I tried to make an offer of reconciliation between myself and Sean Gerety at the God's Hammer blog. We had a serious disagreement last year over Gordon H. Clark's view of the incarnation. Gerety contends that Clark's view was that Jesus Christ contains two persons, one divine and one human. The Logos is the divine person and Jesus is the human person. The two are supposed to be united in Christ. I'm still not clear as to what Gerety's position is since he refuses to clarify further. I simply asked Gerety to agree with the Westminster Standards. That he refused to do saying that I was an "ass" and that he did not need to explain himself to me. Of course he's right. Who am I? I'm not a church.
But I do report on what I observe in the blogosphere. It seems to me that Gerety is no better than the Federal Visionists since he likes to hide his true views from the public. When asked about it he will not say.
But I do report on what I observe in the blogosphere. It seems to me that Gerety is no better than the Federal Visionists since he likes to hide his true views from the public. When asked about it he will not say.
Regardless of what Gordon H. Clark's view was, the Westminster Standards are unwavering that Jesus Christ is indeed one person, not two:
36. Who is the Mediator of the covenant of grace?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 Tim. 2:5.
2. John 1:1,14; John 10:30; Phil. 2:6
3 Gal. 4:4
4 Luke 1:35; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Heb. 7:24,25.
37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
Answer: Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,1 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her,2 yet without sin.3
See also: WCF 8.2 | WSC 21-22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John 1:14; Matt. 26:38.
2 Luke 1:27,31,35,42; Gal. 4:4.
3 Heb. 4:15; Heb. 7:26.
38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death;1 give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession,2 and to satisfy God's justice,3 procure his favour,4 purchase a peculiar people,5 give his Spirit to them,6 conquer all their enemies,7 and bring them to everlasting salvation.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Acts 2:24;,25; Rom. 1:4; Rom. 4:25; Heb. 9:14.
2 Acts 20:28; Heb. 9:14; Heb. 7:25-28.
3 Rom. 3:24,25,26.
4 Eph. 1:6; Matt. 3:17.
5 Tit. 2:13,14.
6 Gal. 4:6.
7 Luke 1:68,69,71,74.
8 Heb. 5:8,9; Heb. 9:11-15.
39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature,1 perform obedience to the law,2 suffer and make intercession for us in our nature,3 have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities;4 that we might receive the adoption of sons,5 and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Heb. 2:16.
2 Gal. 4:4
3 Heb. 2:14; Heb. 7:24,25
4 Heb. 4:15
5 Gal. 4:5
6 Heb. 4:16
40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us,1 and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Matt. 1:21,23; Matt. 3:17; Heb. 9:14.
2 1 Pet. 2:6
41. Why was our Mediator called Jesus?
Answer: Our Mediator was called Jesus, because he saveth his people from their sins.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Matt. 1:21
42. Why was our Mediator called Christ?
Answer: Our Mediator was called Christ, because he was annointed with the Holy Ghost above measure;1 and so set apart, and fully furnished with all authority and ability,2 to execute the offices of prophet,3 priest,4 and king of his Church,5 in the estate both of his humiliation and exaltation.
See also: WCF 8.3 | WSC 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John 3:34; Ps. 45:7.
2. John 6:27; Matt. 28:18,19,20.
3 Acts 3:21,22; Luke 4:18,21.
4 Heb. 5:5,6,7; Heb. 4:14,15.
5 Ps. 2:6; Matt. 21:5; Isa. 9:6,7; Phil. 2:8-11.
Answer: The only Mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ,1 who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father,2 in the fulness of time became man,3 and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, for ever.4
See also: WCF 8.2 | WSC 21-22--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 Tim. 2:5.
2. John 1:1,14; John 10:30; Phil. 2:6
3 Gal. 4:4
4 Luke 1:35; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Heb. 7:24,25.
37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
Answer: Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,1 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her,2 yet without sin.3
See also: WCF 8.2 | WSC 21-22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John 1:14; Matt. 26:38.
2 Luke 1:27,31,35,42; Gal. 4:4.
3 Heb. 4:15; Heb. 7:26.
38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death;1 give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession,2 and to satisfy God's justice,3 procure his favour,4 purchase a peculiar people,5 give his Spirit to them,6 conquer all their enemies,7 and bring them to everlasting salvation.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Acts 2:24;,25; Rom. 1:4; Rom. 4:25; Heb. 9:14.
2 Acts 20:28; Heb. 9:14; Heb. 7:25-28.
3 Rom. 3:24,25,26.
4 Eph. 1:6; Matt. 3:17.
5 Tit. 2:13,14.
6 Gal. 4:6.
7 Luke 1:68,69,71,74.
8 Heb. 5:8,9; Heb. 9:11-15.
39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature,1 perform obedience to the law,2 suffer and make intercession for us in our nature,3 have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities;4 that we might receive the adoption of sons,5 and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Heb. 2:16.
2 Gal. 4:4
3 Heb. 2:14; Heb. 7:24,25
4 Heb. 4:15
5 Gal. 4:5
6 Heb. 4:16
40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us,1 and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Matt. 1:21,23; Matt. 3:17; Heb. 9:14.
2 1 Pet. 2:6
41. Why was our Mediator called Jesus?
Answer: Our Mediator was called Jesus, because he saveth his people from their sins.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Matt. 1:21
42. Why was our Mediator called Christ?
Answer: Our Mediator was called Christ, because he was annointed with the Holy Ghost above measure;1 and so set apart, and fully furnished with all authority and ability,2 to execute the offices of prophet,3 priest,4 and king of his Church,5 in the estate both of his humiliation and exaltation.
See also: WCF 8.3 | WSC 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John 3:34; Ps. 45:7.
2. John 6:27; Matt. 28:18,19,20.
3 Acts 3:21,22; Luke 4:18,21.
4 Heb. 5:5,6,7; Heb. 4:14,15.
5 Ps. 2:6; Matt. 21:5; Isa. 9:6,7; Phil. 2:8-11.
See also: Gerety's Mantra
Postscript: This is just confirmation that Gerety indeed believes the Westminster Confession and the Westminster Catechism are wrong when they say that Jesus Christ is ONE PERSON:
Not quite sure if I'm just answering a fool according to his folly, but as Dr. Crampton said to me recently,
"If one takes GHC's definition, than one might legitimately say that Christ is one God-man and two persons. John Murray admitted this very thing. The great problem is one of definition." Obviously a problem that you are unable to grasp.
I'm just glad I wasn't foolish enough to accept your phony apology.
Goodbye.
That was received in the e-mail just now from Sean Gerety himself. So when Federal Visionists get to redefine terms so they can "appear" confessional it is apparently not OK. But when the folks at The Trinity Foundation tamper with definitions to justify unorthodox and unconfessional views it suddenly becomes acceptable. Is this not how Anabaptists operate? Overturning an entire confession of faith based on one person's speculation is unjustified.
I might add that this would apply equally to Robert L. Reymond's questioning of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.
See: Eternal Generation
--
Reasonable Christian Blog 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
Posts
45 comments:
Charlie, you are a liar.
Anyone who would like to read your phony apology and my reply may contact me privately and I will send them our entire exchange.
Sean, I don't hide my identity as you do. I could have posted our entire exchange here if I chose to do so.
The fact remains that reconciliation involves two parties. I had considered the possibility that I had misunderstood your position. If such were the case then there might have been room for some sort of mutual understanding.
Even though you continually duck and dive and hide you did clearly state in the e-mail that your view does indeed deny the Westminster Confession since you openly admitted that you hold to two different "persons" within the the "God-man" Jesus Christ. I posted the quote above for all to see.
Personally, it does not matter to me who your favorite theologians are who support that view. It is condemned by the Definition of Chalecedon 451, The Westminster Standards, The Three Forms of Unity, and by the Anglican Formularies. I know. None of those documents are infallible, inerrant, nor do they carry the final authority of Holy Scripture. But they do draw their "most certain warrants" from Holy Scripture just as the three ecumenical creeds do. (Article VIII).
There is a world of difference between lying and trying to find common ground. You have once again confirmed that we have no common ground. Your Nestorian heresy is no better than the Federal Vision error because it undermines the full deity and the full humanity of the one Person, Jesus Christ. The divine Logos assumes a full human being, including a reasonable human soul, into the Godhead. That is the biblical and the confessional position. It really does not matter who held your view, whether it be Gordon H. Clark, John Robbins, or Gary Crampton.
I would concede that Christ has two wills since the monothelite view was condemned. But to say that Christ was two persons is heresy.
Charlie
I guess He was a delusional schizophrenic?
40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person?
Answer: It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us,1 and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person.2
I would be more than happy to retract if you can explain to me how your view does not violate the Larger Catechism and the Westminster Confession?
Sincerely yours,
Charlie
Charlie, you have some kind of bizarre fetish with Anabaptists. You manage to mention them in every single post you comment on anywhere across the internet, whether relevant or not.
I might point out that earlier in his career, Gordon H. Clark strongly upheld the Westminster Confession's view that Christ was one person.
If you doubt this you can listen to his chapter on Christ the Mediator from What Do Presbyterians Believe?
The audio link is here:
Chapter of the Westminster Confession: Of Christ the Mediator
That should be Chapter VIII
Brandon, you must be omnipresent and omniscient since you could not possibly know everywhere I've been on the internet nor what I have said there:)
The Magisterial Reformers did not throw out the Creeds. Although the Definition of Chalcedon is not mentioned in toto, it is alluded to in all three of the Reformed Standards I mentioned.
That would include the Reformed Anglican Formularies: 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
How dare someone try to create a definition based on Scripture instead of blindly following the meaningless terminology concocted by a council of men!
I wonder at the sincerity of your comments at my site, Charlie. You seem to have not altered your opinions in the slightest.
No, my opinion is what it has always been. The BIBLE says that Jesus Christ is ONE person. I would challenge you to SHOW ME JUST ONE VERSE THAT SAYS HE IS TWO PERSONS. JUST ONE.
The fact is the Reformed Confessions get the doctrine of Christ right and you and your Nestorian heretical friends get it wrong.
You're a liar like the Federal Visionists. You keep saying one thing and meaning another.
I stand on the Word of God. Jesus is fully God and fully man, one Person. Scripture never says otherwise.
I was wrong to remove the charge that you're a Nestorian for obviously you agree with the view expressed by Gerety above.
If reconciliation means I have to accept the opinion of a handful of heretics over against Scripture and the Reformed Confessions, then obviously there is no possibility of reconciliation with heretics.
HERE I STAND!!!
HOW DARE I QUESTION THE POPES OVER AT GOD'S HAMMER!
Or is that Anabaptists?
You don't have to agree with anyone, but it sure would be nice if you'd quit lying.
Did you just get bored and decide to "reconcile"? What does "reconcile" even mean? And why would you want to reconcile with lying heretics?
What a joke. I am disappointed; I thought perhaps you had thought better about your knee-jerk accusations and unsubstantiated judgments. I can see that I was fooled.
"Knee jerk accusations"? Please.
The facts are there for everyone to see.
Tell you what. Write a response to my accusation and support your views from whatever sources you want. Clark, the Westminster Standards, Scripture.
I'll give you an opportunity to clear your name that way. If you can prove to me that your view is in line with Scripture and with the Westminster Standards, then there is no problem.
You're saying I'm making a "knee jerk" reaction. I'm saying your view is as insidious as any Federal Visionist.
Now if you simply judge the Federal Visionist by Scripture he can "claim" to be Scriptural. But what makes the Federal Visionist a heretic is that his view is unscriptural and unconfessional. The whole purpose of a confession of faith is to set apart heresy from truth and to give a common understanding of Scripture.
If you don't believe the confession has any authority, then your view is essentially Anabaptist. That's simple enough.
Sincerely,
Charlie
I'm not anticipating any thoughtful response here since it is obvious you guys would rather hide behind ambiguities and paradoxes and empty words.
So much for being willing to answer all the questions with logic and propositional truth.
Charlie
Pat, Charlie didn't get bored. His phony apology was precipitated by the fact that no one reads his blog, which is why he continually wants to post on mine.
Sincerely,
Sean Gerety
http://godshammer.wordpress.com/
Oh? That would be odd indeed since I've been asked to review Bibleworks 8.0 and received a complimentary copy as well. And just recently I was given a copy of a new book published by Latimer Trust and asked to review that as well.
It really is knee jerk to play these sorts of childish games.
My offer stands if you wish to publish a position paper on my blog defending your view of the incarnation... IF you're able to do something on that caliber.
Charlie
I've never tried to hide what I believe and I never will:)
Actually, you admitted that I never made a single heretical statement. Add amnesia to your list of mental maladies...
I've no need of writing a response. I never said a single damning thing.
This statement of yours, however, is very telling: "Now if you simply judge the Federal Visionist by Scripture he can "claim" to be Scriptural. But what makes the Federal Visionist a heretic is that his view is unscriptural and unconfessional."
Aha, so it's really the confession that matters, not Scripture, in your view. I thought as much.
Perhaps someone should alert the folks at BibleWorks that their reviewer is a liar.
I "admitted" nothing. I mistakenly thought you agreed with Chalcedon 451 and with the Westminster Confession and Larger Catechism posted above.
It's obvious you're a liar on the same level as a Norman Shepherd, John Piper, or Doug Wilson. You and the folks at God's Hammer strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
Really. How do you expect me to take you seriously when you say, "I'm not a heretic" and then you turn around and affirm that Christ is two persons "if you properly define your terms."
Please.
Nestorianism is Nestorianism no matter how you spin it with your double talk.
At least I have the courage to stand for the truth.
Charlie
Well, YES, the confession DOES matter. Unless of course there is no interpretation of Scripture.
But I forgot. You're an Anabaptist and you get to follow your own conscience--even if it leads you to heresy and to the depths of hell.
Scripture is the final authority. But that certainly does not mean you get to create your own personal cult or false religion. Joseph Smith already did that.
Mary Baker Eddy....
Oh, Ellen G. White...
Nevermind... Useless to argue with a Michael Servetus...
knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20 ESV)
lol wow. I love how you keep accusing me of saying/affirming things I've never said, just like last year. I don't suppose in a year's time that you've had the chance to actually support those claims with quotes? Eh, I thought not. Quite an imagination you've got there, Chas.
Also, I'm not an Anabaptist, although I don't expect you to understand the difference, since you have problems interpreting simple blog comments and read all sorts of fanciful tales into mine. For your readers' benefit, though, here's a cool post: http://sovereignlogos.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/confessing-the-faith-in-1644-and-1689-by-pastor-james-m-renihan/
Eh, I suppose I'm done replying to your lies. After all, my Anabaptist, Anti-Trinity, Anti-Incarnation, Anti-confessional, Anti-Christ, charismatic, pope-loving cult won't run itself!
@Patrick:
Has anyone proved that Clark's definition of 'person' is derived from Scripture?
I've been told several times that Proverbs 23:7 'clearly' defines a person as his mind. Someone show me how clear it is, given the context of the verse and given the different translations of it.
I've said this before: I find it hard to take Clarkians seriously when they challenge Van Til for his statement on the Trinity while trying to defend Clark's view of the incarnation. Clarkians seem to be in the same position as Vantillians as both try to save their ships from sinking.
speigel,
Exactly right. But that is the problem when we begin to follow our favorite preacher or theologian rather than following Scripture and the secondary authority of our confessions. The minute we begin to idolize someone or to put them on a pedestal we open ourselves to being led astray.
That's why I'm suspicious of just about every theologian I read. I love what Robert L. Reymond has to say about the order of God's decrees in his Systematic Theology. But Reymond's view of the eternal generation as "Arianism" is a bit much.
Liberal theologians are so subjective that much of their work reads like socialist propaganda. Unfortunately the noetic effect of sin has also tainted the ability of more conservative theologians to reason properly, including Van Til, Clark, Reymond and Robbins.
In fact, we are all tainted by the effect of sin on our ability to reason properly. If Van Til was too pessimistic and over-emphasized the incomprehensibility of God, Clark was overly impressed with himself and his own ability to "think God's thoughts after Him."
Methinks Calvin's approach was much better. Follow Scripture and reason as far as possible and then honestly admit it when we reach the end of our ability to solve the theological problems inherent in understanding Scripture.
The trouble with the blogosphere is everyone is an expert and everyone is ready to draw guns and shoot before looking to see who it is we're gunning down:) Maybe everyone should be more willing to be accountable for what they say and write? And when we depart from orthodoxy we ought to be willing to bear the consequences for such departures and sign our names to the documented departure instead of ducking and diving for cover as if we had done nothing wrong.
Doctrinal subscriptions to confessional statements are there for a reason. Truth divides us no doubt.
Peace!
Charlie
Speigel: Utterly beside the point, as I've never even once claimed to endorse Clark's view. All I've done is object to the ridiculous claim that he was a heretic. Of course, if you believe Charlie, I'm some sort of cultist that worships Clark. Before jumping on Charlie's bandwagon, make sure he's being honest (which he's not).
I said Clark *tried* to base his definition on Scripture. I didn't say he was successful. I have doubts myself. But does Charlie care? Does Charlie listen or read? No, he hurls fiery darts at anything that moves or dares to question his view. I have plainly stated my view several times to Charlie; he simply doesn't believe what I've actually written and decides to make up complete fabrications.
Patrick, you're no John F. Kennedy...
And you're certainly not a theologian anywhere near the caliber of Gordon H. Clark. Neither is Sean.
Fact is Gordon H. Clark got most other things fairly on target.
This last book of his was way off the mark, although I did think his critique of the Greek terms was accurate. Different councils used the same terms to mean opposite things at times.
I did disagree with Clark's understanding of Isaiah 45:7 since he totally ignored the fact that the word for "evil" there can and does mean natural disaster or calamity in other contexts.
Basically, Clark was a philosopher, not a theologian or a biblical exegete. His rejection of textual criticism seems a bit superficial.
Clark, like all theologians, was prone to err. To worship him as if he were always right or some sort of infallible authority on anything and everything is just silly.
Such idolatrous adulation is no better than those who venerate Van Til or Bahnsen or Rushdoony.
As Forest Gump once said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Patrick, the last time I checked "Baptists" draw their theory of ecclesiastical polity and their doctrine of the sacraments from the Anabaptists.
None of the Reformers advocated "credobaptism". That's an Anabaptist doctrine. So is "following your own conscience". Even if leads to rejecting the trinity.
Charlie, I don't get the Kennedy reference. I am well aware of my own limitations. I have no idea why you're saying these things.
I don't worship Clark or think he's infallible, and I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS TO YOU THE WHOLE TIME. Your unwillingness to quote me, your paranoia, your completely unfounded accusations against me... it's all very disturbing.
Political speech given at a presidential debate several years ago. Nevermind.
I guess if you had not jumped on the bandwagon with the rest of the vultures there could have been a civil discussion.
I can see now why Sean has such a bad reputation with the PCA bloggers.
As it stands, after I review the book by Lee Gatiss I plan to write a review of The Trinity and The Incarnation.
Charlie
Whatever, Charlie. You're a liar. You have borne false witness against myself and others, and you have refused to apologize and retract your groundless accusations.
Anyone who wonders about this is more than welcome to visit my blog and contact me to ask about my views.
Well, Patrick, you are welcome to clarify your view by writing an article explaining exactly what your view is on the incarnation of Christ and the doctrine of the hypostatic union.
Calling me a liar is the easy way out. If your views are orthodox, surely you can express them?
Charlie
@Patrick: Read my comment. I never said you defended Clark's definition. I'm asking you to defend it now.
And how has Clark tried to define person from Proverbs 23:7? I know he has defined it based on that verse, but how does he do it?
Or are you simply not going to answer the question?
And to let you know, I think Charlie is wrong on his criticisms with regards to Clark and with regards to his defense of the orthodox view of the incarnation.
If you want a much better discussion on the incarnation take a look at Robert L. Reymond's Systematic Theology.
Whether "I" am right or wrong is irrelevant. The question is what does the Bible have to say on the issue and what is the "catholic" or "universal" consensus on the matter?
The Lutherans and ALL the magisterial Reformers upheld the three catholic creeds and the Definition of Chalcedon 451.
I plan to do more reading and to do a series of blog articles on the incarnation soon.
My position is the Reformed position. I was in that Anabaptist follow your own opinions view for long enough to know it is baloney.
When the vast majority of the church has spoken over several centuries on a doctrine that is a good indication that extreme caution should be exercised. Knee jerk reactions like Clark's is a bit much.
Sola Scriptura!
Building an entire doctrine of human psychology on one verse is a bit much.
for he is like one who is inwardly calculating. "Eat and drink!" he says to you, but his heart is not with you. (Proverbs 23:7 ESV)
The verse occurs in seven lines that go together. Pulling one verse out of that and saying that this is the be all and end all in what constitutes the human soul is to go beyond what the text says or even implies.
The Bible is not a book of philosophy or psychology. It is a doctrinal book that contains wisdom, morality, and theology. Clark's assumed meaning of nephesh cannot be used to deny the doctrine of the unity of Jesus Christ as one man who is also the Divine Logos. John 1 proves that Jesus and the Logos are the same person since the pronoun used is "he" and only one person is referred to in that chapter, not two.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that there are two consciousnesses in Christ.
Charlie
I should add that I don't much care what you think Clark said or meant. As Cheung implied what really matters is what does the BIBLE say about the issue. It does not take much to see that the Bible never separates Christ into two persons. He and His Father are One. That means He Himself is God. That's so simple a child can understand it.
@Charlie:
I thought this was a discussion about Clark's view. So, yes, your criticisms on Clark's view and defenses against Clark's view are relevant; and very much lacking.
Even Cheung understood that you were asking about Clark's view and not necessarily about the biblical doctrine of the incarnation.
You tend to shoot before you aim. At one point, you criticized Clark's view without actually reading his book.
I didn't have to read his book to know that everyone else at God's Hammer thought he was teaching that Jesus was two persons.
But I can assure you that I have done plenty of reading on the doctrine of the Incarnation. My minor in college was systematic theology and I've done plenty of reading since then.
As I said before, Robert L. Reymond's review of the doctrine beats Clark's view hands down, although I disagree with Reymond's critique of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit.
You conveniently ignored the fact that Cheung said that the real issue is what does the Scripture have to say about this?
Clearly there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to suggest that Jesus is two persons.
If Clark's view is both unscriptural and unconfessional, then it is most definitely heresy.
I should also point out to you that this blog is dedicated to the Reformed Standards, not to popular opinion or the opinions of a few self-appointed popes.
@Charlie:
Cheung explicitly states in his response (as posted on your blog) that the controversy mentioned to him was over Clark's view and not necessarily over the biblical view. Cheung saw that this controversy over Clark's view was limited. Cheung expressly states that the controversy mentioned to him WASN'T over the correct interpretation of Scripture. Cheung does set you straight by telling you that the more important issue is what the Scriptures say about the incarnation. But too bad you only wanted to talk to Cheung about Clark's view. So stop your talking out of two mouths. Waste of everyone's time.
How can you criticize Clark's view without knowing what his view was and what his defenses were? It's good enough to go by what Clarkians say? Stop being lazy.
Lastly, I do not defend Clark's view. I expressly deny it. Learn to talk to people without thinking everyone is arguing against you.
Ironic: You are a self-appointed pope.
speigel,
This is my blog. You're not over in Kansas anymore. If you do not conduct yourself with respect I will not post your remarks.
Cheung clearly states that what matters is what Scripture says, which is why he refused to comment on "Clark's view". What is more, Cheung outright denies that he is an expert on Clark and has not read Clark in years.
So much for blindly following one man. That is the formula for cults and new religions.
Now, if you would care to actually write a scholarly article on the issue with footnotes and/or hyperlinks, I would be happy to post it. On the other hand, if you're going to come here and make vague and general statements and use ad hominem attacks, you can go back to Sean's blog and enjoy yourself there.
If you disagree with Clark's view, tell me what Clark's view is, what your view is, compare and contrast. What's wrong with Clark's view. You do know how to write a critical review, don't you?
If not, stop wasting my time with childish rantings. Scholarship takes work. If you're not willing to do any work then your opinion remains simply an empty and unsubstantiated opinion.
Sincerely yours,
Charlie
I might also point out that you conveniently hide behind a pseudonym, spiegel. I have laid my reputation on the line by identifying myself on the blog AND in every comment I make on ANY blog.
Identify yourself! If you want to be taken seriously.
In fact, I think R. Scott Clark's policy is a good one. Anonymous posting may not be posted.
Charlie
I did read the book, btw:)
And at the time I was being attacked I was defending the Confessional view. You don't need to know the details of a counterfeit to know something is wrong. When you know the genuine doctrine well you also know when you see a departure from it.
Charlie
Post a Comment