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?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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)?
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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)?

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.
 

GillespieWestminster

Puritan Board Freshman
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)?
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?
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
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..."?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
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!
 

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Junior
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!
 

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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

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

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
 

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Junior
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?
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
 

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Junior
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

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
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.
 

Irenaeus

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
 

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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?
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.
 
Last edited:

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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)?
 
Last edited:

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
?
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?

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

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.”

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top