tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post7437952407986124353..comments2024-03-27T20:28:38.015-04:00Comments on Reasonable Christian: John Robbins' Comment: W. Gary Crampton on the IncarnationCharlie J. Rayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-73204044624299265022010-07-12T21:36:51.444-04:002010-07-12T21:36:51.444-04:00Asbury is an Evangelical, Wesleyan holiness semina...Asbury is an Evangelical, Wesleyan holiness seminary that trains mostly United Methodists and Free Methodists. Though they do have pentecostals and other holiness denominations like the Nazarenes, Wesleyans, Salvation Army, etc.Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-20192405850171449492010-07-12T21:28:30.505-04:002010-07-12T21:28:30.505-04:00Hi, Scott... Actually, the Molinist position is a...Hi, Scott... Actually, the Molinist position is a variation of Arminianism with its theory of middle knowledge. I was an Arminian for most of my life until I graduated from Asbury Seminary when I became a Calvinist. <br /><br />I'm not a fan of Barth or neo-orthodoxy because I believe it is simply a another form of liberalism and has much in common with Arminianism.<br /><br />The creeds Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-91465932183571474552010-07-12T20:07:55.760-04:002010-07-12T20:07:55.760-04:00Yeah Charlie, I am not an Arminian either (althoug...Yeah Charlie, I am not an Arminian either (although Millard would probably prefer we call him a Molinist see p387 of his Sys. Theo.) but I believe an Arminian can be correct on some doctrine such as a 6-24 hr day creation or the Trinity and, since I matriculated from a liberal Southern Baptist school which taught Barthianism myself, I don't usually hold it against people where they went to Scott Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-53102725111323032372010-07-11T08:48:07.012-04:002010-07-11T08:48:07.012-04:00Did Clark Cross the Line into Nestorianism?<a href="http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2010/04/did-gordon-h-clark-cross-line-into.html" rel="nofollow">Did Clark Cross the Line into Nestorianism?</a>Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-55423139676779941432010-07-11T08:37:47.160-04:002010-07-11T08:37:47.160-04:00Scott,
It looks like Mathison's book raises ...Scott, <br /><br />It looks like Mathison's book raises a legitimate issue. Too many Presbyterians and Evangelicals lightly discard the creeds and confessions. The 39 Articles strongly uphold the three main creeds because they draw their most certain warrant from Holy Scripture.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.members.tripod.com/~gavvie/39articles/art1.html#8" rel="nofollow">Article VIII</a>Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-44168204646216097562010-07-10T23:56:29.797-04:002010-07-10T23:56:29.797-04:00I forgot to mention that I'm not familiar with...I forgot to mention that I'm not familiar with Keith Mathison. Now that I reflect I seem to remember there was something in Reymond's book about whether the Son is eternally generated by the Father or whether or not the Son is eternally self-existent. As I said, I don't have my copy handy so I can't speak without reviewing that portion of the book.<br /><br />I would have to sayCharlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-52992561264999171682010-07-10T23:38:53.696-04:002010-07-10T23:38:53.696-04:00Hi, Scott...
I appreciate your comment. It's...Hi, Scott...<br /><br />I appreciate your comment. It's been awhile since I read Robert Reymond's book and I don't have it handy at the moment because some of my library is in storage. However, from what I can remember Reymond's controversy was not the eternal procession of the Son but rather the "dual procession" of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son. Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-4121926401887532962010-07-10T22:56:13.012-04:002010-07-10T22:56:13.012-04:00This is a serious charge Charlie that I will have ...This is a serious charge Charlie that I will have to investigate. I am a fan of a lot of Gordon's books although I have never read the one you mention. I have never read Gordon deny the deity of Christ or that Christ is God in the flesh or the literal virgin birth. <br /><br />I just happened upon your blog and am not familiar with all of your posts but I happened to notice that one of your Scott Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-77684667152462783992010-04-19T13:44:44.021-04:002010-04-19T13:44:44.021-04:00Jesus was fully man. Clark gets that part right. B...<i>Jesus was fully man. Clark gets that part right. But he does not realize that Jesus must be fully God as well. It sounds to me as if Clark doesn't even put God in a body!</i><br /><br />Well, Clark's later heretical view seems to logically place God in a human body in the sense that the divine second Person merely <i>takes up residence</i> or <i>indwells</i> a distinct human person in Roger Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350892815584257304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-17669547487046712432010-04-19T05:01:49.687-04:002010-04-19T05:01:49.687-04:00Jesus was fully man. Clark gets that part right. ...Jesus was fully man. Clark gets that part right. But he does not realize that Jesus must be fully God as well. It sounds to me as if Clark doesn't even put God in a body!Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-47142413880107689962010-04-19T05:00:27.825-04:002010-04-19T05:00:27.825-04:00You're right, Roger. Clark was unbalanced. C...You're right, Roger. Clark was unbalanced. Calvin's discussion of the issue in the Institutes is better than Clark and Calvin wrote in the 16th century!Charlie J. Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185331029930925967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-81299914475251949342010-04-19T04:11:36.599-04:002010-04-19T04:11:36.599-04:00In addition to the view that Jesus was "God i...In addition to the view that Jesus was "God in a body," a theologian by the name of Nestor conceived Jesus Christ <i>to be two different persons</i>: one person purely human, the other purely divine [precisely the <i>same</i> view that is being aggressively advanced on Sean Gerety's blog]. Another attempt was to conceive of the Savior as neither God nor man, but a sort of "Roger Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350892815584257304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15388492.post-89624221719094577362010-04-19T04:10:19.814-04:002010-04-19T04:10:19.814-04:00(This is broken up into two posts, due to its exce...(This is broken up into two posts, due to its excessive size)<br /><br />Here's Gordon H. Clark, commenting on the Westminster Confession 8.2, <i>prior to his descent into heresy</i> in his final book before he died, The Incarnation:<br /><br />The first three lines of section ii refer back to the doctrine of the Trinity in Chapter II. Jesus Christ is "very and eternal God." Unlike Roger Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350892815584257304noreply@blogger.com