>

Martyred for the Gospel

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.]

Collect of the Day

The Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany.
The Collect.

O LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy Church and household continually in thy true religion; that they who do lean only upon the hope of thy heavenly grace may evermore be defended by thy mighty power; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Daily Bible Verse

Sunday, April 18, 2010

The God's Hammer Blog Continues to Promote Heresy and Nestorianism


Addendem 2:  Rather than removing this article I chose to let it stand to show the evolution of the discussions that were going on at that time.  I no longer regard Clark's position as Nestorianism, although I do think it needs further clarity.  I also learned that I must differentiate between what Sean Gerety has said and what Drake Shelton says.  Recently Shelton has been revealed as anti-trinitarian. 1/11/2012.   See:  Heresies:  God's Hammer]



Sean Gerety, the owner of the God's Hammer blog cannot make up his mind if he is going to embrace the Definition of Chalcedon or Gordon H. Clark's definition of Christ as two separate persons. And in allowing Drake Shelton to openly say that there is no hypostatic union of the divine essence and the human essence (including a reasonable human soul) in the one Person of Jesus Christ Sean Gerety has crossed the line from equivocation and dissimulation to open heresy. You can judge for yourself below where Drake Shelton makes several exegetical and theological fallacies regarding the hypostatic union.

First of all, Shelton thinks that the union of the divine nature and the human nature in Jesus Christ constitutes a "metaphysical" union and therefore assumes and implies that the two natures become confused into one nature which is either the divine absorbing the human nature or the human nature changing the divine nature into something less than divine and containing all the divine definitions or attributes. This is remarkable in the light that any "metaphysical" union of the two natures is specifically defined in Chalcedon as a "hypostatic" union whereby the two natures are united but remain independent of each other. As Vincent Cheung said, the divine nature is not changed by the human nature and the human nature is not absorbed by the divine nature.

I think the real problem with modern heretics is that they refuse to respond to the actual positions taken by the orthodox creeds and confessions but must create strawman versions so that they can "appear" to refute them. You can judge for yourself below by reading Shelton's remarks at the God's Hammer blog. Also, please note that practically no one in the comments refutes the open heresy being espoused by Shelton there. Roger Mann and another fellow posting under the pseudonym, Speigel, are the only two I know of who have challenged the heresy being promoted there. I would include Patrick McWilliams among the heretics because he agrees with Sean Gerety's heretical views while protesting that I do not understand Sean's position and that I am not understanding what is being said. That is far from the truth. Read Drake Shelton's remarks below and you will see what I mean:

drake Says:

@lawyertheologian

"But there isn't one common nature that a "divine Person" and a distinct "human person" can be united in"

Not metaphysically, no. So what? Be careful you do not fall into a union of essence. Which is what you must do when you parallel the Trinity (the persons are unitd in essence) and the incarnation unions. Appollinarianism is the only choice then which leads straight to Arianism. My favorite answer so far is that the union is not of essence but its metaphysical. That's like saying its bacon but its not pork. What?

"At best, all you have is a "divine Person" indwelling a distinct "human person" in a fleshly body, in direct opposition to Scripture: "And the Logos [the Second Person of the Trinity] became flesh" (John 1:14)"

1. We can quote scripture as well: Col 2:9 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. I can support the "dwell" statement with this passage and you can support your Arianism "became" with your passage. What the bottom line is what do these words mean in the context of the whole Bible? Clear vs unclear. What is clear? God is immutable; God is three in one sense and One in another. All three persons are of equal power and glory. A change in the second Person necessarily posits a different deity than the father. Thus Arianism. Heresy, plain and simple.

In Wallace's Greek grammar page 268 he comments on the meaning of "became" in John 1:14: In commenting on the definiteness of Theos in John 1 Wallace quoting Alford says in passing in a footnote: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence, -not ho theos, 'The Father' in person …as in sarz egeneto John 1:14 , sarz expresses that STATE into which the divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, Theos expresses that ESSENCE which was his." Here there is no evidence that the Greek "sarz egeneto" means a metaphysical (substance/essence) union. He makes it clear by contrasting the State and the Essence. Earlier on page 264 he mentions "the Word partook of humanity" also not a help for your hypostatic metaphysical view.
Shelton obviously cannot understand the "definition" of trinity since he confuses Wallace's remarks distinguishing between the "persons" of the trinity, Father and Son, and claims that this means that to adhere to the hypostatic union view means that the orthodox position is actually Arianism. This is laughable at best because this is only what Shelton "thinks" the hypostatic union entails and it is not the actual position taken by the creeds and confessions at all. In fact, Arianism was condemned as heresy as was the Nestorian view that Shelton is promoting openly and without censure at the God's Hammer blog. I was banned from there by daring to say that their views are heresy and that I would be publicly announcing their departure from orthodoxy. 

I invite anyone reading this to investigate the God's Hammer blog for themselves by clicking on this link to the comments section of one of Gerety's posts, Gary Crampton on the Incarnation

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
1662 Book of Common Prayer



Addendem 2:  Rather than removing this article I chose to let it stand to show the evolution of the discussions that were going on at that time.  I no longer regard Clark's position as Nestorianism, although I do think it needs further clarity. 

82 comments:

Drake Shelton said...

Through this debate I am going to take a list of every time Charlie departs from the Traditional construction of the Patristics, to demonstrate once and for all, that the Protestants who claim lip service to this doctrine do not believe it and profess it by stealth!

What I need from Charlie before I begin:

Define Person

Define Nature

Define Hypostatic Union

Define what happened to the human when it came into union with the divine. Did it become divinely energized?

Do you believe in penal substitutionary atonement?

Do you do omage to relics?

Do you believe that the sacrament of the Lord's supper is effecacious of itself, that is, that men commune with deified matter, or is it a means of grace made effecacious by faith and Word?

Do you believe in divine simplicity?

Do you believe in implicit faith?

Do you believe in plenary verbal inspiration?

Do you believe the scriptures to be the rule of faith? The Church?
or Maybe the Conscience?

Do you believe in Covenant theology? Or does the Incarnation present a new economy?

Do you believe that God reveals his Word to men by analogical knowledge or by univocal knowledge? (When you start trying to define the hypo union with empirical analogies this question will be of application)

sovereignlogos said...

I never stated agreement with Sean. Get your facts straight before you level accusations of heresy.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake, what I need from you is for you to state clearly where you depart from the Westminster Confession of Faith and why. After that we can proceed. Since you're the one who thinks the Definition of Chalcedon is in error and that Christ is not one Divine and Human person, the onus is on you to define your terms and why you're departing from orthodoxy. Until then I can only assume that you are outside the Christian faith.

Charlie

Drake Shelton said...

Charlie quoting Cheung, "Thus, his divine nature was not diminished by his human nature, and his human nature was not deified by his divine nature."

Though not an ecumencial council acknowledged by Patristics Constantinople (A. D. 754) decreed:
"If any person shall divide human nature, united to the Person of God the Word; and, having it only in the imagination of his mind, shall therefore, attempt to paint the same in an Image; let him be holden as accursed. If any person shall divide Christ, being but one, into two persons; placing on the one side the Son of God, and on the other side the son of Mary; neither doth confess the continual union that is made; and by that reason doth paint in an Image of the son of Mary, as subsisting by himself; let him be accursed. If any person shall paint in an Image the human nature, being deified by the uniting thereof to God the Word; separating the same as it were from the Godhead assumpted and deified; let him be holden as accursed."

The quotes I could give to refute this are many but I will leave you with a second quote from John of Damascus, Holy Matter and the Mother of God by M. Sophia Compton:

"This argument for John is pivotal. Mary is called Theotokos not only because she gave birth to God in human form, but our own humanity was deified in the union. The deification of humanity by the Logos occurs simultaneously with the moment of her conception: with Mary’s Fiat:
For the very Word of God was conceived by the Virgin and made flesh…and simultaneously with its coming into being, the flesh was straightway made divine by Him. Thus three things took place at the same time: the assuming of the flesh, its coming into being, and its being made divine by the Word. Hence the holy Virgin is understood to be the Mother of God, and is so called not only because of the nature of the Word, but also because of the deification of the humanity simultaneously with which the conception and the coming into being of the flesh were wonderously brought about—the conception of the Word." Orthodox Faith, Book 3, in Writings, Trans Chase, 1958, pp. 294-295.

The Patristics did in fact regard the humanity of Christ deified in the hypo union. This is the first strike on the list of departures from the traditional construction.

"The objection that divine and human attributes necessarily contradict one another when possessed by the same person fails to take into account that the two sets of attributes are independent from each other in God the Son."

This simply denies what was just asserted. The divine deifies the human and the quality of the atonement and incarnation are dependent on the divne energies of the divine in the Patristic construction. Cheung simply has not conversed with Patristic people enoguh, like most Protestants I know.

"I think the real problem with modern heretics is that they refuse to respond to the actual positions taken by the orthodox creeds "

There is no position taken sir. There is plenty of language telling us what the so called hypo union is not but none telling us what it is. Define hypostatic union and tell me what it is. No denotation, I want connotation. if you even know the difference.

"Shelton obviously cannot understand the "definition" of trinity since he confuses Wallace's remarks distinguishing between the "persons" of the trinity, Father and Son, "

This is an assertion, show how my comments show I do not understand what is being said.

"In fact, Arianism was condemned as heresy as was the Nestorian view that Shelton is promoting openly and without censure at the God's Hammer blog."

This is laughbale. Sir I am completely aware that these were denied as heresies. My argument is in linea recta. The logical inference of the metaphysical union is Arianism. Whether the councils asserted that Arianism was heresy does not release them from the same condemnation in linea recta.

Finis

Drake Shelton said...

Charlie says, Since both the divine and human are one Person in Christ, whatever can be said of one nature can be legitimately said of the other because they are united hypostatically in Jesus Christ."" This is an assertion Charlie. What are your arguments for it? We describe this in the union of Sonship. There is no problem here for us.

Charlie says, "He is God. He is man. He is both in one person just as the three persons of the Godhead are one God."
You see Charlie, I am not the one saying the hypo union is of essence you and your kind keep saying it with silly comparisons like these. The union of the persons is a union of essence. To say its the same with the hypo union is to say it is a union of essence. Period. So quit slandering me saying that the hypo union is not a union of essence when you say it is yourself in linea recta. The problem with you Charlie is that you won't face the implications of what you believe. Talk to an Orthodox apologist and he will emphatically deny that the hypo union is of essence and I understand that. I say again, I understand that the traditional patristic hypo union is not a union of essence but of energies. Which comes down to an issue. If you accept their construction the Western construction of divine simplicity goes out the window. In EO theology there is an essence and energies distinction which pretty much contradicts most of Western Christianity in rejecting divine simplicity.

You say next "The difference is that in Christ there are two distinct natures instead of one divine nature as in the trinity."

Then the hypo union is not like the Trinity at all and what then is the purpose to paralell the two? Apples and oranges.

Charlie says, "Anyone who says that Jesus is God must accept that He is also human and vice versa."
So then you assert that the Faher is Jesus and the Holy Spirit is Jesus as well. Good luck with that one. Vice verse would say God is Jesus and that's just not true. Only one person of the Trintiy was incarnate and veiled his glory.

Charlie "The Logos didn't merely take up residence in a man; He became a man."
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man

Charlie quoting Cheung, "In the incarnation, God the Son took upon himself the nature of man; that is, he added to his person the set of attributes that define man."

Heresy. Notice he said he added to his person. In the patristic langauge this is the hypostasis which is a metaphysical term, thus Damascene. This is the exact reason that Arius believed the Second person to be a lower deity.
Charlie quoting Cheung, "He did so without mingling the two natures, so that both sets of attributes remained independent"

So Cheung tells us how he did not do it but doesn't tell us what he did. Without telling us what the nature of the union is he tells us nothing and this remains what it always has been, a speculative assertion.

Drake Shelton said...

Charlie says, "Furthermore, Scripture makes it clear that those who deny that Jesus Christ is literally God, who came to earth in human flesh and human form, are not Christians (2 John 1:7; Philippians 2:5-8)."

First 2 John 1:7 says, For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

This verse says nothing about the human nature becoming literally, (ambigious , does he mean essence which is what the word seems to imply, energies, or what? Commit to specific metaphyiscial terms sir or quit slandering me) the divine nature. The purpose of this passage is to dispell the notion that Jesus's Christ's humanity was true humanity due to the gnostic influence of seeing creation as something evil. We affirm none of these heresies but affirm that the humanity of Jesus Christ is true humanity and believe creation to be made good and nothing to be refused. That's the whole point of believeing Jesus to be a complete person. Unlike the generic mutant human of Charlie who can in no wise be the mediator of entire persons. How can a generic mediator who is not a person be the mediator of persons?

Phil 2:5-8 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Here, "He existed in the form of God" refers to the Sonship of the human and the divine being one. One Sonship with the Second Person of the Trinity. Jamieson Fausset Brown commentary says, "the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence."

So the human is not literaly, in essence God. The word Hypostatic is a metaphysical term. Read A Philosophical Explanation of Hypostatical Union in John Damascene's Fount of Knowledge by Anna Zhyrkova, Th.D:
"Consequently, as a result of comparing Damascene's metaphysical view to Stoic's doctrine, we suggest that John of Damascus' notion of 'nature' seems to be the equivalent of Stoic's second genus and 'informed substance'; term 'hypostasis' relates to Stoic's 'individual'.

Metaphysics has for centuries refered to being as such, essence, substance, ousia. So how you have a metaphysical union without a union of essence is something Charlie will continue to insult me about, slander me about and despair but can he tell us what he means?

The verse denotes the second person being made "in the likeness of men." This is the exact oppposite of what Charlie says, Charlie says "Jesus Christ is literally God"; this verse says God is in the likeness of men not literally. Thanks Charlie for providing us a verse that refutes your patristic nonsense to the letter. Moreover, when it says he emptied himself this was only the glory of his attributes not the attributes themselves which is what your silly theology must assert.

Drake Shelton said...

"Since you're the one who thinks the Definition of Chalcedon is in error and that Christ is not one Divine and Human person, the onus is on you to define your terms and why you're departing from orthodoxy."

You mean the Orthodoxy that was purchased by the bribes of that Tyrant Cyril and his monk gestapo?

First, your demand is irrational. You believe in a hypostatic union. I do not. The affirmative always has the burden of proof.

sovereignlogos said...

Keep ignoring me, Charlie. Pretend I really did state agreement with Sean. Is your conscience so seared that you have no problem spreading lies about someone?

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake, I mean the Reformed Confessions which all uphold the Definition of Chalcedon as biblical.

The burden of proof is on those who depart from the faith, not those who remain within the Reformed and confessional understand. Sola Scriptura does not mean we are free to go solo. No, it means you go with Scripture first and the church second. If you do not believe to a local church that preaches the right doctrine of Christ, then you are anti-christ. (2 John 1:7).

You can see my posting of the Reformed affirmations of Chalcedon for future reference:

What the Reformed Confessions Say About the Person of Christ

It seems to me that you're the one who has the aberrant definition of the hypostatic union.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake,

Your citations of various church fathers are non sequiturs since no is asserting anything the church fathers said as being authoritative. It's a red herring and a rabbit trail. Your argument is like down the rabbit hole.

The short answer is you have to deal with what the creeds and confessions say, not pick and choose prooftexting of the church fathers.

We're dealing here with what is binding doctrine, not the loose arguments you've picked out at random.

Second of all, you have refused to give your definition of the hypostatic union. First off, you claim that it is a "metaphysical" union. By this you mean to imply that is it is somehow a monophysite union. You know very well that is not the definition of the hypostatic union used in the Reformed confessions or in the creeds. Therefore, you entire argument thus far is a strawman, a mischaracterization of the actual orthodox position and not the position itself.

However, it is refreshing to have one heretic who doesn't hide. Gerety keeps dissimulating and equivocating.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake, is that the best you can do?

In regards to the "trinity" in in the Godhead there is one essence.

No one I know of has said that the hypostatic union is one of "one" essence. Not at all. The hypostatic union is of TWO essences. But this distinction would escape someone who baits and switches. The hypostatic union is a union in the PERSON of Christ, it is NOT a union of "essence". Your clever switch is not so clever. It is a logical fallacy known as "strawman" since that is not the position taken by the Reformers or the creeds. Rather it is your vain attempt to read into the doctrine what it has never asserted.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said: You see Charlie, I am not the one saying the hypo union is of essence...

Well, YES, you are the one saying that. Not one single systematic theology I have read since college in the late 1980s has said anything near that. You're the one saying it, Drake. I would love to see you quote even one Evangelical systematic theology that asserts the hypostatic union is one "essence." Everyone I've read says the union is one of "person" not "essence." There is one person and two essences which that one person possesses and unites.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, So quit slandering me saying that the hypo union is not a union of essence when you say it is yourself in linea recta. The problem with you Charlie is that you won't face the implications of what you believe.

So you admit that the Confessions and the Creed of Chalcedon do not say there is one essence. Rather it what you "think" it implies, which is far different from what the creed and the confession positively state.


If you think it implies monophysite views, then the burden of proof lies with you by your own admission since you're the one making the false assertion.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, Talk to an Orthodox apologist and he will emphatically deny that the hypo union is of essence and I understand that.

I suspect you're switching again, Drake. First of all, I'm not espousing the Eastern Orthdox position here. The Definition of Chalcedon 451 A.D. and the Reformed confessions that reaffirm it are both universal (East, West) and Protestant since virtually every Protestant church or denomination I know of affirms that Jesus is one person who is both 100% divine and 100% human.

You're the one dividing Christ into two persons and denying that there is ONE Person. That is a heresy condemned by all Christian churches and denominations except the Assyrian church of the east as far as I know.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, You say next "The difference is that in Christ there are two distinct natures instead of one divine nature as in the trinity."

Then the hypo union is not like the Trinity at all


So you do know the difference between what is asserted in the doctrine of the trinity and what is asserted in the doctrine of the incarnation. Good, I should not have to correct you again on that point. So please make up your mind about what you're complaining about?

As I said before it is an analogy. No one is saying there is any unity of essence in the incarnation. In the INCARNATION THERE IS A UNITY OF PERSON. In other words the unity is united in the PERSON of Jesus Christ. So when you complain that the human nature is impersonal, I say NO it is Personal because Jesus IS the Logos who assumed a human soul and a human nature. When you say that the divine nature is impersonal, I say NO He is Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead who is the Word who became flesh (John 1:14).

Now, this silly charade of yours might confuse someone else but to anyone familiar with the actual orthodox position, Drake, you're merely making yourself look silly.

You might impress those other heretics over at God's Hammer but your straw man arguments won't fly anywhere else.


Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said: Charlie quoting Cheung, "In the incarnation, God the Son took upon himself the nature of man; that is, he added to his person the set of attributes that define man."

Heresy. Notice he said he added to his person. In the patristic langauge this is the hypostasis which is a metaphysical term, thus Damascene. This is the exact reason that Arius believed the Second person to be a lower deity.


Wow, watch Drake pull a rabbit out his hat.

Frankly, Drake the only way you can even come close to refuting the orthodox Reformed position is to create arguments out of thin air.

First of all, what the Second Person of the Godhead does is add a human soul and a human nature to his PERSON and NOT to His nature. The two natures remain independent since the divine attributes are not communicable to the human nature or essence. So the unity is in the PERSON of Christ and not in a single nature as you keep falsely asserting.

Try dealing with what the confessions ACTUALLY say, Drake instead of falsely aserting what you "think" the Reformed position "implies". The two are not the same at all.

If you think the Reformed position implies what you are asserting, then you would need to prove that is what the creed or Reformed confession "entails" of necessity. You cannot simply make bare assertions based on your own opinion of what you "think" it says. You'll have to demonstrate how the Reformed position necessarily "entails" what you're saying. You have yet to do that.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Your assertion that the "union" is in Sonship is meaningless unless you can define for us exactly how there is a union at all in your view?

The union of "Sonship" implies that there is only one Person, that is the Logos who is Jesus Christ in the flesh.

The Logos or 2nd Person assumes a true human soul into the Godhead. The hypostatic union is in the Logos who became flesh. His name is Jesus Christ. He is a Person, not an "it."

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake, you have a convenient way of evading the obvious. John 1:1-3, 14, and 18 all affirm that Jesus is God prior to taking on human flesh. Philippians 2:5-7 teaches the same thing and so does 1 Timothy 3:16. The oneness is in the Son or in Sonship, meaning one Person. There is NOTHING in the Bible at all that would even suggest a second person in Christ. That is blatant eisogesis.

Scripture affirms 1) There is ONE God. Deuteronomy 6:4
2) Scripture affirms that Jesus is God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14, 18).
3) Scripture speaks of Jesus as the Son of God and never speaks of Him as two persons.

The only conclusion I can draw is that Jesus is God. It would be idolatry to worship Him if he were a different person from the Logos.

Now, Scripture speaks of Jesus as fully human as well so we accept that he is ONE Person. We accept that He is ONE God. We accept that He is 100% God who assumed human form with a real human soul and we accept that He is 100% human.

Scripture never says that Jesus is less than God or less than human. So just taking Scripture at face value without all the philosophical explanations of HOW such a thing can be, the Bible itself is plain enough about it.

Jesus is God. Jesus is human. There is one God. There are 3 persons in the Tri-unity of the divine nature. There is one Person who became Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14, 18). Now you can argue till eternity that the Bible is heretical but I doubt anyone will take you seriously except the Muslims and the Arians and the modalists.

No, Jesus is Lord. He is God. And He is at the same time fully human. Maybe you just can't bring yourself to admit that Jesus is God in the flesh. But that's not my problem. It's yours.

The God I worship is Jesus Christ. He's seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. Sorry if that bothers you.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said: So the human is not literaly, in essence God.

Wow, so you DO understand that the orthodox or Reformed position does NOT teach that the divine attributes are communicated to the human nature. The human essence/nature is NOT the divine essence/nature. The unity is one of Personality, not "essence." This is where you keep misrepresenting the incarnation. The hypostatic union is not a confusing or mixing of the two natures but both remain distinct and independent of the other. The only unity is in the Person of Jesus Christ, the divine Logos who has a true human soul and human nature.

Maybe you need to study the monophysite error and the Apollinarian error so you can understand that the Reformed position rejects both of those views, which you seem to falsely attribute to the Reformed view.

Charlie

Drake Shelton said...

This denial of the sacrifice of the mass was a departure from Rome's historical practice and yet Knox had the audacity to demand that the abbot provide the burden of proof for his primary argument as I do now demand of Charlie. The abbot after exaspertaing Knox to explain the text which was not his burden to do, introduced days of rabbit trails and diversions that took the attention off the main issue and exasperated the audience until there was no more will left to proceed in the debate. This tatic gave the abbot reason to boast that he had got the best of Knox but in hindsite we see that the abbot proved nothing as my friend Charlie is attemptig to do now. Unless he will provide us with a defintion of hypostatic union, a connotative defintion, and a verse of scripture that he deduces it from, not in a denotation like John 1:14, but connotation he has failed and I will not entertain the diversion he is attempting to exasperate anyone interested in the truth of this matter.

Drake Shelton said...

In 1562 John Know debated a papist abbot named Quintin Kennedy. In debating the sacrifice of the mass the abbot had argued that Melchizedek offered bread and wine to God as a defense of the mass, THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX by Thomas M’Crie records the altercation 164-165 (http://www.champs-of-truth.com/reform/MCR_LKNX.PDF).

"Ye may deny what ye please; for allthat ye deny I take not presently to impugn; but where I began there will I end, that is, to defend the mass conform to my article.” “Your lordship’s
ground,” said Knox, after some altercation, “is, that Melchizedek is the figure of Christ in that he did offer unto God bread and wine, and that it behoved Jesus Christ to offer, in His latter supper, His body and blood,
under the forms of bread and wine. I answer to your ground yet again, that Melchizedek offered neither bread nor wine unto God; and therefore, it that ye would thereupon conclude hath no assurance of your ground.”
“Prove that,” said the abbot. Knox replied, that, according to the rules of just reasoning, he could not be bound to prove a negative; that it was incumbent on his opponent to bring forward some proof for his affirmation, concerning which the text was altogether silent; and that until
the abbot did this, it was sufficient for him simply to deny."

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, The verse denotes the second person being made "in the likeness of men."

Everyone I know recognizes this as saying that Jesus is in the divine image and likeness as every human being is. He does not simply "appear" to be human. He IS human.

But your Nestorianism has you confused. First you assert that He is really human. Then you say he's merely in the "likeness" of humans but not really human at all.


Here's the problem, Drake. When you divide God into parts you have neither God nor man. Jesus is in perfect union in His person. He cannot be separated neatly into a man here and a God there. Whatever is said of Jesus can be said of both. He died. He grew in knowledge. It can also be legitimately said that Jesus knew all things, created all things and that He literally had the power to raise Himself from the dead and do any other miracle that God can do because He IS God and there is only ONE God.

Your view portrays Jesus as a mere man and the Logos as God. The only way I can see that is you're asserting something closer to Arianism or the Ebionite error than what Scripture teaches. I might even throw in docetism since you think the "Logos" merely appears in the "likeness" of human flesh rather than becoming a real human being.

Please, Drake, keep your story straight for once in your life??? Your irrationalism is starting to make you look bad.

John 20:28

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, Moreover, when it says he emptied himself this was only the glory of his attributes not the attributes themselves which is what your silly theology must assert.

Again, Drake, what you "think" my position entails and what it actually says or entails are two different things.

First of all, I do not advocate the kenosis theory of the incarnation. That would deny that Jesus is fully and 100% God. I affirm that the Person, Jesus Christ, is 100% God and does not lay aside the divine attributes when that Person became united with the human soul and human nature. The Logos is Jesus Christ and remains in full possession of ALL the incommunicable attributes of Deity in His divine nature. But the same Person is also limited in His human nature while remaining the same Person. In His human essence He is as limited as we are. Hence, whatever is said of us is said of Jesus and whatever is said of God is said of Jesus as well. He is ignorant of some things and He is omniscient of all things.

What happens in the incarnation is that the Person of the Logos lays aside the free exercise of the divine attributes in His human existence, being, essence, soul, etc. This is why there are two wills, one a human will and the other a divine will. Two natures implies two wills and those two wills are united in the one Person of the Logos/Jesus Christ.

But the two wills, like the two natures remain distinct and independent. The divine will does not absorb the human will nor is the divine will changed by assuming the human soul/will into the divine nature.

The divine nature/will is not changed simply because it is united in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

You will have to forgive the typos and spelling errors. I wrote these responses on the fly.

However, I stand by what I have written. The Definition of Chalcedon and the Reformed Confessions which uphold it are not perfect. But they leave fewer problems than the Nestorian heresy does. As I have demonstrated, the Nestorian error leaves Jesus as merely a human being and not fully God. There is no union of the divine and the human in the Nestorian view but a division and that division means you are worshipping a mere man. It also means that your view of the Logos means that Logos simply "appears" to be human but He really is not. He's just in the "likeness" of human flesh according to you. But as I said 2 John 1:7-9 and 1 John 1:1-3 clearly refute you. God is Jesus Christ. He is the fullness of God manifest in the flesh and He is the Logos who is truly human.

Drake Shelton said...

1. What is it that unites the two essences? (eastern orthodox apologists say it is a union of energies, my Presbytery says it's a metaphysical union while at the same time denying a union of essence, you like most other One person protestants avoid the issue completely and attempt to twist my arguments around so you don't have to answer the question. )

2. In Penal Substitutionary Atonement if the human is required to bear the curse of sin, namely seperation from God when he is forsaken on the cross: a. The whole "without division and without seperation" langauge is wrong or penal sub is wrong take your choice.

b. Your assertion that the union breaks at the death of Christ and then reunites makes the "without division and without seperation" meaningless.

I will wait for your answer.

I am going to try to speak to you respectfully, if you have to call me a heretic the whole time, i am willing to bear that but kill the obnoxious bs please.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, In 1562 John Know debated a papist abbot named Quintin Kennedy. In debating the sacrifice of the mass the abbot had argued that Melchizedek offered bread and wine to God as a defense of the mass, THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX by Thomas M’Crie records the altercation 164-165..............

HUH???

Drake, could you please stick with one train of thought. I don't go for jumping all over the map. It's called "bait and switch." It's a logical fallacy, by the way.

First of all, let's stick with the primary issue here. You object to the hypostatic union. So you asked for my definition and I gave you the Definition given at Chalcedon AND in the Westminster Confession AND the Belgic Confession. I could bring in the WLC, WSC and the Heidelberg Catecism but let's keep it simple.

The Calvinist position and the Reformed position assert that Jesus is one PERSON. You openly deny that and therefore are under excommunication from any Reformed denomination or local congregation.

You can try to mislead by appealing to John Knox, etc. But that will not work since John Knox accepted the Definition of Chalcedon. Do you want to try again????

I know you're used to having your way over there at that heretical blog, God's Hammer. But on any truly Reformed blog your irrationalism and heresy won't fly.

Instead of baiting and switching why don't you try defending your heresy for a change. Let's start with Scripture. You obviously do not believe that Jesus Christ is God. Can you prove that from Scripture???

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

By the way, we're not arguing the sacraments here. I fully understand the Calvinist and the Zwinglian view of the Lord's supper and I have defended that view many times against the Lutherans and the Anglo-Catholics. We can discuss that issue another time. What we are discussing here is not the sacrament of bread and wine but the Person of Jesus Christ. He IS God. He is not merely a man. He is 100% God AND 100% man. He is Jesus Christ, Lord of Lords and King of Kings. He is the great I AM.

Can you say that in all honesty?

I thought not.

Charlie

sovereignlogos said...

Still waiting for proof of my heresy... one quote will do...

*hums quietly to self*

Come on Charlie. Do it. Take two seconds and find a quote where I called you a papist. Find one where I said I agreed with Sean or Clark.

Do it or be a confirmed liar.

Drake Shelton said...

"So you admit that the Confessions and the Creed of Chalcedon do not say there is one essence."

Maybe not explicitly no, i don't ever remember saying that Charlie.

"Rather it what you "think" it implies, which is far different from what the creed and the confession positively state."

And now the clouds begin to dispell and my real arguments are becoming understood. Very good my friend. Now we can actually have a dialogue here. What do you think I was doing in that first email Charlie? I wanted to know your theology so that I could show you how the implications of Chalcedon contradict it and I wanted all the pieces on the table so I could build my structure.

"If you think it implies monophysite views, then the burden of proof lies with you by your own admission since you're the one making the false assertion."

For this specific ad hominem argument, sure. But not to the doctrine of the hypo union, that is on you.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, And what is the defintion of person, hmm. let's quote Calvin: 2.14.3 "But, above all, the true substance of Christ is most clearly declared in those passages which comprehend both natures at once."

Both natures, One substance. Substance is the same as esence. Calvin's Institutes was the first book I read in Seminary.


Here's your same problem again, Drake. You're asking ME for definitions when you cannot even read with comprehension?

First of all, simply because Calvin calls the hypostatic union "one substance" does NOT entail that he is saying the two natures are "one nature" or "one essence". Substance is not essence. That would be the monophysite error or the Eutychian error.

What Calvin is clearly saying is that Christ is ONE. That union is described in the Definition of Chalcedon.

What is particularly amusing, Drake, is that you pulled one small sentence out of the total context where Calvin clearly discusses the two natures are not mixed or confused! Ha!

Calvin:

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. Lastly, the properties of the soul are transferred to the body, and the properties of the body to the soul, and yet these form only one man, not more than one. Such modes of expression intimate both that there is in man one person formed of two compounds, and that these two different natures constitute one person. Thus the Scriptures speak of Christ. They sometimes attribute to him qualities which should be referred specially to his humanity and sometimes qualities applicable peculiarly to his divinity, and sometimes qualities which embrace both natures, and do not apply specially to either. This combination of a twofold nature in Christ they express so carefully, that they sometimes communicate them with each other, a figure of speech which the ancients termed ἰδιωμάτων κοινωνια (a communication of properties). Institutes 2:14:1-2

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


I could quote the entire thing but it is rather silly for you to pull that one reference out of context when the entire rest of the passage in 2:14:1-3 completely blows your assertion out of the water.

Yes, I will side with Calvin on this one. Calvin isn't always right but on the union of the two natures in Jesus Christ, Calvin is absolutely right.

Thanks for bringing that one up, Drake. You're doing a fine job of shooting yourself in the foot.

Charlie

Drake Shelton said...

philosphically speaking

Drake Shelton said...

"So you do know the difference between what is asserted in the doctrine of the trinity and what is asserted in the doctrine of the incarnation. Good, I should not have to correct you again on that point. So please make up your mind about what you're complaining about?"

Correct me? Charlie I am a full blown Clarkian and I am going to use ad hominem arguments all the time to test your logical consistency. You may think i am arguing somethig positively when i am really in your back yard building a missle launcher pointed straight at your house.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Calvin on the Hypostatic Union

3. But, above all, the true substance of Christ is most clearly declared in those passages which comprehend both natures at once. Numbers of these exist in the Gospel of John. What we there read as to his having received power from the Father to forgive sins; as to his quickening whom he will; as to his bestowing righteousness, holiness, and salvation; as to his being appointed judge both of the quick and the dead; as to his being honoured even as the Father, are not peculiar either to his Godhead or his humanity, but applicable to both. In the same way he is called the Light of the world, the good Shepherd, the only Door, the true Vine. WITH SUCH PREROGATIVES THE SON OF GOD WAS INVESTED ON HIS MANIFESTATION IN THE FLESH, AND THOUGH HE POSSESSED THE SAME WITH THE FATHER BEFORE THE WORLD WAS CREATED, STILL IT WAS NOT IN THE SAME MANNER OR RESPECT; NEITHER COULD THEY BE ATTRIBUTED TO ONE WHO WAS A MAN AND NOTHING MORE.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said: 1. What is it that unites the two essences? (eastern orthodox apologists say it is a union of energies,

Drake, we're not discussing Eastern Orthodoxy here. We're discussing the Reformed or Calvinist view.

I could care less what the EOC says. We're interested in confessional and Reformed theology here. Stick to the confession and be relevant.

I think your problem is you have been around Perry Robinson too long. You might do better to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. Oh, wait, they believe Jesus is God, too. You would never fit with those apostates either!

Charlie

Drake Shelton said...

Speaking of Chalcedon, John McIntyre in The Shape of Christology, says:

"on the other hand it was the human nature of Jesus Christ which received fresh interpretations, which emphasized, as we ourselves have seen, the completeness of his humanity over against what had been considered the impersonal nature of Christ's humanity."[11]

Brian Schwertley in his The Incarnation of Christ says "It is important to understand that when theologians refer to Christ’s human nature as impersonal, they are only speaking hypothetically of the human nature as viewed by itself. The reality is that the human nature never had an independent existence or personal subsistence.”[12] He says again, “Therefore, when theologians speak non-hypothetically of the actual Incarnation they speak of the human nature as in-personal rather than impersonal (e.g., Witsius, Shedd, Berkhof).”[13] (In the context he implies that he agrees).

Lorraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, pg 196 "In the incarnation or Lord added to his divine nature, not another person, but impersonal, generic human nature...the fact that Christ took into union with himself not another person but impersonal generic human nature" pg 200

That should be enough.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said: 1. What is it that unites the two essences? (eastern orthodox apologists say it is a union of energies, my Presbytery says it's a metaphysical union while at the same time denying a union of essence, you like most other One person protestants avoid the issue completely and attempt to twist my arguments around so you don't have to answer the question. )

2. In Penal Substitutionary Atonement if the human is required to bear the curse of sin, namely seperation from God when he is forsaken on the cross: a. The whole "without division and without seperation" langauge is wrong or penal sub is wrong take your choice.

b. Your assertion that the union breaks at the death of Christ and then reunites makes the "without division and without seperation" meaningless.


First off, Drake, I have repeatedly told you that what unites the two "essences" is the Personality who is ONE Person. He is the Logos and He is Jesus Christ. ONE. What part of ONE PERSON do you not understand. Just as there is one divine nature in the Godhead and yet three persons, Jesus is ONE PERSON yet TWO essences/natures/beings/substances.

When Calvin refers to "one substance" he is not confusing the two natures into one nature but rather speaking of who Jesus is in the one union of natures.

Regarding the atonement, it is the Son of God who is separated from God on the cross. But this does not mean that the trinity is divided but merely that the divine is spoken of in the human just as Calvin described it in the passage I cited on the blog page. Institutes 2:14:1-3.

God is not separated from God but the human nature IS separated from God. So God the Son "experiences" in His human soul "separation" from God even though God is impassible. What is only experienced in the human nature is attributed to the divine nature because of the hypostatic union in ONE Person. What part of this is hard to understand when it is described simply as a communication of attributes as Calvin explained?

The analogy of a human body and soul used by Calvin explains it well enough.

Regard my earlier statement about the separation of the union at death, I was referring only to the human soul of Christ being separated from His human body. Technically speaking the human soul and the Logos are still in union and are forever joined together as Calvin and others have said. The body and soul were reunited at the resurrection. Since Jesus has only one soul, that being a human one, then you are correct in that respect that the hypostatic union is not broken at death.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

By the way, I have debated Perry Robinson on the undernet in mIRC many times. We used to debate in the #prosapologian room and in #apologetics and in #scripture. I don't frequent those rooms anymore.

I might give an honorable mention to James White as well. I ran into James White when I was still an Arminian at Asbury Seminary. He was posting offline messages in Fidonet before it became a live chat room. I found White's arguments from John 3 and 6 and his arguments on Romans 9 irrefutable. Between that and reading the Institutes in a seminar at an Arminian school and reading the Bible from cover to cover all my life, I began a believer in the doctrines of sovereign grace. That was in 1995.

I am familiar with paradigm shifts because I made one from Pentecostal Arminianism to die hard Reformed and Calvinist.

Now that is totally different from denying that Jesus Christ is literally God in human flesh. Sorry, pal, but that ain't evah gonna happen.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, Lorraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, pg 196 "In the incarnation or Lord added to his divine nature, not another person, but impersonal, generic human nature...the fact that Christ took into union with himself not another person but impersonal generic human nature" pg 200

Yes, that's quite enough. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot again, Drake. The human definitions are not "personal." They become personal because they are assumed into union with a Person. Do you know who that Person is, Drake?

Let me ask you how many Gods there are, Drake? ONE, right? So if Jesus is God, then who is this other person you keep talking about? A mere man????


Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

I meant to say, "I became a believer in the doctrines of sovereign grace."

BTW, Drake, if the deity of Christ is up for grabs, what other Reformed confession is up for review and rejection in your opinion? Maybe the Trinity is next on the list?

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said: As I said before it is an analogy. No one is saying there is any unity of essence in the incarnation."

THERE IT IS!!!!!! Check mate. This is why I asked you in my first email if you believed in univocal revelation or analogical. This debate is really about epistemology like everything else. I am growing weary of reading the same arguments I have been reading for 4 months now Charlie. You just didn't read the articles on my post at Sean's blog like you should have before you debated me.

I have an article on why analogies are not going to work with this issue.


Drake, you're a card:) hahahhaa

You're like the Mormons. You first assert that there is a unity in Christ that is "one essence". Then when I reject that and say that the unity is a hypostatic unity based in an unity of two natures and that that one unity is a unity based on the Person of the Logos united with a human soul and nature, you try to say that I said something I never said.

hahahaha


PUHLEASE.... I know you find yourself convincing, Drake, but in my eyes you're merely begging the question. I cannot for the life of me understand why you think your confused and muddled fallacies constitute a justifiable reason to reject confessional and biblical doctrine on the deity of Christ. He IS God. If you can't say that, then you have more in common with the Mormons or the Arians.

The irony here is you accused "me" of Arianism???? Give me a break!

The unity in the trinity is a unity of ONE ESSENCE. The UNITY in the hypostatic union is a unity of PERSON. Your attempts to twist my words reminds of a verse in 2 Peter 3:15-16.

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16 ESV)

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, Here is the second strike against your departure from the Traditional construction.

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon from apuritansmind.com, a very popular Puritan website says in his A Meditation on the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, “The substance of Jesus’ human nature is not personal, for if it was, Christ would then be two persons. Rather, the human nature is impersonal”[10]


Well, no it is not a strike against me. It is a strike against you. The human nature in and of itself is NOT personal. It is assumed BY a Person who is God and therefore becomes Personal via the union with the Person. That Person is both God and Man. John 1:14.

You do not believe Jesus is God. Just admit it and be done with it, Drake:)

I'm still waiting for your admission. It will come sooner or later.

I can confess Jesus as fully God. You cannot.

I know the truth makes you weary but the truth is not going to changge no matter how many times you deny it. Jesus is LORD and Jesus is GOD. I affirm that without batting an eye. Can you say the same?


Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, Correct me? Charlie I am a full blown Clarkian and I am going to use ad hominem arguments all the time to test your logical consistency. You may think i am arguing something positively when i am really in your back yard building a missle launcher pointed straight at your house.

ROTL Well, at least you are honest enough to admit you don't have a real case. Your case is just one string of logical fallacies after another. You must be taking lessons from that doctor of philosophy, Perry Robinson? He was good at that, too. But I didn't let him off the hook either.

You're going to have to provide some real arguments, Drake, not just irrational fallacies. Anyone can muddy the water.

You haven't said anything original yet. There is no new heresy. There are only resurrections of old heresies. Yours is nothing new.

As for your being a "full-blown" Clarkian.... I have my doubts about Clark being a Nestorian. No one I know of says that Clark was a Nestorian. Some because they have tried to redefine the Nestorian heresy so it is not really a heresy anymore, i.e. you and Sean Gerety and the gang.

But Nestorianism is a heresy whether or not Nestorius genuinely held that view or not. That you would not understand this is just beyond comprehension. Pelagianism is a heresy as well even though Pelagius himself probably did not go that far.

The truth is you're just out to bait and switch and use any other dirty trick of the devil to confuse Christians. But I have news for you. It is impossible to deceive the elect:)

For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:24 ESV)

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, 1 + 1 does not equal 1 Charlie. That's simple math.

Ok, 1+1 = TWO natures. Jesus is TWO natures and ONE Person. What part of ONE PERSON do you NOT understand? :)

No one I know of is saying that there are not two natures. There are not two persons. That would mean that Jesus is not God as your own quote from Matthew McMahon clearly demonstrates.

You're the one who is denying that Christ is ONE Person who is God, not me. I can fully affirm His deity AND his full humanity because He is ONE person and TWO natures/essences/definitions.

He is everything that defines what and who God is AND He is everything that defines what and who a human being is. You can repeat your mantra of heresy until the day you die but it won't change the fact that Scripture says Jesus is God. I know that bothers you. Most heretics have no problem accepting that Jesus is a man. The problem is they cannot accept that He is God. Sean Gerety balked when I accused him of not believing that Jesus is God. He couldn't bring himself to admit it but the thought is there.

Nestorianism is no better than the oneness pentecostal view or Arianism or Ebonitism. All three of those views wind up denying that Jesus is God.

This is why you're no Christian, Drake. You're an out and out heretic on the same order of oneness pentecostalism or mormonism or the jehovah's witnesess. Only your deception is more subtle. But what else is new? The devil loves to deceive.

The fact that you admit to using dirty and underhanded tactics speaks volumes about your integrity. It also gives me some insight into the tactics used by Gerety and his gang of anti-intellectual heretics over at
God's Hammer.

I should know better than to try to reason with reprobates.

Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." (Isaiah 6:10 ESV)

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, Then why did A.A. Hodge explain in his Outlines of Theology:

The Nestorian heresy charged upon Nestorius, a Syrian by birth, and bishop of Constantinople, during the fifth century, by his enemy, Cyril, the arrogant bishop of Alexandria. Cyril obtained a judgment against Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, to the effect that he separated the two natures of Christ so far as to teach the coexistence in him of two distinct persons, a God and a man, intimately united. But it is now, however, judged most probable by Protestant historians that Nestorius was personally a brave defender of the true faith, and that the misrepresentations of his enemies were founded only upon his uncompromising opposition to the dangerous habit then prominently introduced of calling the Virgin Mary the mother of God because she was the mother of the human nature of Christ." pg 287


Drake the answer to this question is obviously that Nestorius himself did not advocate that there were two persons in Christ!! Nestorianism was wrongly attributed to Nestorius!

DUH! That does not mean that Hodge is saying that NESTORIANISM is not a heresy. What he said was NESTORIUS did not hold the two persons view of Christ that was officially condemned as heresy. I don't have my copy of A. A. Hodge on hand since I'm out of town but I have read A.A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology several times and outlined it thoroughly. I also have a hard copy of Charles Hodge as well as the online version. I've read both backwards and forwards.

Your attempt to justify your heresy by quoting A.A. Hodge out of context as if he approved of your view is disappointing. It means one of two things to me: 1) Either you don't have the ability to read and understand theology or 2) You knew what I said already and you are determined to continue to twist words and lie to justify yourself in your error. It's similar to Judas Iscariot selling out Jesus with a kiss and trying to justify himself only to discover that it did nothing to soothe his conscience.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake, your immaturity is appalling. An honest discussion requires honesty, not strings of lies and dissimulation.

Drake said, And now the clouds begin to dispell and my real arguments are becoming understood. Very good my friend. Now we can actually have a dialogue here. What do you think I was doing in that first email Charlie? I wanted to know your theology so that I could show you how the implications of Chalcedon contradict it and I wanted all the pieces on the table so I could build my structure.

No, what you really wanted to know is if I could refute your hot air.

I've been online since 1995. I have had my bouts with the Mormons, the oneness pentecostals, and just about every other heretical group out there. Your particular heresy does not intimidate me in the least. I know my theology and if there is something I'm unclear about I have resources I can consult.

So in the future let's have what you really believe and cut to the chase. This silly business of lying and deceiving only betrays you as a dissimulator, Drake.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Patrick, I would be more than happy to retract my accusation against you. I'll give you another chance. Since you asked and since I have seen no further comments at God's Hammer, you are more than welcome to post your comments here. Please tell me what your view of the hypostatic union is in the light of the Westminster Confession, Chapter 8 and in light of the Belgic Confession, Chapter 10. While you're at it, maybe you can check out the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 5?

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake, if you presbytery tolerates Nestorianism, then I would certainly like to know what denomination you are affiliated with so that I can warn others to avoid it.

As for your claim that: How many more times am I going to have to say I don't believe in the hypostatic union. The burden is on you sir to define this.

The term metaphysical came from the MOUTH OF MY PRESBYTERY WHO UPHOLD CHALCEDON! I made them aware of your denial of this and I am altogether entertained to read their response.

You say that i have to use the creeds and confessions that say that , in context I am assuming, the human was deified. Where does a creed or confession say he was not deified like Cheung said?


Drake, be forewarned that I will not allow you to continue to use straw man fallacies. If that is the best you can do then this debate is over.

First off, the hypostatic union does not deify the human nature. It unites two natures in one person and that preserves the distinction and independence of the two natures. If you do not believe that Jesus can be God without the human nature being deified or confused with the divine nature, i.e. Monophysite or Apollinarianism, then that is your problem. That is not the orthodox position and both the heresies you mention are condemned as heresies along with your heresy.

If you don't believe Jesus is God, that's your problem. But you will face Jesus Christ as your Judge someday. I hope you repent before then.

As for the hypostatic union being spiritual or metaphysical I affirm that in the sense that the soul is metaphysical. Just as the soul and body are joined together as one, so the two natures of Christ are joined together as one in His Person. It is not metaphysical in the bait and switch way you so implied.

As if I'm going to take the bait, Drake. You think you're clever but you're basically just a liar. You'll lie and set up some silly trap just so you can appear to yourself that you're doing something. But that is a strawman fallacy.

If you're going to attack the orthodox position, you'll have to do so on the basis of what it actually teaches, not what you "think" it implies.

When you can do that get back to me.

I'm not going to play word games with someone who admits up front he is a liar with an agenda.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said: How many more times am I going to have to say I don't believe in the hypostatic union. The burden is on you sir to define this.

Well, we all know how "I" define the union. The question is how do you unify the deity and humanity? Is Jesus God or isn't He?

Just say no, Drake. That's all I'm asking. We already know that you don't believe Jesus Christ is God.

Why can't you just admit it up front? Why hide it? Are you ashamed to admit that that is your view?

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, What is the position they take Charlie? What is your defintion? I have read only negative statements. Telling me it is: WITHOUT division, WITHOUT confusion, WITHOUT change, WITHOUT separation (WHICH EXCLUDES PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT), tells me nothing.

Drake, you are again confusing what the Reformed position is with what you think it "implies." As I said before, the Reformed position does not entail that the penal substitutionary atonement could not have happened. That's your error, not mine.

The Heidelberg Catechism Lord's Day 5 clearly says that only a man who is fully human AND fully divine could possibly bear our penalty on the cross. Your view that Jesus is merely a man means that Jesus could not have suffered the "eternal" penalty for us but only the temporal one. Therefore, the Nestorian view undermines the penal substitutionary atonement.

My view is that Jesus was fully divine and therefore fully identified with us as fully human and fully paid for our eternal punishment because of His divine nature.

Lord’s Day 5

12. Since, then, by the righteous judgment of God we deserve temporal and eternal punishment, how may we escape this punishment and be again received into favor?

God wills that His justice be satisfied;[1] therefore, we must make full satisfaction to that justice, either by ourselves or by another.[2]

[1] Ex 20:5, 23:7; Rom 2:1-11; [2] Isa 53:11; Rom 8:3-4

TOP

13. Can we ourselves make this satisfaction?

Certainly not; on the contrary, we daily increase our guilt.[1]

[1] Job 9:2-3, 15:15-16; Ps 130:3; Mt 6:12, 16:26; Rom 2:4-5

TOP

14. Can any mere creature make satisfaction for us?

None; for first, God will not punish any other creature for the sin which man committed;[1] and further, no mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin and redeem others from it.[2]

[1] Ezek 18:4, 20; Heb 2:14-18; [2] Ps 130:3; Nah 1:6

TOP

15. What kind of mediator and redeemer, then, must we seek?

One who is a true[1] and righteous man,[2] and yet more powerful than all creatures, that is, one who is also true God.[3]

[1] 1 Cor 15:21-22, 25-26; Heb 2:17; [2] Isa 53:11; Jer 13:16; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 7:26; [3] Isa 7:14, 9:6; Jer 23:6; Jn 1:1; Rom 8:3-4; Heb 7:15-16

Lord's Day 5

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, I need the Subject of the union to remain a Protestant ...

The Subject is Jesus. He is God. Don't you believe that? My Bible says He is God. My Bible says that Jesus claimed to be God. Maybe you think the Bible is wrong? Or maybe you think Jesus lied or something? Or maybe you think Jesus was just crazy?

No, I affirm that Jesus Christ is God Almighty who assumed true humanity into the divine essence in a unity of one Person who is both God and man. The Subject is Jesus Christ. What you believe about Him will determine where you spend eternity.

If Gordon H. Clark denied that Jesus Christ the man was God, the Second Person of the Godhead, then in all probability Clark was reprobate. Perhaps God will have mercy on him for denying Christ at the last minute?

I have no idea. All I know is that I have been reading the Bible since I was 8. I have always understood what even a child from early age can understand. Jesus IS God IN the flesh. That is not hard to understand.

All these endless questions you keep raising are likewise a logical fallacy called "endless questions." No matter how many times I answer you'll keep asking another.

You're only proving that you don't understand how to interact on a theological or philosophical level, Drake.

If you want me to understand your view, you're going to have to tell me what it is. I'm not into guessing games.

I know what MY view is. I have told you many times and you know what my view is as well. The question is what is YOUR view?

How do you understand who Jesus is? Do you believe that Jesus IS God? Or do you DENY that He is God?

It's a very simple question, Drake. A simple yes or a simple no will do.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, Charlie says, Since both the divine and human are one Person in Christ, whatever can be said of one nature can be legitimately said of the other because they are united hypostatically in Jesus Christ."" This is an assertion Charlie. What are your arguments for it? We describe this in the union of Sonship. There is no problem here for us.

Drake, you object to the idea that Jesus is God. You outright deny it. So if you want me to accept your view as "orthodox" you're going to have to tell me what it is. I haven't heard YOU affirm anything positively either!

Your complaint is that the Definition of Chalcedon negates all the wrong views but does not answer your objections.


Well, are you not doing the same thing? Big deal. You chose a worse option called Nestorianism... and then you turn around and do the same thing. You "claim" to have solved the problem but "how" you solved it is some big secret. You won't or, better yet, CANNOT tell me how your solution works. Exactly what is your solution.

I have no idea what you mean by "Sonship" since you don't even have a creed to objectively outline your view for my examination. Like all heretics, you want to play games and pretend to have an answer but this so-called answer remains mysterious and hidden. It's somewhat like gnosticism. You have the secret knowledge no one else has because you're a CLARKIAN! Wow. I'm impressed.

I'm almost as impressed as I was by that yankee from New York who had all the inside knowledge no one else had.

Hint: When someone claims to have secret knowledge no one else has.... it usually means they're full of hot air or else they are delusional.

At least "I" have a confession of faith to spell out my commitments. You "Clarkians" just love to baffle people with riddles and mysteries and secrets you call "rational."

Sounds more like mysticism to me. Exactly what IS this mystery term, "Sonship"????

Surely you can answer that?

Oh, and while you're at it....

Oh, should I ask you again????

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God and that He will one day Judge you?

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, Charlie says, "Anyone who says that Jesus is God must accept that He is also human and vice versa."
So then you assert that the Faher is Jesus and the Holy Spirit is Jesus as well.


This is getting more and more amusing, Drake. A Clarkian who cannot distinguish between the Trinity and the Incarnation???

Wow, you're really a genius after all!

Maybe you need to go back and read Clark's two books again?

But to answer you, NO, Jesus is the Son. He is not the Father or the Spirit. Don't Presbyterians read the Athanasian Creed?

All three persons of the Godhead are fully AND equally GOD but they are not the same Person.

The fact that you cannot make these kinds of theological distinctions is telling, Drake.



Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, Metaphysics has for centuries refered to being as such, essence, substance, ousia. So how you have a metaphysical union without a union of essence is something Charlie will continue to insult me about, slander me about and despair but can he tell us what he means?

The union is of TWO essences in ONE Person, Drake. I never said there is no union. That's your view. MY view is there IS a hypostatic union of two natures in ONE person.

And you have my statements explaining my position over and over again along with several formal statements from the creed and the Reformed confessions and catechisms.

What we don't have is any explanation from you as to what Sonship means and what sort of union you uphold? We don't even have a formal confession or creed telling us what your position is?

I guess everyone should just assume you're right and do so without any explanation from you at all?

Is this what makes Clarkians so smart? They get to claim to be smart but never demonstrate it???


Lord have mercy...
Christ have mercy...
Lord have mercy...

Charlie

Drake Shelton said...

The council directly denies that you can make a distinction in what nature is forsaken on the cross. If you say the human you must also say the divine. There is no distribution.

Drake Shelton said...

No in reference to Charlie's accusations that I am full Nestorian: I have already stated that I have numerous differences with Nestorius but Charlie doesn't care, this is about truth for him. I am debating thi issue to make sure I know all the arguments and I am not overlooking anything. Let the reader be the judge between myself and this Eastern Orthodox theologian in Protestant clothing.

Drake Shelton said...

Until Charlie can answer the first page of demonstrations and gives an answer to the penal substitution problem I will refrain from posting. Until he can do this the debate is over and his theology needs be found in an eastern orthodox Church. I am also noticing my posts are not being posted.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake, if you don't wish to continue receiving a beating, that's fine with me.

But I answered every question you asked and I posted all your comments.

The penal subsitution is a problem for Nestorians because in your view Jesus is not divine and therefore could not pay the eternal price for our sins.

Only a divine man could redeem us.

Sorry, but your heresy is not the answer.

I'll ask you one more time. Do you believe that Jesus is God? Yes or no?

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake, you're accusing me of Eastern Orthodoxy is laughable. You're the one quoting off the wall Eastern Orthodox theology, not me.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake, you have stated full agreement with the Nestorian heresy over and over again.

And you have yet to explain what "Sonship" is in your view?

Please answer the questions or stop wasting my time.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Drake said, The council directly denies that you can make a distinction in what nature is forsaken on the cross. If you say the human you must also say the divine. There is no distribution.

Please. You say that Jesus was merely a man who died on the cross. What are the implications of that for the penal substitution? It means that you are still in your sins and you'll face an eternal punishment.

Who died on the cross? Jesus Christ did. He is fully God and fully man. I've already been through this but you love to pretend the question hasn't been answered.

I'm done with this conversation,
Drake. You're wasting my time.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not confuse the doctrine of deification of sinful men with the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ. Shelton's understanding of Eastern Orthodox theology leaves much to be desired:

INCARNATION OF JESUS CHRIST
Together with the belief in the Holy Trinity, the doctrine of the Incarnation occupies a central position in the teaching of the Orthodox Church. According to Orthodox Faith, Jesus is much more than a pious man or a profound teacher of morality. He is the "Son of God who became the Son of Man.” The doctrine of the Incarnation is an expression of the Church's experience of Christ. In Him, divinity is united with humanity without the destruction of either reality. Jesus Christ is truly God who shares in the same reality as the Father and the Spirit. Moreover, He is truly man who shares with us all that is human. The Church believes that, as the unique God-man, Jesus Christ has restored humanity to fellowship with God.

By manifesting the Holy Trinity, by teaching the meaning of authentic human life, and by conquering the powers of sin and death through His Resurrection, Christ is the supreme expression of the love of God the Father, for His people, made present in every age and in every place by the Holy Spirit through the life of the Church. The great Fathers of the Church summarized the ministry of Christ in the bold affirmation, "God became what we are so that we may become what He is.”


Eastern Orthdoxy: The Incarnation

Charlie J. Ray said...

Eastern Orthodoxy: Divinization

Charlie J. Ray said...

Proposition number 1:

Jesus Christ is one Person.

Proposition number 2:

Jesus Christ is God.

Proposition number 3:

Jesus Christ is human.

Proposition 4:

There is only one God.

Proposition 5:

There are three Persons in the Godhead.

Proposition 6:

All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily.

Proposition 7:

Jesus is both fully God and fully man yet one Person. That Person is the Divine Logos and yet He possesses a reasonable human soul. His human soul is not replaced by the Logos.

Now, that is the orthodox position in outline form.

How we reconcile the "apparent" contradictions is important. But we cannot presume to over ride church councils and Reformed confessions lightly.

Consistent and logical application of truth is necessary.

For the record, I do not believe in analogical theology or the ectypal/achetypal dichotomy.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Looking back at this conversation it seems to me that Drake Shelton confuses the Orthodox doctrine of deification (read sanctification) with the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ.

Even the Orthodox do not claim that we become God by our union with Christ.

Christ is totally unique. He is God and man and we remain forever human.

BTW, that's also why the Eastern Orthodox Church is heretical on the issue of justification by faith alone. They, like Rome, confuse sanctification with justification. In fact, the Eastern Church does not even deal with justification whatsoever. It's hard to see how one can avoid seeing the Eastern Orthodox Church as semi-pelagian.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

2/22/2013 Looks like Drake Shelton and Ryan Hedrich are worse than Nestorians. They have outright denied the deity of Christ in favor of Arianism. I can smell heresy a mile away. Too bad Sean Gerety didn't catch it sooner.

The same can be said for Jason Stellman. I knew he was a papist before he left the PCA. Go figure.

Ryan said...

"God" has various meanings throughout Scripture. Agreed? John 1:1 is a clear instance of this. When "God" is predicated of Jesus, it is an adjectival reference to His divine nature and the fact he is homoousios with the Father. When "God" is predicated of the Father, on the other hand, it is often a tautology - i.e. a reference to the person of the Father, or His properties as well as His attributes - for the Father alone has not had divinity [eternally] communicated to Him.

The idea I deny the divinity of Christ is ludicrous.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Well, no. I disagree. God has many different connotations and propositions that contribute to the definition of God. But if you say that God has many "meanings" then you have gone off into irrationalism. God has many propositions that define the personal God that we know as Tri-une, three Persons.

The fact is the passage in John about the communication between the Father and the Son most likely refers specifically to the incarnation. The term "begotten" would be more accurately translated as "one and only unique" in John 1:18, not to some eternal begetting. All three Persons of the Godhead are eternally self-existent, otherwise they are not sharing the same divine properties/propositions. All three Persons are fully equal and perfectly united in one divine Being/Nature. The sending of the Holy Spirit in John 14 is not a reference to anything other than a means or instrumental working of the Spirit among men. It is not a literal presence of the Spirit that did not exist before that point in time. It is a reference to purpose and instrumental relationship between God the Holy Spirit and the apostles.

As for your assertion that God is an adjectival predicate of Jesus, that is wrong. John 1:1 asserts the proposition that Jesus IS God. Theos nv ho Logos. The copula indicates an direct connection between the subject and the predicate, not merely an adjectival modifier. That's nailed down even more clearly in John 1:14. It is the Logic who becomes man, not the Father, nor the Spirit. Jesus IS the Logic of God. a is b but not all b is a.

Charlie

Ryan said...

Good grief. Jesus is the Son of God. In this instance, God refers specifically and uniquely to the Father. It can't refer to Jesus, for Jesus is not the Son of Himself. Remember what Clark always said: in order for a word to mean something, it must also not-mean something. If "God" clearly does not-mean Jesus in one instance yet does in another, then there must be two different yet equally Scriptural meanings of "God" by definition.

If you deny eternal generation, you deny any and all possibility of non-arbitrarily explaining how Jesus is the eternal Son of God (John 3:16, 1 John 3:8, 4:9) or why Jesus was sent rather than the Father or Spirit. The Father sent His *Son* for the world. He didn't just send a generic deity.

"Charlie is angry" indicates a direct connection between the subject and predicate, but the predicate is here clearly adjectival. So how does that affect your induction?

In any case, it really makes no difference. The point I wished to make was that you falsely accused me of denying the deity or divinity of Christ, which I clearly don't and haven't done. Christ is eternal. So I'm not an Arian. Christ is homoousios with the Father. So I'm not a subordinationist. Christ is distinct from the Father. So I'm not a Sabellian. Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father (though, again, homoousios with Him). So I am not a Tritheist. Christ necessarily exists. So I am not a Unitarian.

What, exactly, is your problem with me? Have you read my blog? Why don't you pick out a post I've written that you think is false, and explain why?

Charlie J. Ray said...

I have not read your blog, Ryan. But I have debated Drake and the man is confused.

Also, as Clark said once, if a witness in a trial is discredited, everything else he says is tainted. The most obvious blunder you made above is to violate the most basic logic there is. A "predicate" is not an "adjective." That's true both in grammar and in logic. In fact, Clark flatly says that the premise and the conclusion in a syllogism most often are merely tautological. A subject to a predicate by a copula, namely the word "is," does not reflect the "quality" of something else. That is the error of the Arians. Jesus is not homoiousious or "like" the Father. He is the same as the Father in that He possesses all the propositions of Deity. Jesus is equal to the Father in every respect. So even if I were to concede the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son or eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, it would not prove subordinationism.

If predicates are adjectives, as Clark once suggested, then words have no meaning and irrationalism is the result. The definition of a predicate and the definition of an adjective are different. And the copula is an expression of equality, not subordination or quality.

"God is love" expresses one of the propositions of Deity. That proposition is one of many but the proposition is not a adjective that describes something about God. It expresses a proposition about God's essence, being, and nature. Omnibenevolence in is an attribute or proposition of Deity.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

The expression that "Charlie is angry" is what Clark called an ambibology. It is an equivocation on your part to compare a human emotion to an attribute of God. In fact, the "analogy" fails.

God is love. Since God is unchanging, to compare a human emotion to God's unchanging will to love the elect is in fact an equivocation, not a univocal proposition about God.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Sean Gerety seems to think you are an Arian. He sometimes makes mistakes. But given the ambiguity of your assertion of a predicate as an adjective and the fallacy you committed in your logic, I have to think that Sean was on to something not quite right with your point of view.

Charlie J. Ray said...

If "God" clearly does not-mean Jesus in one instance yet does in another, then there must be two different yet equally Scriptural meanings of "God" by definition.

This is a fallacy as well. It is a non sequitur. The statement that "Jesus is the Son of God" is the proposition that Jesus is not the Father. Since God is one, it clearly indicates a relationship between the Father and the Son, thus your contention that Jesus is not God is a fallacy. There is only one God and simply because there is more than one Person within God does not imply that there is more than one "meaning" for God. God is Triune. That there are many propositions that apply to God does not imply different defintions or meaning of God but that the one God has many connotative propositions that contribute to describing what God is. Clark described this as the distinction between connotation and denotation. God is God is a denotative statement or proposition. Detailing the propositional attributes of God is connotative. God is one. God is three are both equally true propositions. God is the Son is a true and valid proposition. God is the Father is valid as well. This is only partly, true, however, since God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and all three Persons are essential to what God is. But subjects and predicates are interchangeable, although the meaning can change if the subject and predicate are reversed. ab might not be exactly the same as ba. Love is God is a true proposition but it carries a different connotation since God is much more than love while love would be limited to one proposition that describes or defines God. Of course, we only know the propositions revealed in Scripture. There may be many more propositions that God knows about Himself as a Tri-Personal Being than we know since not all those propositions are revealed in Scripture--or presumably so, anyway.

Ryan said...

You don't seem to understand why I am saying "God" on Clark's view is an adjectival predicate. The reason is very simple: Clark agrees with Berkhof that "God" = "attributes." The example I provided was just a refutation of your induction. I didn't assert and don't need to assert that God has emotions.

The point is that the "divine attributes" are adjectival: eternal, omniscient, good, etc. These are adjectives whether or not they are mutable. In fact, immutability is an adjective too. So if "God" = the sum of adjectival attributes, "God" itself just is an adjectival predicate.

"If predicates are adjectives, as Clark once suggested, then words have no meaning and irrationalism is the result. The definition of a predicate and the definition of an adjective are different. And the copula is an expression of equality, not subordination or quality."

Source? Further, you seem to be forgetting that "Jesus is God" is NOT a statement of equality. Clark clearly distinguished between properties and attributes. "God" refers to attributes, not to individuating properties. Since that is the case, Jesus must be "God" plus something else to distinguish Him from the Father and Holy Spirit. Again, "Jesus is God" is not a statement of equality, especially on Clark's view.

"Jesus is not homoiousious or "like" the Father."

I already said Jesus is homoousios with the Father. They are both divine just like we are both human. And yet, am I not subordinate to my father? You are making my point for me.

"He is the same as the Father in that He possesses all the propositions of Deity."

True, but irrelevant. Jesus is subordinate in respect to His person, not His nature, just as I am subordinate to my father in respect to my person, not my nature.

"Jesus is equal to the Father in every respect. So even if I were to concede the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son or eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, it would not prove subordinationism."

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I accept eternal generation and procession and reject subordinationism.

Ryan said...

"There is only one God and simply because there is more than one Person within God..."

The problem is you are not defining God. You are bringing up a separate point entirely, viz. who "God" can refer to.

Simple exercise: define God. Now apply that definition univocally in John 1:1 and see if it makes sense with orthodox Trinitarianism. Hint: it won't.

Say we define "God" as His attributes a la Clark. Okay. In that case, "the Word was with God" doesn't make sense. The definition doesn't fit.

Who the definition can be applied to is irrelevant. For the Word was with God SPECIFICALLY refers to the Father, not just any person who possesses divine attributes. The point is that "God is the Father" in John 1:1a, not that "the Father is God." There is all the difference between the two statements as there is between "man is Adam" and "Adam is man."

"Clark described this as the distinction between connotation and denotation. God is God is a denotative statement or proposition."

I suspect I have written more on this subject in connection with Trinitarianism than you have:

http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2012/12/clark-realism-and-trinitarian.html

Charlie J. Ray said...

Enough said. You have denied the Trinity just as Sean Gerety contended. Now you're contradicting yourself. Above you claimed that Jesus is God and that He shares the same essence with the Father. Now you're denying it. Make up your mind:)

I suspect you don't understand the Trinity since you think subordinationism is Scriptural. It isn't. As I pointed out already, the incarnation is a special case. Incarnation does not imply any change whatsoever in God's being. The subordination in Scripture is in reference only to the human person of Jesus, not to the Logos. The Logos remains fully God and He never changes, even when He is in union with the human nature/person of Jesus Christ.

You're confusing the oneness of God with the threeness of God as tripersonal. And by the way, Clark upheld the traditional and orthodox view of both the incarnation and the trinity. What Clark did was to nail down the incarnation more precisely. He did not deny the unity of the two natures/persons in Christ.

Let's define God as Triune. God is personal but God is three persons, not one person.

The propositions God thinks defines who and what God is in Tripersonal existence.

Since all three Persons are fully God, there is no subordination of any of the Persons to the others. All are fully and equally God.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Let's not forget that the "patristics" are fallible while Scripture is "infallible" and "inerrant."

Charlie J. Ray said...

I suspect that you don't know that a copula expresses equivalence and equality:) JOhn 1:1 clearly says not just that the Logos was with God... but that He IS God. And btw, the inference from JOhn 1:1 is not that the Logos is only with the Father but also with the Spirit. For God is three Persons, not two. John 1:1 expresses a fully equality between the Logos, the Father, and the Spirit since all are fully and equally God.

To say otherwise would introduce change into the Godhead, something that Scripture flatly denies is possible. That's also why subordinationism is false. It implies change in God as Tripersonal. IF God were mutable or changeable God would not be God at all.

God is unchanging, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, et. al. There are many more propositions that describe what God is. Of course, mere description is not necessarily definition. But I doubt you can do much better:)

Ryan said...

I have no problem saying Jesus is God where God is a reference to the divine nature the Father, Son, and Spirit have in common. Again, the problem is that, if left unqualified, this is tritheism, which is why it's good news "God" in Scripture has multiple possible meanings. I didn't deny Clark's view in toto; I denied its sufficiency in defending monotheism. One definition for God would no more prove monotheism than one definition for person would prove solipsism.

"I suspect you don't understand the Trinity since you think subordinationism is Scriptural."

Once again, I am not a subordinationist. The Son is divine just as the Father is divine. I am human just as my father is human. Complete co-equality in respect to nature, though not in person. Why you and Sean find this hard to understand I just don't know. I didn't even mention the incarnation. The only reason that would even be relevant is if Jesus' Sonship is due to the incarnation, whereas the above passage I cited and arguments from arbitrarity indicate otherwise. But you haven't responded to those, so I see no need to elaborate.

"You're confusing the oneness of God with the threeness of God as tripersonal. And by the way, Clark upheld the traditional and orthodox view of both the incarnation and the trinity."

Um, no. Clark held monotheism is true because God is a genus. This is a huge step in the right direction (though incomplete in itself), but you cannot seriously think this is what classic Reformed theologians thought. Clark holds to generic unity. Most Reformed theologians held to numeric unity.

"What Clark did was to nail down the incarnation more precisely. He did not deny the unity of the two natures/persons in Christ."

Which, by the way, is why the idea Christ is two persons is absurd. Whatever it is that unifies the natures can function as the definition of His person.

"Let's define God as Triune. God is personal but God is three persons, not one person."

That's not Clark's definition. And anyway, to say "God is three persons" means God possesses all the individuating properties of the Father, Son, and Spirit, which is impossible because they are mutually exclusive. If "God is the Father, Son, and Spirit," then "God is eternally unbegotten and eternally begotten." See the problem?

"Since all three Persons are fully God, there is no subordination of any of the Persons to the others. All are fully and equally God."

Then all are fully and equally each other, and Sabellianism ensues. Transitivity works like that.

"Let's not forget that the "patristics" are fallible while Scripture is "infallible" and "inerrant.""

Let's not forget Clark was fallible too. I believe I am the only one of us who has been citing Scripture.

"I suspect that you don't know that a copula expresses equivalence and equality:) JOhn 1:1 clearly says not just that the Logos was with God... but that He IS God. And btw, the inference from JOhn 1:1 is not that the Logos is only with the Father but also with the Spirit. For God is three Persons, not two."

Then Jesus was with Himself, and Jesus was the Father and Spirit as well as Himself. You can't have it both ways. Either "God" refers to all three persons or not. If not, then it can bear different meanings. Period. If so, then Sabellianism.

"But I doubt you can do much better:)"

Well, you haven't troubled yourself to actually read anything I've written before condemning me as worse than Nestorian, so why am I not surprised?

Charlie J. Ray said...

If "God is the Father, Son, and Spirit," then "God is eternally unbegotten and eternally begotten." See the problem?

Yes, I see the problem clearly. You don't know much logic. God is three Persons. Only the Son is "begotten". Since the Son is one with the Godhead, it is not incorrect to say that God the Son is begotten. That cannot be said of the Spirit. God remains one God while being three Persons. You want to collapse them into a modalism it would appear.

God is one and God is three. That is not a contradiction because God is one in one sense and three in another. It is improper to say that God is both begotten and unbegotten because you have confused the class with the subspecies:)

A = a, b, c. But only b is begotten. a and c are not begotten.

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

Which, by the way, is why the idea Christ is two persons is absurd. Whatever it is that unifies the natures can function as the definition of His person. All a is not b. a is contained in b but some of b is not a. That means that the human mind of Christ is not the Divine mind of the Logos. But the human mind/personality of Christ is contained within the Divine mind/Person of the Logos. Unity is therefore possible without confusing the two persons. This is called the hypostatic union in the Definition of Chalcedon. Just as the Father does not think some propositions thought by the Son, so in the Incarnation, there are some propositions that the human person of Christ does not think. In fact, being limited, Christ does not know everything the Logos knows. But at times the Logos reveals things to the human mind of Christ. There are some propositions that the Logos does not think such as, "I am going to die." God cannot die. But Jesus the man did think that he would die.

Ryan said...

And you're missing the point on the one-person vs. two-person theory of the Incarnation. In either case, their is allegedly something that allows both minds to assent to the proposition, "I am Christ." Why can't the answer to what that is just function as the reason Christ is one person? Why does a person have to equal a mind rather than the ego or "I"?

Clark's two-person theory doesn't accord with Scripture, for the eternal Son is our Savior and the incarnate Christ is our Savior - but there is one mediator, so they must be the same person. This is only possible if a person is something other than a mind.

Charlie J. Ray said...

I refer you to my Review of the Omnpresence of Christ, by Theodore Zachariades. If the human person of Jesus is omniscient, then it is obvious that he is God and not man. Clark saw that clearly. What you have now is the monophysite error. The two wills in Christ implies two personalities since only a person has a will.

The union is a union that assumes human personality into union with the Logos. And the Definition of Chalcedon makes it clear that the union is not one where the Logos replaces the reasonable human soul of Jesus, namely his personality.

Enough said.

End of discussion. Comments are closed.

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.