# Samuel Clarke's "Scripture of the Doctrine of the Trinity"



## Doulos McKenzie (May 17, 2017)

I have begun reading Samuel Clarke's "Scripture of the Doctrine of the Trinity." Have any of y'all on the board read it? And what are you thoughts on it if you have?


----------



## py3ak (May 17, 2017)

I have not read the book myself. If you're going into it, however, it might be best to be aware that Clarke is usually considered unorthodox. Certainly the thesis maintained that, "The Father (or First Person) is, absolutely speaking, the God of the Universe..." is either incorrect or so badly expressed as to call into question the competence of the writer. Contrast that with the confessional doctrine (WLC 9):
Q. 9. _How many persons are there in the Godhead?_
A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.​


----------



## Dachaser (May 17, 2017)

py3ak said:


> I have not read the book myself. If you're going into it, however, it might be best to be aware that Clarke is usually considered unorthodox. Certainly the thesis maintained that, "The Father (or First Person) is, absolutely speaking, the God of the Universe..." is either incorrect or so badly expressed as to call into question the competence of the writer. Contrast that with the confessional doctrine (WLC 9):
> Q. 9. _How many persons are there in the Godhead?_
> A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.​


He did not see Jesus as fully God?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 17, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He did not see Jesus as fully God?



It is not quite that simple. He views the Son as being of the exact same nature as the Father, but he also denys the concept of a multi-personal God. He sees the Father as occupying the chief role in the position of God. It is very complex and I don't think I can adequately explain it very well. I would encourage you to just read the book.


----------



## Dachaser (May 17, 2017)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> It is not quite that simple. He views the Son as being of the exact same nature as the Father, but he also denys the concept of a multi-personal God. He sees the Father as occupying the chief role in the position of God. It is very complex and I don't think I can adequately explain it very well. I would encourage you to just read the book.


Kind of how Dr Grudem see eternal subordination within the Godhead then?


----------



## MW (May 17, 2017)

He denied the consubstantiality of the Son. This leaves one vacillating between Arianism and polytheism.


----------



## py3ak (May 18, 2017)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> I would encourage you to just read the book.



Why, exactly?


----------



## arapahoepark (May 18, 2017)

Run. Do not walk to the nearest exit.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 18, 2017)

py3ak said:


> Why, exactly?



I just think it is an Interesting view. I think it is fun to read about unorthodox view points. It makes you become more sure of your own position while enjoying learning about different view points. This is the same reason why I like reading stuff from NT Wright, not because I agree but because it is interesting.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 18, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Run. Do not walk to the nearest exit.



Is there something wrong with reading books with opposing viewpoints? I never said I agree with his conclusions.


----------



## py3ak (May 19, 2017)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> I just think it is an Interesting view. I think it is fun to read about unorthodox view points. It makes you become more sure of your own position while enjoying learning about different view points. This is the same reason why I like reading stuff from NT Wright, not because I agree but because it is interesting.



I am glad it has been your experience so far that reading the unorthodox has strengthened you in the proper posture. With regard to recommending the same reading, however, it's good to be aware that people's mileage varies. What is stimulating in one case may prove deceptive or depressive in another.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 19, 2017)

py3ak said:


> I am glad it has been your experience so far that reading the unorthodox has strengthened you in the proper posture. With regard to recommending the same reading, however, it's good to be aware that people's mileage varies. What is stimulating in one case may prove deceptive or depressive in another.



My intent in recommending the book was in order that he could better understand Clarke's position. My intent was not to lead any brothers on the board. I probably should have clarified that in the original post. My bad.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2017)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> My intent in recommending the book was in order that he could better understand Clarke's position. My intent was not to lead any brothers on the board. I probably should have clarified that in the original post. My bad.



To whom were you recommending it? New Christians? Mature Christians? It could really lead new Christians astray. I've seen it personally, with painful consequences.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 19, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> To whom were you recommending it? New Christians? Mature Christians? It could really lead new Christians astray. I've seen it personally, with painful consequences.



I just recommend it to David in an earlier post in order to understand Clarke's position because I did not feel I could adequately explain it.


----------



## py3ak (May 19, 2017)

Understood and appreciated, Jonathan. Witnessing several apostasies from the faith really serves to underscore the urgency of Paul's words that the one who thinks he stands must take heed lest he fall.


----------



## Dachaser (May 19, 2017)

MW said:


> He denied the consubstantiality of the Son. This leaves one vacillating between Arianism and polytheism.


He would deny Jesus as being very God of very God then?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He would deny Jesus as being very God of very God then?



Depends on what you mean by "very," "of," and "God."


----------



## Dachaser (May 19, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Depends on what you mean by "very," "of," and "God."


As the creeds confessed him as being!


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> As the creeds confessed him as being!



Does "of God" mean that the Son is God of himself (autotheos), or does it mean that he derives his Godhood from the Father? It's not immediately self-evident.


----------



## Dachaser (May 19, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Does "of God" mean that the Son is God of himself (autotheos), or does it mean that he derives his Godhood from the Father? It's not immediately self-evident.


He is eternally begotten from/of the Father, made up of the "same stuff" correct?


----------



## MW (May 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He would deny Jesus as being very God of very God then?



He used the words but denied the sense in which they were understood by the orthodox. The orthodox regard this as being necessary to the divine nature whereas Clarke referred it to an act of the Father's will, which makes it voluntary, and of the same kind of act as creation.


----------



## Dachaser (May 20, 2017)

MW said:


> He used the words but denied the sense in which they were understood by the orthodox. The orthodox regard this as being necessary to the divine nature whereas Clarke referred it to an act of the Father's will, which makes it voluntary, and of the same kind of act as creation.


He would then have been affirming that Jesus was like God first and greatest created being, like the JW do?


----------



## Peairtach (May 21, 2017)

It depends on how well established a person is in the faith and the purpose for which he is reading heterodox material. I wouldn't encourage someone who is a "novice" in the faith to read hetetodox material in case he gets blown off course, which.would be a tragedy for which I felt partially responsible.

An established man may resd heterodox material in order to refute it, otherwise he may be wasting his time when he could be reading orthodox material. 

There may be some writers that mix heterodox marerial with "useful" or "new" insights that can be used by the orthodox. Again only men who are established.in the faith should read this stuff and that with a purpose to sift out what may be valid for their use in the understanding of Scripture.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (May 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He would then have been affirming that Jesus was like God first and greatest created being, like the JW do?



It seems to be more subtle than that. Shedd (History of Christian Doctrine, 1:386-387) distinguishes between high and low Arianism and identifies Clarke's problem with "his failure to discriminate carefully between the essence and the hypostasis. Hence, in quoting from the Scriptures, and the Fathers, he refers to the _essential nature_ phraseology that implies subordination, and which was intended by those employing it, to apply only to the _hypostatical character_." In other words he attributed to the "essence" what only belongs to the "person."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 22, 2017)

MW said:


> It seems to be more subtle than that. Shedd (History of Christian Doctrine, 1:386-387) distinguishes between high and low Arianism and identifies Clarke's problem with "his failure to discriminate carefully between the essence and the hypostasis. Hence, in quoting from the Scriptures, and the Fathers, he refers to the _essential nature_ phraseology that implies subordination, and which was intended by those employing it, to apply only to the _hypostatical character_." In other words he attributed to the "essence" what only belongs to the "person."


So he would make a distinction between the quality Jesus had within Himself, and those given to Him by God the Father?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 22, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So he would make a distinction between the quality Jesus had within Himself, and those given to Him by God the Father?



A simple Google search would answer most of you questions brother.


----------



## Dachaser (May 22, 2017)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> A simple Google search would answer most of you questions brother.


He would seem to have aspects of Unitarian viewpoints in his theology regarding the nature of God and the persons of Him?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 22, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He would seem to have aspects of Unitarian viewpoints in his theology regarding the nature of God and the persons of Him?



Are you asking a question or making a statement? And like I said a simply google search could answer your questions. Or simply read his short book on the subject.


----------



## Dachaser (May 22, 2017)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Are you asking a question or making a statement? And like I said a simply google search could answer your questions. Or simply read his short book on the subject.


Asking the question, as was having a hard time trying to get what he really thought on this issue online


----------



## MW (May 22, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So he would make a distinction between the quality Jesus had within Himself, and those given to Him by God the Father?



The opposite is likely the case, if I understand your question correctly. He claimed Jesus was God because of the voluntary act of the Father. This means that the Son was not a necessary existence, but depended upon the Father; whereas traditional theism confesses that God exists necessarily -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## arapahoepark (May 22, 2017)

MW said:


> The opposite is likely the case, if I understand your question correctly. He claimed Jesus was God because of the voluntary act of the Father. This means that the Son was not a necessary existence, but depended upon the Father; whereas traditional theism confesses that God exists necessarily -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


Sounds eerily similar to Ware, et. al. At least that the Father can do whatever without the other persons.


----------



## MW (May 22, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Sounds eerily similar to Ware, et. al.



They confess that the Son is consubstantial with the Father and the Trinity is a necessary existence, notwithstanding their confusing use of "functional" as opposed to "ontological."


----------



## Dachaser (May 23, 2017)

MW said:


> The opposite is likely the case, if I understand your question correctly. He claimed Jesus was God because of the voluntary act of the Father. This means that the Son was not a necessary existence, but depended upon the Father; whereas traditional theism confesses that God exists necessarily -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


So he would see it as an eternal subordination state in the trinity?


----------



## MW (May 23, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So he would see it as an eternal subordination state in the trinity?



Yes; subordinationist is a term that has been used to describe his view.


----------



## Dachaser (May 24, 2017)

MW said:


> Yes; subordinationist is a term that has been used to describe his view.


There does seem though to be a difference between his views and Dr Grudem, as Clarke seemed to not actually have Jesus fully equal to God?


----------



## arapahoepark (May 24, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> There does seem though to be a difference between his views and Dr Grudem, as Clarke seemed to not actually have Jesus fully equal to God?


Yes, hence his earlier reply to me. Grudem affirms the Son's nature of himself as God. Clarke believes that the Father made the Son God.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 24, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Yes, hence his earlier reply to me. Grudem affirms the Son's nature of himself as God. Clarke believes that the Father made the Son God.



Just to be clear, Clarke does believe in the eternity of the Son.


----------



## Dachaser (May 24, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Yes, hence his earlier reply to me. Grudem affirms the Son's nature of himself as God. Clarke believes that the Father made the Son God.


Which is where some see Clarke teaching higher Arianism then?


----------



## arapahoepark (May 24, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Which is where some see Clarke teaching higher Arianism then?


Yes.


----------



## Dachaser (May 24, 2017)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Just to be clear, Clarke does believe in the eternity of the Son.


How can he, if he sees the father as where Jesus gets His own existence is gotten from?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 24, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How can he, if he sees the father as where Jesus gets His own existence is gotten from?



Uhhh.... You do know that the 2nd LBCF and the WCF clearly teach the eternal generation of the Son. Right? 2nd LBCF and WCF Ch. 2.3


----------



## Dachaser (May 24, 2017)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Uhhh.... You do know that the 2nd LBCF and the WCF clearly teach the eternal generation of the Son. Right? 2nd LBCF and WCF Ch. 2.3


Yes, but we would also see that Jesus, as well as the Holy Spirit, are both God by necessity, correct? They have intrinsic ability to God in and of themselves?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 24, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, but we would also see that Jesus, as well as the Holy Spirit, are both God by necessity, correct? They have intrinsic ability to God in and of themselves?



The person is generated from the Father; the Father doesn't "cause" the God-essence. So he is God of necessity in the sense that his essence isn't dependent on anything else.


----------



## Dachaser (May 24, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> The person is generated from the Father; the Father doesn't "cause" the God-essence. So he is God of necessity in the sense that his essence isn't dependent on anything else.


So Jesus is eternally begotten of the father, but that does not mean that he is eternally subordinate to the father, as Clarke seems to infer?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 24, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So Jesus is eternally begotten of the father, but that does not mean that he is eternally subordinate to the father, as Clarke seems to infer?



Eternally begotten, yes. Best not to use eternally subordinate language.


----------



## Dachaser (May 24, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Eternally begotten, yes. Best not to use eternally subordinate language.


It would be acceptable to describe Jesus in that position while here on earth though, for that period of time?


----------



## MW (May 24, 2017)

From eternity He is the Son of the Father, which means He is "necessarily" the second person of the Godhead. This second person of the Godhead "voluntarily" assumed human nature which is subordinate to God and will be subordinate to God time without end.


----------

