbit trails trying to figure out why you think so.




Well, Rich, if you can't answer a simple question directly germane to the creedal defintion and instead call it a "rabbit trail," I hardly see why I or anyone else should waste any time playing your games? 




> All I know is that you reject portions of a historic Creed that forms the basis for all orthodox Christianity.



I reject nonsense. You evidently do not. If you don't think it nonsense answer my question. If you can't answer my question, I call this conversation over. As I said, you need to think more and emote less.


----------



## Civbert (May 27, 2006)

What's the difference between a paradox and nonsense. If you say it's a paradox, mystery, or "apparent contradiction", then you're saying it doesn't make sense to you - so it's nonsense for you.

Wow! Look at that. I just resolved an "apparent contradiction" between Sean and Rich. It wasn't a real contradiction, they are saying the same thing! 

Paradox/Mystery = Nonsense.


Look out. I don't want anyone stubbing his toe on the irony. 

....

Come on, if you're not smiling, you need a humor check. 

Now that I've made peace between Sean and Rich, can't well all just get along???? 

 

Group hug ... no kissing. 
   




[Edited on 5-28-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2006)

Sean,

Per the advice of some Godly men on this board, I'm through trying to interact with you in a meaningful way.

You called a historic Creed nonsense. If you refuse to explain a statement that seems to indicate that you are heterodox then I must safely assume as such.

[Edited on 5-28-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Two natures, one Person, no "apparent contradiction", no paradox. How there is two natures in one person I don't know, but it's not paradoxical because the is no apparent contradiction. The Chalcedon clearly went to pains to make sure there was no contradiction in what was written by clearly and explicitly preserving the *two* distinct natures with *different* and unconfused characteristics.


I quite agree there are no contradictions.

You're saying you don't understand how there are two natures in one person. That's good. You have cognitive rest on information you cannot plum.

Regarding what could be considered contradiction (and is considered such by heterodox) the second Person was an immutable Person before He took on a second nature. Pressed too far, it could be argued that the Godhead changed and call into question the true immutability of the Second person. That the Son of God's divinity could take on a second nature was a major stumbling block for Greek philosophy and it is too wonderful to fully comprehend.

[Edited on 5-28-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 28, 2006)

Sean,

Do you mean to say that the historic Christian Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, is nonsense?


----------



## Civbert (May 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



Since there is no contradiction, there is nothing to plum. Everything works and fits. I'm not trying to believe something that is appears to be a contradiction in my mind so that's not a danger. The danger would be resting and not testing.




> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> Regarding what could be considered contradiction (and is considered such by heterodox) the second Person was an immutable Person before He took on a second nature. Pressed too far, it could be argued that the Godhead changed and call into question the true immutability of the Second person.


If the Chalcedon is Scriptural, then it's impossible to press it too far. You can not push it to a contradiction unless you add unbiblical premises. And the only way to know if your adding unbiblical premises is by testing for contadictions. Since we have a a Scriptural mandate to test all things (1Th 5:21, 1Jo 4:1) we must push it as far as we can. We may not rest. There's no danger if it's Scriptural. The only danger is resting on the un-scriptural - and the only way to test it is to push it. Never rest, but work out the implications. You can't correct errors by resting, and the only way to find errors is finding the appearance of contradictions.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> That the Son of God's divinity could take on a second nature was a major stumbling block for Greek philosophy and it is too wonderful to fully comprehend.


Only because they did not accept Christian presuppositions. It's not a stumbling block to the Christian. If a Christian finds Scriptural truths to be a stumbling block, then he's in danger, because he see the appearance of contradictions where none can exist. He's in danger of rejecting Scripture if he sees the appearance of contradiction and thinks he can embrace them. 

The appearance of contradictions that are not real is proof that there is error in one's thinking. Resting on apparent contradictions is dangerous. Not pushing as far as it can go is dangerous. How can you find out if you believe unchristian propositions if you don't test and push them? You don't rest in ignorance, you push, and test and verify and challenge and question.

*2Co 13:8 NKJV For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.*





[Edited on 5-28-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Magma2 (May 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Sean,
> 
> Do you mean to say that the historic Christian Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, is nonsense?



No, Matthew, that is not what I said. If you look at my exchange with Rich on the Apologetic thread I said the definition of Chalcedon was good as far as it goes, and, while none of it seems the least bit contradictory to me, some of it is nonsense. I then asked him to define the word substance to make my point and that's where things stopped. Evidently godly men who also cannot define substance told Rich he should stop interacting with me and instead Rich accused me of heterodoxy evidently because I think the word substance is meaningless. Well, repeating a word for hundreds of years with no meaning is hardly a definition of orthodoxy either. So while Rich will continue to think Christianity is an irrational religion and will find great solace in ignorance, I think more work needs to be done.

[Edited on 5-28-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 28, 2006)

Sean, et al,
It's all in the delivery! I am sure you have heard this said before-no? You will have greater luck if you temper your responses w/ more grace and tenderness; neutrality! Think of it more like autism; if we were all more autistic in our approaches and responses, we would be better off. Rain man didn't emotionally respond, he just stated the facts. Kmart/Wapner 4pm  Say what you mean, mean what you say and then move on. If a person does not respond adequately, leave the discussion or (as Paul M. says) 'nut up'. 

I will monitor this thread; if you guys cannot act like men of God and keep your emotions to yourselves, I will close this thing.

have a great Lords day!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 28, 2006)

Sean,

Without quoting Gordon Clark, which part of the othodox, commonly accpeted for over 1600 years Chalcedonian Creed do YOU see is nonsense?


----------



## Magma2 (May 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Sean,
> 
> Without quoting Gordon Clark, which part of the othodox, commonly accpeted for over 1600 years Chalcedonian Creed do YOU see is nonsense?



. . . of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood . . . .


----------



## fredtgreco (May 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ...



One presumes then that you consider the Westminster Standards to be guilty of nonsense as well, and have registered your exception to the Confession and Larger Catechism:



> WCF 8.2 The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, *of one substance and equal with the Father*, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature,(1) with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;(2) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, *in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance*.(3) So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.(4) Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.





> WLC 36 Who is the Mediator of the covenant of grace? A. The only Mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ,(1) who, being the eternal Son of God, *of one substance and equal with the Father,*(2) in the fulness of time became man,(3) and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, for ever





> WLC 37 How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man? A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,(1) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in *the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance,* and born of her,(2) yet without sin.(3)



And that, as such, you have the burden of proof (both in the Church - which is more important - and by Board rules -which is less) to show how and why this is nonsense.

[Edited on 5/28/2006 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Magma2 (May 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> One presumes then that you consider the Westminster Standards to be guilty of nonsense as well, and have registered your exception to the Confession and Larger Catechism:




First, you'd presume rightly Fred, unless you have another name besides nonsense for repeating a word with no meaning for 1600 years? Of course, you could always clearly define the word substance for me instead of just dancing around the issue with Matthew. 

Second, perhaps I should remind you about the place tradition holds in the big scheme of things per the Confession:



> The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, _or traditions of men._



This includes Chalcedon, even if some are so wed to traditions that it would make a Romanist blush. :bigsmile:



> And that, as such, you have the burden of proof (both in the Church - which is more important - and by Board rules -which is less) to show how and why this is nonsense.



You're doing a fine job of it yourself and it looks like you don't need my help. I can't define substance and I have no idea what it means or how it contributes to our understanding of the duel nature of Christ? Since I have cited Robert Reymond on another thread in this regard, I'll reprint his quote here:



> The temptation, confronted as we are by the great incarnational mystery, is to deny one of the two series of Scripture data [Christ as represented as not knowing this or that matter and equally represented as knowing all things - see Warfield's "Human Development"], and this is precisely what many in our generation have done . . . While I hold the Chalcedonian Definition in the highest esteem, I do not intend to suggest that it should have been the 'terminal point' in christological reflection [for the very reasons Clark sought to, and arguably did, improve on the traditional and largely meaningless formulation of Chalcedon] in the sense that any and all reflection on the Incarnation since Chalcedon has been and is out of order. Dogma, however much revered and however much it becomes time-honored tradition, must be subject in all of its expressions and in all times to the Word of God, and it is uninterrupted research into Scripture that must ultimately guide the church.



 As I've said more work needs to be done and while I think Clark chartered a possible course which avoids the meaningless word "substance" completely prior to his passing (despite the prejudices and knee jerking of some), and, oddly, I think this idea of substance as a meaningless word is something Van Til and Clark even agreed upon (hey, there may be some common ground after all), I don't see how Chalcedon can be the final word? Of course, if you don't like Clark, which not too many here do, J. Oliver Buswell Jr. postulated two levels of consciousness and Thomas Morris argued for a "two-mind" solution to the problem of Christ's dual "natures." So, before you start holding my feet to the fire, let's see if you have a solution perhaps better then the ones offered by those I've just mentioned? Thanks in advance.

[Edited on 5-28-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 28, 2006)

Sean,

Of course the idea of substance pre-dates Calcedon, so would it be right to presume that you are willing to throw out Nicea as well, and give up on defeating the Arians? Because the idea of substance in Calcedon is identical with that of Nicea:



> "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten, that is of the *substance *of the Father, God of God; Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, being of one *substance *with the Father; by whom all things were made, both in heaven and on the earth" (in both cases,  Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¹Î± or  Î¿Î¼Î¿Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¹Î¿Ï‚ , translated by the Latin _substantia_)



It was also confirmed by the Athansian Creed:



> Athanasian Creed 1:30-31 For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. 31 God, of the essence of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world.



The importance of the concept of "substance" or  Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¹Î±  has been verified by the Church for millennia. Cunningham treats this subject quite well in his _Historical Theology_ I.283ff.

Calvin also understood the importance of substance, and avoided being confused by the difference between  Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¹Î±  and  Ï…Ï€Î¿ÏƒÏ„Î±ÏƒÎ¹Ï‚ :



> 5. Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware lest we become chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting them. I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that each has his peculiar subsistence. I am not so minutely precise as to fight furiously for mere words. For I observe, that the writers of the ancient Church, while they uniformly spoke with great reverence on these matters, neither agreed with each other, nor were always consistent with themselves. How strange the formula used by Councils, and defended by Hilary! How extravagant the view which Augustine sometimes takes! How unlike the Greeks are to the Latins! But let one example of variance suffice. The Latins, in translating á½Î¼Î¿Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¯Î¿Ï‚ used consubstantialis (consubstantial), intimating that there was one substance of the Father and the Son, and thus using the word Substance for Essence. Hence Jerome, in his Letter to Damasus, says it is profane to affirm that there are three substances in God. But in Hilary you will find it said more than a hundred times that there are three substances in God. Then how greatly is Jerome perplexed with the word Hypostasis! He suspects some lurking poison, when it is said that there are three Hypostases in God. And he does not disguise his belief that the expression, though used in a pious sense, is improper; if, indeed, he was sincere in saying this, and did not rather designedly endeavour, by an unfounded calumny, to throw odium on the Eastern bishops whom he hated. He certainly shows little candour in asserting, that in all heathen schools Î¿á½ÏƒÎ¯Î± is equivalent to Hypostasis"”an assertion completely refuted by trite and common use.
> More courtesy and moderation is shown by Augustine (De Trinit. lib. 5 c. 8 and 9), who, although he says that Hypostasis in this sense is new to Latin ears, is still so far from objecting to the ordinary use of the term by the Greeks, that he is even tolerant of the Latins, who had imitated the Greek phraseology. The purport of what Socrates says of the term, in the Sixth Book of the Tripartite History, is, that it had been improperly applied to this purpose by the unskilful. Hilary (De Trinitat. lib. 2) charges it upon the heretics as a great crime, that their misconduct had rendered it necessary to subject to the peril of human utterance things which ought to have been reverently confined within the mind, not disguising his opinion that those who do so, do what is unlawful, speak what is ineffable, and pry into what is forbidden. Shortly after, he apologises at great length for presuming to introduce new terms. For, after putting down the natural names of Father, Son, and Spirit, he adds, that all further inquiry transcends the significance of words, the discernment of sense, and the apprehension of intellect. And in another place (De Conciliis), he congratulates the Bishops of France in not having framed any other confession, but received, without alteration, the ancient and most simple confession received by all Churches from the days of the Apostles. Not unlike this is the apology of Augustine, that the term had been wrung from him by necessity from the poverty of human language in so high a matter: not that the reality could be thereby expressed, but that he might not pass on in silence without attempting to show how the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three.
> The modesty of these holy men should be an admonition to us not instantly to dip our pen in gall, and sternly denounce those who may be unwilling to swear to the terms which we have devised, provided they do not in this betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat, but are willing to ponder the necessity which compels us so to speak, and may thus become gradually accustomed to a useful form of expression. Let men also studiously beware, that in opposing the Asians on the one hand, and the Sabellians on the other, and eagerly endeavouring to deprive both of any handle for cavil, they do not bring themselves under some suspicion of being the disciples of either Arius or Sabellius. Arius says that Christ is God, and then mutters that he was made and had a beginning. He says, that he is one with the Father; but secretly whispers in the ears of his party, made one, like other believers, though with special privilege. Say, he is consubstantial, and you immediately pluck the mask from this chameleon, though you add nothing to Scripture. Sabellius says that the Father, Son, and Spirit, indicate some distinction in God. Say, they are three, and he will bawl out that you are making three Gods. Say, that there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence, you will only express in one word what the Scriptures say, and stop his empty prattle. Should any be so superstitiously precise as not to tolerate these terms, still do their worst, they will not be able to deny that when one is spoken of, a unity of substance must be understood, and when three in one essence, the persons in this Trinity are denoted. When this is confessed without equivocations we dwell not on words. But I was long ago made aware, and, indeed, on more than one occasion, that those who contend pertinaciously about words are tainted with some hidden poison; and, therefore, that it is more expedient to provoke them purposely, than to court their favour by speaking obscurely.
> 6. But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,"”a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence. For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God. When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own properties. Here relation is distinctly expressed, because, when God is mentioned simply and indefinitely the name belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father. But whenever the Father is compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes the one from the other. Again, whatever is proper to each I affirm to be incommunicable, because nothing can apply or be transferred to the Son which is attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction. I have no objections to adopt the definition of Tertullian, provided it is properly understood, "œthat there is in God a certain arrangement or economy, which makes no change on the unity of essence.""”Tertull. Lib. contra Praxeam.
> (Institutes of the Christian Religion I, xiii, 5.)



and



> When it is said that the Word was made flesh, we must not understand it as if he were either changed into flesh, or confusedly intermingled with flesh, but that he made choice of the Virgin´s womb as a temple in which he might dwell. He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For we maintain, that the divinity was so conjoined and united with the humanity, that the entire properties of each nature remain entire, and yet the two natures constitute only one Christ. If, in human affairs, any thing analogous to this great mystery can be found, the most apposite similitude seems to be that of man, who obviously consists of two substances, neither of which however is so intermingled with the other as that both do not retain their own properties. For neither is soul body, nor is body soul. Wherefore that is said separately of the soul which cannot in any way apply to the body; and that, on the other hand, of the body which is altogether inapplicable to the soul; and that, again, of the whole man, which cannot be affirmed without absurdity either of the body or of the soul separately.
> (Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, xiv, 1.)



I also don't see why there is the need for wrangling over two minds, or whatever, since the Church has also declared that monothelitism is heresy. As far as I know, no one has rejected that pronouncement, even Clark.

To cite the Confession here is not a tradition, but rather to say that the Church has already looked at the issue you have raised, and rejected your interpretation and "problems."

You also might have tried to find someone better to discuss Christological issues in the Ecumenical Creeds than Reymond, who drops and kicks the ball and then falls on his face while chasing after it with respect to Eternal Sonship.

[Edited on 5/29/2006 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Sean,
> 
> *Without quoting Gordon Clark*, which part of the othodox, commonly accpeted for over 1600 years Chalcedonian Creed do YOU see is nonsense?


I literally laughed out loud when I read this. 

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I may have been imprecise but I think I did say that Christ's divinity is immutable.


My mistaken, then.

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## Magma2 (May 29, 2006)

> The importance of the concept of "substance" or  Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¹Î±  has been verified by the Church for millennia. Cunningham treats this subject quite well in his _Historical Theology_ I.283ff.
> 
> Calvin also understood the importance of substance, and avoided being confused by the difference between  Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¹Î±  and  Ï…Ï€Î¿ÏƒÏ„Î±ÏƒÎ¹Ï‚ :




Thanks Fred for that long quote from Cunningham. So where is his definition of substance? Evidently substance has been thought of as the equivalent of essence but Cunningham rejects this and for good reason. He says; "œ. . . they will not be able to deny that when one is spoken of, a unity of substance must be understood, and when three in one essence, the persons in this Trinity are denoted. When this is confessed without equivocations we dwell not on words." OK so we know that God is not three and one in the same sense. I couldn´t agree more. But, notice, Cunningham too, just like you, avoids the problem and merely tells us not to dwell on words. What kind of answer is this? Instead, he says; "œBut I was long ago made aware, and, indeed, on more than one occasion, that those who contend pertinaciously about words are tainted with some hidden poison . . . ." So, asking for a definition to a word which so far appears to have no meaning whatsoever is to be "œtainted with some hidden poison." So where is the definition? Hope came in section 6 where he says; "œBy subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence. For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God." Consequently, Cunningham does a great job of explaining the reason WHY the word was employed to designate and differentiate the unity of the Godhead from the plurality of persons within, but he too fails to define his terms.

I think Clark is not only correct, but even vindicated when he wrote:



> However distasteful it may be to those students whose knowledge is confined to fifteen minutes of a broader lecture in the Systematic Theology class, and all the more distasteful to the professor who knows little more than those fifteen minutes, they must be forced to acknowledge that the Chalcedonian bishops and the later theologians were talking non-sense, because their terms had no sense at all. Because fifteen hundred years of chanting nonsense produces an ingrained habit, a new idea has a hard time making progress.



Further, from what I recall, even Matthew praised Clark for seeking to rid theology of the word "œsubstance," even if he didn´t agree with Clark´s alternate solution. Of course, at that point Matthew argues that substance takes too long to define, but he too fails to provide a definition that would have made Clark´s attempt at an alternative solution superfluous.



> You also might have tried to find someone better to discuss Christological issues in the Ecumenical Creeds than Reymond, who drops and kicks the ball and then falls on his face while chasing after it with respect to Eternal Sonship.


 
This is ad hominem and has nothing to do with the arguments Reymond made as cited.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 29, 2006)

Sean,

Thank you for finishing the conversation.

I was wondering how long we would take to get to "no theologian except Gordon Clark really understands this problem, and everyone else fails to address the issue."

Thus ends nearly every discussion with you. And so I too take my leave.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 29, 2006)

It *disgusts* me to think that there are people out there who actually think the Christian church has been defenseless since the time of Adam, up until the time that the all-knowing Gordon Clark (the Nestorian? - see the Incarnation) came on the scene to enlighten mankind to the rightful theology behind understanding the nature of the Godhead and the nature of the hypostatic union because *he* had a problem understanding the theological concepts behind "substance."

I'll stick with the minds behind the Westminster Confession (a REQUIREMENT to stay on this board).

Tread carefully Sean if you want to remain here.


----------

