But here’s the crowning irony: since modalist models and social trinitarian models are logically incompatible, Clark’s overall view of the Trinity (based on all his writings taken together) appears to be logically inconsistent. In other words, Clark’s view of the Trinity is paradoxical. This is rather unfortunate for one who so vehemently repudiated paradoxes in Christian theology! Perhaps Clark had more in common with Van Til than his followers care to concede.From: Gordon Clark's Paradoxical View of the Trinity.
Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Clark's View of the Trinity Reduces to Modalism and Social Trinitarianism
James Anderson said:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I would't trust Anderson's description of Clark's view of the Trinity. If Clark should be attacked, it should be on the basis of his view on the Incarnation, not the Trinity.
Also note that Clark wrote on the Trinity before writing on his view of the Incarnation. It should be assumed that while writing his book on the Trinity, Clark held to the traditional view of the Incarnation.
Yes, I am inclined to think you're right. Anderson is too quick to appeal to "paradox." I tend to agree more with Calvin... We have to exhaust all possibilities before we say something has no explanation and then appeal to "mystery." Personally, I do not think the Chalcedonian definitions are irrational or paradoxical. If you read A. A. Hodge's explanation it makes enough sense to say that it is not a paradox or a mystery. Hodge does a good job of showing how the two natures can both be united in one Person, Jesus Christ.
I think the orthodox view is more rational and biblical than Clark's view.
Charlie
I don't think the social trinitarian view is tri-theistic in and of itself either. That's pretty much the view espoused by the Reformed Confessions so I don't know what Anderson is complaining about.
I could see myself applying some of Clark's approach but I have to draw the line with Clark when he sides with Antioch over against Alexandria as A. A. Hodge explains those two schools.
Heresy begins by elevating reason above revelation. Reason is not the final authority. Scripture is. Clark's argument, imo, goes too far toward making revelation submit to reason.
That is not to say that there are not propositional truths in Scripture. It is only by propositional truth we can understand and know what revelation contains. It is not meaningless jibberish but reasonable words. On that I have to agree with Clark. I just think he went off the deep end in his final book.
Perhaps he would have corrected himself if he had lived? I do not know. But it seems apparent to me that his view cannot escape the charge of Nestorianism as Clark's own comments at the end of the book indicate.
Charlie
Post a Comment