tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post4097420144509960054..comments2024-03-27T20:28:38.015-04:00Comments on Reasonable Christian: Gordon H. Clark Denies Nestorianism: There Are Not Two "Souls" in the One Lord Jesus ChristCharlie J. Rayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-34579580321012875042011-10-08T21:06:34.069-04:002011-10-08T21:06:34.069-04:00I've changed my mind a bit on Clark's view...I've changed my mind a bit on Clark's view and do not believe he intended to endorse Nestorianism.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-32568017465086404942011-10-08T21:02:55.030-04:002011-10-08T21:02:55.030-04:00Acolyte, as usual you resort to strawman misrepres...Acolyte, as usual you resort to strawman misrepresentations to attack the reformed view. The Reformers never said that Jesus was a hybrid. That's your silliness again. AFTER the incarnation Jesus is forever a divine/human person. The two natures cannot be separated--even AFTER the ascension. BEFORE the incarnation there was no human nature assumed into the divine being/nature. The LogosCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-52563413152152306022011-08-20T21:58:28.588-04:002011-08-20T21:58:28.588-04:00Charlie,
I agree that the divine person of the Lo...Charlie,<br /><br />I agree that the divine person of the Logos did not replace the human soul and so Jesus being fully human had a human soul. But since the soul is not the person, the one person of the Logos is all and only a divine person or hypostasis. Being united to a human soul and body doesn’t change the divine person of the Logos into a human/divine person. So I think you’ve confused Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-38242593165422025522011-06-03T20:14:44.572-04:002011-06-03T20:14:44.572-04:00I find it odd that a philosophy student and someon...I find it odd that a philosophy student and someone who promotes Eastern Orthodoxy does not understand a creed expressing essential doctrine necessary for salvation. The creed is authoritative precisely because it expresses the teaching of Scripture, the final authority.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-29769933722370758362011-06-03T20:12:25.254-04:002011-06-03T20:12:25.254-04:00The union of the two natures is in the ONE person....The union of the two natures is in the ONE person. Nature=attributes. Christ possesses ALL the attributes of deity AND all the attributes of humanity yet He is one person.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-67258029602951738692011-06-03T20:11:16.685-04:002011-06-03T20:11:16.685-04:00Acolyte, Jesus Christ was One Person. The Definit...Acolyte, Jesus Christ was One Person. The Definition of Chalcedon states that the Logos did not replace the human soul. Thus, the one Person is BOTH divine AND human. He is not simply divine. That would mean that Christ was not fully human.<br /><br />The WCF is simply following the Definition of Chalcedon. So on that point Clark denied both the WCF and the Definition of Chalcedon.<br /><brCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-77015370804427607882011-06-03T20:01:15.350-04:002011-06-03T20:01:15.350-04:00Acolyte, I agree that Gordon H. Clark changed his ...Acolyte, I agree that Gordon H. Clark changed his mind and in his final book endorsed the Nestorian heresy. I disagree with Clark and I would have to question his salvation on that point alone. Jesus Christ is both God and Man perfectly united in one Person. I agree with the Definition of Chalcedon 451 AND the Reformed Confessions: 39 Articles of Religion, Three Forms of Unity, and Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-58184006631162621042011-05-25T13:34:45.938-04:002011-05-25T13:34:45.938-04:00Charlie,
Clark’s view as articulated in his book ...Charlie,<br /><br />Clark’s view as articulated in his book on the incarnation is clearly Nestorian. First, he argues that the soul is the person. Next he implicitly argues that to predicate of the Word is to predicate something of him qua nature. Consequently the Word cannot suffer and die, get tired and so on. Consequently for Clark, it was a man who died on the Cross, not a divine person. Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-38828343693216976892010-06-24T14:34:11.487-04:002010-06-24T14:34:11.487-04:00Patrick, I didn't apologize nor do I intend to...Patrick, I didn't apologize nor do I intend to apologize. Why not? Because your theology is still questionable in my mind just on the basis of your comments over at God's Hammer during the heat of the discussion. You are still hiding and ducking and diving and you are unwilling to clarify exactly what you believe. I have offered to post a paper of yours explaining your view of the Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-83893099741790984302010-06-24T14:29:22.274-04:002010-06-24T14:29:22.274-04:00This quote from Clark shows that early on he is qu...This quote from Clark shows that early on he is questioning the hypostatic union. The orthodox position is that Logos assumes a complete human nature into the Godhead, which would include assuming a reasonable human soul as part of that human nature.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-48715842247696946692010-06-24T14:24:05.525-04:002010-06-24T14:24:05.525-04:00No need for an insincere mock apology. May God gra...No need for an insincere mock apology. May God grant you better discernment, and may He keep matches out of your hands.Patrick T. McWilliamshttp://sovereignlogos.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-91202642041676850992010-06-24T09:08:26.082-04:002010-06-24T09:08:26.082-04:00Patrick, I broke fellowship with Gerety and with T...Patrick, I broke fellowship with Gerety and with The Trinity Foundation over the controversy of the creed of Chalcedon, which is supported by the WSC and the TFU and the Anglican Formularies.<br /><br />Since you continue to be in fellowship with those who are in open heresy, I don't trust much you have to say.<br /><br />Gerety wants to try to turn the burden of proof upside down. However, Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-83933416946387747502010-06-23T22:39:53.463-04:002010-06-23T22:39:53.463-04:00... Are you trying to convince me of something?... Are you trying to convince me of something?Patrick T. McWilliamshttp://sovereignlogos.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-26346253039153685382010-06-23T19:08:59.722-04:002010-06-23T19:08:59.722-04:00Belgic Confession Article 18: Of the Incarnation o...Belgic Confession <a href="http://www.christurc.org/belgic.html#a18" rel="nofollow">Article 18</a>: Of the Incarnation of the Son of God<br /><br />We confess, therefore, that God has fulfilled the promise He made to the fathers by the mouth of His holy prophets[1] when, at the time appointed by Him,[2] He sent into the world His own only-begotten and eternal Son, who took the form of a servant Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-80483882142041537512010-06-23T19:04:28.086-04:002010-06-23T19:04:28.086-04:00Belgic Confession Article 19: Of the Hypostatic Un...Belgic Confession <a href="http://www.christurc.org/belgic.html#a19" rel="nofollow">Article 19</a>: Of the Hypostatic Union or of the Two Natures in the Person of Christ<br /><br />We believe that by this conception the person of the Son of God is inseparably united and joined with the human nature,[1] so that there are not two sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in one single Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-43532418556470015962010-06-23T18:58:18.441-04:002010-06-23T18:58:18.441-04:00No problem; blogging can be an imprecise art.
Sti...No problem; blogging can be an imprecise art.<br /><br />Still sadly waiting for you to realize I'm not a Nestorian.Patrick T. McWilliamshttp://sovereignlogos.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-22345628312492041362010-06-23T18:54:50.177-04:002010-06-23T18:54:50.177-04:00What I said was:
The two natures are united in th...What I said was:<br /><br /><i>The two natures are united in the one person, Jesus Christ who is both the Divine Logos and a human person assumed by the Logos.<br /><br />That assumption of a reasonable human soul into the Godhead and by the second person of the Godhead does not make Jesus less than God or less than human.</i><br /><br />That was clarified in the second paragraph. I meant "Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-5931267638352830632010-06-23T17:49:59.828-04:002010-06-23T17:49:59.828-04:00Whoa whoa wait a second. I just realized something...Whoa whoa wait a second. I just realized something. In your last comment, you said,<br /><br />"The two natures are united in the one person, Jesus Christ who is both the Divine Logos a human person assumed by the Logos."<br /><br />Did you mean to say "a human nature"? Because otherwise that seems to say that the Logos is not a Person, but that the Logos assumed a human Patrick T. McWilliamshttp://sovereignlogos.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-35539177027981125952010-06-23T16:51:26.541-04:002010-06-23T16:51:26.541-04:00Mkay, now hows about producing a quote where I dis...Mkay, now hows about producing a quote where I disagree with your last two paragraphs? Because I don't disagree...Patrick T. McWilliamshttp://sovereignlogos.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-9968487108506252982010-06-23T16:22:02.291-04:002010-06-23T16:22:02.291-04:00Your response is about as solid as jello, Patrick....Your response is about as solid as jello, Patrick. There is nothing unclear about the Scriptural position and it is summarized in the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, and in the Definition of Chalcedon 451. There is nothing unclear in the creed--if you are not trying to wiggle out of it or explain away what the creed obviously negates.<br /><br />As Calvin said, there are limitsCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-18758540071772827752010-06-23T16:05:52.827-04:002010-06-23T16:05:52.827-04:00I don't have a statement on Clark's view, ...I don't have a statement on Clark's view, because I'm not sure I understand it fully. I also refuse to take your word for it, just as I won't take Sean's word for it.<br /><br />I think Chalcedon's formulation is not very specifically defined, and needs improvement, though I would not disagree with it.<br /><br />I believe Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.<br /><br Patrick T. McWilliamshttp://sovereignlogos.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-56068832178064008172010-06-23T14:02:45.810-04:002010-06-23T14:02:45.810-04:00I would be more than happy to post any formal stat...I would be more than happy to post any formal state you have on the matter of Gordon H. Clark's view of the doctrine of Christ and the Definition of Chalcedon 451 A. D., particularly in how that relates to the Scriptural doctrine of Christ as fully God and fully man.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-78635999275363504692010-06-23T14:00:25.931-04:002010-06-23T14:00:25.931-04:00I know no such thing, and neither do you, since yo...I know no such thing, and neither do you, since you can't seem to produce a single quote. Is your conscience that seared that you don't mind straight-up lying? I'm not *backpedaling*, either.Patrick T. McWilliamshttp://sovereignlogos.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-61007185619935988822010-06-23T13:35:07.781-04:002010-06-23T13:35:07.781-04:00Patrick, you know very well you were supporting Cl...Patrick, you know very well you were supporting Clark's view in the previous debate. If you want to backpeddle, that is fine with me.<br /><br />CharlieCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-12013209865779365812010-06-23T13:22:06.560-04:002010-06-23T13:22:06.560-04:00I agree with your first paragraph. I never cited S...I agree with your first paragraph. I never cited Sean as an authority though, and I don't recall having any "Anabaptist" revelations... I also never said that Jesus was two persons, in fact, I believe He is one person. You just like to smear people's good name, apparently, and then not admit when you're clearly wrong about me.Patrick T. McWilliamshttp://sovereignlogos.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com