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.

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
?

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).

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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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).
 

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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."


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

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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).
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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."


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

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.
 

BayouHuguenot

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

Stillwaters

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

Rainee

Puritan Board Freshman
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.


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

Rainee

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Attachments

  • image_2021-06-03_002935.png
    image_2021-06-03_002935.png
    96.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.


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

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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

Rainee

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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

Cancelled Commissioner
@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?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top