Was Gordon H. Clark a Nestorian Heretic? The Incarnation

On the left is the orthodox teaching and on the right is the Nestorian heresy.  Mary is called the "God bearer" because the son she gave birth to is fully God.  The Nestorian error calls Mary the Christ bearer because there is no complete union of the two natures in Jesus Christ.  The two natures are loosely associated in a "relationship".

"Clark is here proving that not only empirical science is subject to correction but so is theological and philosophical science apparently."  --Charlie J. Ray

[11/18/2013.  Addendum: I no longer believe that Clark was guilty of Nestorianism.  I am letting this article stand as written to show the process of my thinking.  Basically, Clark defines the "person" as the propositions he thinks.  Thus, the divine Person of the Logos thinks what only God can think and what only the second Person of the Godhead thinks.  This is also what distinguishes the three Persons of the Trinity.  Clark's thought evolved over the years as well.  Anyone reading his books can see that he earlier on did not challenge the traditional view that Christ is one Person with two natures.  But the philosophical and logical mind of Clark could not be content with apparent contradictions.  So Clark tackled the apparent paradox of the incarnation.  He has been falsely accused of rationalism because of this.  But would that not also make the theologians who formulated the Definition of Chalcedon guilty of "rationalism"?  Also, it should be noted that Dr. Clark distinguished between common, every day language and technical definitions.  He rejected the idea of "religion" because the word is undefined.  But he acknowledged that the word is useful in everyday language.  The same can be said of the traditional language that Jesus is one Person in two natures.  Technically, if He had two wills, divine and human, he must have had two minds and two persons united in one incarnate Jesus Christ.  Charlie]

Similarly Titus 2:13.  The King James version has it:  "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ."  This allows the objector to separate the great God from our Lord Jesus Christ.  But the sense, even in the King James version, and even more so by the usual rules of Greek grammar, does not permit this separation, for the subject matter is the glorious return of our Lord.  One person returns:  not the Father, but the Son.  Hence the great God and Jesus is the same person. --Gordon H. Clark, The Trinity.

Due to recent ad hominem attacks in a Facebook forum I am compelled to post a brief statement in response to a debate that occurred at the God's Hammer blog a year or so ago.  You can read a few of the posts that I did at my blog during that period here:  The Incarnation Debate.  This response is not a formal paper but an ad hoc response due to the controversy being rehashed in a Facebook forum.

Unfortunately, the followers of Clark are not as well trained in logic as Clark himself was.   That being the case, along with the noetic effects of sin, human beings often make mistakes in reasoning from the logical propositions recorded in Scripture.  The logic of Scripture is not the problem but our ability to reason properly remains.  That being the case the debate over just how Jesus Christ could be both God and man in one person is an ongoing debate. 

Gordon H. Clark died prematurely and was unable to finish his last book, The Incarnation, (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1988).  In that book, Clark argued that the term "nature" does not adequately deal with the issue of what constitutes a human being as a "person" with a human and physical body.  Clark defines person as the propositions that he thinks.  So Clark concludes that since it is impossible for a finite mind to be omniscient it is therefore impossible for Christ to be both God and man in the same "person".  Clark then utilizes his distinction of persons for his theology of the trinity in solving the problem for the incarnation.  The persons of the trinity are distinguished from each other by the propositions they think.  In the same way the divine person of the Logos is distinguished from the human person of Jesus Christ by the propositions that each thinks.  So there are two persons in Jesus Christ, said Dr. Clark.  One is left to infer that the body is a shell inhabited by two persons.  That conclusion does indeed imply the Nestorian heresy since there is no true hypostatic union of the two "natures" in the one person of Christ.  Whether or not Dr. Clark is actually guilty of that error is a matter of debate.  The traditional formulation of the doctrine of the incarnation is irrational, according to Dr. Clark.  Therefore there must be a reformulation of the doctrine. 

Earlier in Dr. Clark's career he advocated the Chalcedonian theology of the Incarnation without qualification.  (See Definition of Chalcedon 451). That can be seen easily by reading his commentary on Colossians and other sources.  Additionally, it should be noted that the Westminster Confession and Standards, the Anglican Formularies, and the Three Forms of Unity all uphold the theology of Chalcedon:

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature,1 with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;2 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.3 So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.4 Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.5

See also: WLC 36-37 | WSC 21-22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 John 1:1,14; 1 John 5:20; Phil. 2:6; Gal. 4:4.
2 Heb. 2:14,16,17; Heb. 4:15.
3 Luke 1:27,31,35; Gal. 4:4.
4 Luke 1:35; Col. 2:9; Rom. 9:5; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Tim. 3:16.
5 Rom. 1:3,4; 1 Tim. 2:5.

The Westminster Larger Catechism says:

36. Who is the Mediator of the covenant of grace?

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.

The Heidelberg Catechism makes it even more clear that unless the Mediator is fully divine the full price of redemption cannot be met:

Question 17. Why must he in one person be also very God?

Answer: That he might, by the power of his Godhead sustain in his human nature, the burden of God's wrath; and might obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life.  (See: Lord's Day 6).

I can post similar doctrinal propositions from the Three Forms of Unity and from the Anglican Formularies.  It should suffice that Dr. Clark chose to go against traditional Reformed theology here.  His view, although not technically identical with the Nestorian error does reject the Westminster Confession, which is supposed to be Dr. Clark's theological standard.  It is therefore not unreasonable to say that at this point Dr. Clark became unconfessional. 

Dr. Clark's conclusion is that the hypostatic union is impossible:

The usual theological treatment  of the problem is so self-contradictory that nearly any escape looks promising.  After stating that Jesus was a man, a "true" man, the theologians continue by arguing that he was not a man at all--he was only a "nature".  For them the boy in the temple and the assistant carpenter in Nazareth was some set of qualities attaching to the Second Person.  But this is impossible for two reasons.  First, it attaches contradictory characteristics to a single Person.  He is both omnipotent and frail; he is both omnipresent and localized; he is omniscient, but he is ignorant of some things.  In the second place, closely related to the first, the characteristics of an ordinary man cannot possibly attach to Deity.  The Logos never gets tired or thirsty; the Logos never increases in either stature or wisdom.  The Logos is eternal and immutable.  How then can these human characteristics possibly be characteristics of God?  But by irresponsibly assigning such qualities to God, the theologians contradict their other statement that Jesus was truly man.  Even the  word true betrays the weakness of their position.  Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay. The Scripture simply and plainly says, "The Man Christ Jesus."  (The Incarnation, pp. 76-77).

Three years earlier Clark espoused a completely different view of the incarnation in his book, The Trinity,  reprint 1990, (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1985).  He seems to uphold the full deity of Christ in pages 12-17 and even cites Matthew 11:27; John 1:1; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13 to prove that Jesus Christ is indeed fully God.  On page 17, however, we begin see a bit of doubt:

Similarly Titus 2:13.  The King James version has it:  "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ."  This allows the objector to separate the great God from our Lord Jesus Christ.  But the sense, even in the King James version, and even more so by the usual rules of Greek grammar, does not permit this separation, for the subject matter is the glorious return of our Lord.  One person returns:  not the Father, but the Son.  Hence the great God and Jesus is the same person.  In the list of  verses above, the New American Standard translation was used.  [See:  Titus 2:13 NASB].  This is a better translation of this verse, for it is difficult in Greek to separate "of us" (our) from "the great God."

Now, these are by no means the only verses that assert the Deity of Christ.  There are many others.  Nevertheless, no matter how clear these verses are by themselves, they raise tremendous problems when taken with the remainder of the Scriptures.  The first has already been mentioned:  How can there be two or three Gods?  What is the relation of the second to the first?  The early Church faced a second problem also.  The New Testament describes Jesus, not merely as God, but also as a man.  He had a body, he ate, he walked, he got tired, he wept, and he died.  How then can he be God?  A man cannot be God, can he?  Not only did the early Church have difficulty in thinking so; but Kierkegaard assures us that it is absolutely impossible.  To say that God is eternal and that he became incarnate is to contradict oneself.  (The Trinity, pp. 16-17).

On page 59 Clark out and out rejects the two person view as heresy:

But the orthodox doctrine allows the three persons of the Trinity to have one will only, while surprisingly the incarnate Jesus has two wills, one divine, one human; and yet even with a human will, and "reasonable soul," he is not a human person.  Nestorianism, with its assertion that Christ was two persons, though plausible on the ground of this psychology, is nonetheless, on the ground of the mediatorial atonement, a heresy.  (The Trinity, page 59).

Clark likes to proceed through several long and complicated arguments before we arrive at his conclusions.  This is particularly true of  his last book, The Incarnation.  As you can see, however, in three short years Clark went from advocating the view espoused in the Athanasian Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and the Westminster Standards to the opposite view, namely that Jesus is two persons and not one person with the attributes of both the divine being and the human being united hypostatically.  In his book on the trinity, Clark has no problem uniting three persons in one being.  That would mean that the trinity has a non-personal being that unites the three persons who are defined by the "propositions" that they think.  Yet, in his book on the incarnation Clark reverses himself and says that a "nature" is meaningless without the definition of "person" as a set of propositions that the person "thinks".   So not only does Clark's final book reverse his view of the incarnation as Christ being a unity of a reasonable soul of a human with the divine Logos in one Person, but Clark seems to undermine the genus of unity of the three persons of the Godhead.  In short, his final book on the incarnation would imply that the trinity is really tritheism since the divine nature is not a meaningful term in Clark's opinion.  Of course, Scripture says that there is a divine nature:

θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως (2Pe 1:4 NA27)  and θειότης (Rom 1:20 NA27)  [Theias koinonoi phuseos 2 Peter 1:4 NASB and theiotes Romans 1:20].

If we follow the axiom that Scripture is the univocal Word of God as Clark and his supporters postulated in The Answer, then it would seem that Clark's objection to the creeds and the Westminster Standards are based on his exaltation of human intellect above Scripture.  If God is not contradictory in Himself, then the inerrant Scriptures are not contradictory either.  If Scripture portrays Jesus as both human and as God then we must find another way of solving the apparent contradiction than denying what the Scriptures plainly teach, as Clark himself earlier acknowledged in The Trinity.

Although some will disagree, it would seem simply from this brief examination that Clark has been unduly influenced by Kierkegaard's opinion when he said:

A man cannot be God, can he?  Not only did the early Church have difficulty in thinking so; but Kierkegaard assures us that it is absolutely impossible.  To say that God is eternal and that he became incarnate is to contradict oneself.  (The Trinity, p. 17).

Clark is here proving that not only empirical science is subject to correction but so is theological and philosophical science apparently.  Judging simply on this and what the original language texts have to say Clark's solution to the dilemma introduces more problems than it solves.  I will not go so far as to call his view Nestorianism since he never fully explains how his two person view is compatible with the biblical doctrine that Jesus is one person, which Clark himself admitted in his book on the trinity.  There has to be a unity of the divine person/nature and the human person/reasonable soul without dividing, confusing, mixing or conflating them.  The idea that Christ is a man and not divine could also be open to the charge of kenosis, that the Logos emptied Himself of Deity to become man.  Clark would never agree to that since the trinity would then be reduced to two persons and that God could "change".   As you can see Clark's solution opens up other questions and does not actually improve on the confessional statements in Westminster or in the Athanasian Creed or the Definition of Chalcedon.


John Robbins does not clarify much in the conclusion to The Incarnation when he says:

The relationship that obtains between the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, and Jesus is unique, unlike that between the Logos and every other man who comes into the world (see John 1:9).  The Logos did not merely light the mind of Christ;  the Logos is fully in Christ.  Christ could therefore say, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  No mere prophet could make such an astounding claim.  Prophets, inspired by God, possess some of the divine propositions.  Christ, however, possesses them all, as the author of Hebrews argues in his first chapter.  (The Incarnation, p. 77).

One has to ask if the other prophets possess some portion of the divine nature?  Scripture says that Jesus was unique not because of having more propositions than other men but because he was full of deity and he possessed the divine nature as noted above.  But Scripture never once says that the prophets possess some of the "propositions" inherent in the "divine nature".  This also raises the question about the premise of The Trinity Foundation that even a plow boy can read the Bible and understand theology.  If Scripture is sufficient and is non-contradictory, why are we obligated to answer Kierkegaard's objection on the basis of reason?  Should not the fact that revelation is the very Word of God be sufficient?  If so, then despite our inability to solve the apparent contradiction at this time, we ought to believe God's Word first.  That would include the confession of the catholic and Reformed churches which draw the warrant for that confession from Scripture as the final authority, not the opinions of individual men like Clark and Robbins.  (See:  Article VIII, Thirty-nine Articles of Religion).

Although I generally do endorse the Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, where Clark departs from the clear teaching of Scripture and the confessions that draw their warrant from Scripture I am not obliged to follow.  Sola Scriptura!  That being said, I admire and endorse the work of The Trinity Foundation in its battle against theonomy/reconstruction, the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue/New Perspectives on Paul and other heresies confronting the Reformed churches today.

Unfortunately, some who frequent ad hoc discussion forums cannot differentiate between a rational and prepared paper or article discussing issues biblically and logically and emotivist and ad hominem fallacies that frequently occur in such forums.  I am as guilty as anyone else of allowing my temper to get the best of me when irrational and unbiblical positions are presented as if they were the only possible interpretation of the texts in Scripture.  Even the supporters of Dr. Clark, The Philadelphia Presbytery of the Orthodox Church,  acknowledged that everyone makes mistakes in exegesis:  

Since everyone makes mistakes in exegesis, it is beside the point whether Dr. Clark is right or wrong on this point. All that should be of concern to Presbytery is whether Dr. Clark asserts both sovereignty and responsibility.  (p. 31, of The Answer).

In conclusion, I wish to apologize for any overly polemical statements I made during the debate with Sean Gerety at God's Hammer.   However, I stand by my view that Dr. Clark and Dr. Robbins were unconfessional and possibly in error in their statements made in The Incarnation.  That does not negate the whole body of work of both men as I agree with them more often than not.  However, as a guard against error we as Reformed Christians are obligated to the perspicuity of Scripture first and foremost.  Our commitment to confessional statements does acknowledge that confessional statements and creeds are subject to be corrected by Scripture should they be proved wrong.  Unless and until a better solution to the problem presented by the incarntion of Jesus Christ is developed it is my opinion that Reformed believers should side with the creeds and confessions as they draw their most certain warrant from Holy Scripture.

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie J. Ray



Addendum:  Since Clark like everyone else was fallible, it is strange to find so many of his followers unwilling to question Clark or even to defend his views in rational form.  When "discussion" of The Incarnation comes up they resort to appealing to Clark as if what he wrote in his last book were an infallible papal bull.  As I pointed out above, Clark completely threw out everything he had written on the subject of the incarnation in his previous body of work.  Ironically, Clark, who prided himself on the law of contradiction, contradicts his life's work in the last book and even crosses the line into an unconfessional view.  As one who is unafraid of controversy, I am willing to fight for the truth.   When the Scriptures say something unequivocally--as even Clark admits that Scripture called Jesus "our great God and Savior"--then we are obligated to believe the Scriptures no matter who contradicts them.  When Van Til contradicts Scripture we must disagree with Van Til.  When Clark disagrees with Scripture then we must disagree with Clark as well.  As you can see here I've been more generous than David Engelsma, who unapologetically says that Clark's view is the Nestorian view.



Addendum:  Nestorius himself did not actually endorse the two person view.  His view was that Christ was one prosopon or person uniting two distinct natures.  Nestorius called Mary the "Christ bearer" or "Christotokos" because for Nestorius the two "natures" could not be completely united because that would imply the monophysite view.  Some of Nestorius' followers took the implications of this further than Nestorius did and advocated the two person view, hence the heresy is called "Nestorianism" even though Nestorius himself did not officially advocate the two person view.  His view was that there was no hypostatic union since this implied a blending of the divine nature with the human nature.  See Nestorius' Understanding of the Person of Christ
  and Nestorius' Orthodox Position

--

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

David Van Drunen Rejoinder

In a response to a negative review of his book, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture, David Van Drunen said:

The first is that though Scripture provides guidance for thinking and acting in all areas of life, for most academic subjects Scripture provides only general guidance. The Bible sets certain parameters for approaching the various disciplines, but it does not give us specific or exhaustive information about, say, chemistry or literature or economics. To delve deeply into these subjects requires investigation of the world around us (natural revelation) and a measure of wisdom and good judgment. I imagine that Dordt College professors would agree with this claim, and implement it in their classrooms all the time. My writing on education is not a screed against Christian education, as Zylstra suggests, but wrestles with the implications of facts like this. It is something that every Christian teacher and scholar must take into account.

If only some of the Anabaptist fanatics who "claim" to be Clarkian could understand this. Gordon H. Clark himself said that the Westminster Confession is the best expression of the Christian faith in systematic form. (Christian Philosophy, p. 122). The Bible is not an exhaustive commentary on music, the arts, science, mathematics or even modern judicial law. It is a textbook on God's revealed will and dogmatic doctrine that is specific to saving faith and other issues. Scripture only indirectly speaks to matters of general revelation or natural revelation and "natural" law. Inferring more than the Bible actually says about formal logic and other philosophical issues falls as much into the category of general or natural revelation as does science. If only Baptists and non-cessationists were more logical they would be confessionally reformed and covenantal.

As much as I agree with Clark's Scripturalism, it seems to me that some Clarkians have forgotten the distinction between special revelation and general revelation. Scripture is indeed a set of propositional truth claims set forth in logical form. However, logic, strictly speaking, is a philosophical concept and therefore falls into the category of natural revelation, as does the many inferences drawn from Scripture by Clarkians in the areas of government, politics, and the sciences. Clark himself debunked the various secular theories of philosophy and said that only presupposing Scripture gives philosophy any credibility whatsoever.

One Baptist who "claims" to be "Clarkian" or Scripturalist recently said that a man can infallibly know all the logical propositions in the Scriptures. That must be a tall order. I cannot even remember all of the commandments, much less all the promises in Scripture--and I sure do not claim to know even a majority of the doctrinal propositions in the Scriptures. I do hope I have a firm grasp on the essential propositions, though. Jesus Christ is both God and man in one person. That much I know Scripture teaches. (John 1:1, 18; 2 John 1:7-11).

Unfortunately, Gordon H. Clark insisted at the end of his life that Jesus was two persons. That sort of irrational reasoning is self-contradictory in my opinion. (1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; John 1:1,14,18; Titus 2:13; John 20:28; Matthew 16:16). Not even Clark infallibly knew all the propositions God knows. Nor did Clark know all the propositions of the Scriptures. Obviously Clark thought he erred earlier in his career when he affirmed the Reformed confessional view that Christ is one person and two beings/natures, one being divine and the other being human, perfectly united but not mixed or confused or separated. Some Clarkians love to pretend that the noetic effects of sin do not affect the intellect. But that is not what Clark taught either. What he said was that knowledge itself is objective and one does not need to be a regenerate Christian to understand a particular proposition made by Scripture, such as David was the king of Israel. How that translates to an infallible knowledge of all the propositions of the Scriptures I have no idea.

Article II, Of the Word, or Son of God, which was made very man

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

To read Dr. Van Drunen's rejoinder, click here: Westminster Seminary California

Anglicanism and How Many Points?

  Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17 ESV)

Recently in reconsidering several issues regarding what constitutes the so-called Reformed center, a term which attempts to reify exactly what Reformed theology is in actuality, I revisited the Riddleblog, a blog owned by Kim Riddlebarger of The White Horse Inn.  Kim is an expert on the issue of eschatology and amillennialism.  I happen to agree with amillennialism since it appears to be the best explanation of the apocalyptic material in the book of Revelation.  However, what particularly caught my attention was Dr. Riddlebarger's refutation of Dr. John MacArthur's dispensational attack on the Reformed faith while at the same time claiming to be a "five point Calvinist".  Dr. Riddlebarger rightly points out that Calvinism is way more than simply the five points of Calvinism.  (See, A Reply to John MacArthur).  Essentially, Dr. Riddlebarger says that Baptists are not Reformed, despite the fact that they may adhere to the five points of Calvinism.  Anyone familiar with the Canons of Dort knows that it is part of the Three Forms of Unity, which would include the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, both of which flatly reject MacArthur's Baptist view of the sacraments, his rejection of covenantal theology, and his premillennial dispensationalism.

Unfortunately,  particular Baptists get many other things wrong as well,  They are particularly prone to associate with Arminian Baptists since being Baptist trumps the Canons of Dort.  So on this aspect Baptists are not really in full agreement with the so-called five points of Calvinism either.  I might add that the Sydney Anglicans are inconsistent here as well since the Synod of Dort equally condemned the view that the atonement is in any sense all universal rather than particular to the elect.

This raises other issues as well.  I should point out here that the so-called "Clarkian apologetics" crowd is not a unified group either.  Many of them are non-cessationists or particular Baptists and outright reject confessional theology, something Gordon H. Clark with which Clark himself would have never agreed.  (See: Scripturalism).  They make this huge leap in logic based on the fact that in Clark's last book, The Incarnation, he repudiated his earlier affirmation of the Westminster Confession's view that Christ is one person but two.  (See: Was Clark a Nestorian?) From that one point many in the so-called "Clarkian" crowd jump to premature Anabaptist conclusions that therefore all confessional theology is up for grabs.  Question everything in creeds and confessions they say.

But that was not the position taken by Clark.  His view was thoroughly confessional and presupposed that the Westminster Standards were the best representation of biblical Christianity.  Although Clark, like all Reformed theologians, affirmed that Scripture is the final authority and that creeds and confessions possibly err, he did not adopt the sort of skepticism toward the creeds and Reformed standards which we see the particular Baptists and non-cessationists taking, particularly those who claim to be Scripturalists in the line of Gordon H. Clark.

In short, it is my contention that non-cessationists, particular Baptists, and others in sympathy with subjective and ecstatic leadings of the Spirit common to the Anabaptist tradition, are not truly Scripturalists at all.  They are a curious offshoot of Clark's Scripturalism.  Furthermore, the principle of Sola Scriptura is not subject to solipsism or hyper-individualism or a rejection of confessional Reformed theology.  (See:  How Many Points?, by Richard Muller).

There are many divisions in the wider Reformed and Protestant tradition.  Theonomy and reconstruction adopt a post millennial view that exalts the law above the Gospel and social transformation above the doctrines of grace.  Baptists reject creeds and confessions and adopt views very similar to the Anabaptists, including a legalistic view of "Lordship salvation".  Ironically, some so-called "Clarkians" like Kenneth Talbot are both Van Tilian and theonomic and Clarkian--as if the two go together???

The Anglican tradition suffers from a similar form of schizophrenic disjunction with the Anglican Formularies.  Ango-Catholicism, Tractarianism, and high church Arminianism are heretical perversions of the English Reformation.  But it is my contention that theonomy, dispensationalism, the Lordship salvation controversy, non-cessationism, future vindication, and assorted other theological errors could be avoided were more pastors, theologians and plow boys familiar with the Reformed standards.  My study of both Scripture and the various Reformed confessions of faith and catechisms has greatly enriched my understanding of theology and the Bible.

While I have a great appreciation for the Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark and for the work of The Trinity Foundation regarding their stand for the doctrine of justification by faith alone, I do not and cannot adopt an Anabaptist attitude toward the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, or the Anglican Formularies.  Unfortunately, the advocates of Clark's Scripturalism these days have little to do with Clark's rejection of the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit or with Clark's own position that the Westminster Standards best represent biblical Christianity:

Definition of Christianity

It is essential therefore to define Christianity more exactly by a specific doctrinal system.  Romanism is not what is meant.  By Christianity we shall mean, to use common names, what is called Calvinism.  Or, to be most specific, the definition of Christianity shall be the articles of the Westminster Confession.   With such a definite basis, it will no longer be necessary to spin dizzily in a whirlpool of equivocal disputation.  Now we can look at what we are talking about.  ["Is Christianity a Religion? in Christian Philosophy, volume 4, The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark, (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation, 2004), p. 122.]

I would contend that if Anglicans actually believed what the Anglican Formularies teach then there would be much less disputation.  This is also true regarding the those who "claim" to follow the apologetics of Dr. Clark.  If they were confessional presbyterians there would be much less confusion and disputation.  Unfortunately even Sean Gerety is much more willing to compromise confessional Calvinism as it is expressed in the Westminster Standards--for the sake of a facade of unity among Clarkians on other issues like the neo-nestorianism of Clark's final book--than to stand for what Clark himself defined as biblical Christianity:  the articles of The Westminster Confession.

I would contend that for Anglicans biblical Christianity is expressed in the Anglican Formularies, which do teach the five points of Calvinism in incipient form and further developed in the Lambeth Articles of 1595, the Irish Articles, and the Westminster Standards.  While Calvinism is much more than adhering to the five points of Calvinism, Anglicanism is much more than some generic wishy washy Amyraldianism or Arminianism.  It is solidly Augustinian, Reformed, and Calvinist as that is expressed in the Formularies, Lambeth Articles, the Irish Articles, and the Westminster Standards which are drawn from them.

Although it is true that Reformation Anglicans are not Puritans or Presbyterians, it can be said that we have much more in common with the confessional view of Presbyterians or the Dutch Reformed than with particular Baptists--or even with the Clarkian Baptists masquerading under the guise of the "five points".

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie

Could Jesus Have Sinned? by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries Blog

 

 

"The best theologians, past and present, have been divided on the question of whether Jesus could have sinned. I believe that since Jesus was fully human, it was possible for him to sin."  R. C. Sproul

[Addendum:  I no longer believe that Dr. Gordon H. Clark committed the Nestorian error.  He simply said that the human person of Christ and the divine Person of the Logos were united in the man Christ Jesus.  Dr. Clark's view is simply a further refining of the Definition of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.]


Like most semi-Calvinists R.C. Sproul makes numerous capitulations to Arminianism, like the three points of common grace, a semi-Amyraldian view of the atonement (i.e. Christ died to purchase common grace for the reprobates and the free offer to the reprobates), and the infralapsarian view of God's decrees (as if God did not plan anything until after He had logically considered the results of the Fall of Adam?). Now we find that Sproul agrees with the Pentecostals that Jesus is not fully divine, but simply avoids sinning by virtue of the fact that He is filled with the Spirit beyond measure. Logically speaking, either way, Jesus has an advantage that we do not enjoy, since "we" do not have the Spirit beyond measure. So the purpose of denying the impeccability of Christ is rendered moot.

The fact is, if we say that Jesus could have sinned in His human nature, and if we concede that the divine nature could not sin, we have an irrational paradox that in effect denies the complete deity of Jesus Christ. This is the same sort of error committed by the otherwise solid Gordon H. Clark when Clark proposed the Nestorian theory of the incarnation.  [Although Clark would never say Christ could sin since Clark's view is that predestination is absolute]. To say that Jesus could have sinned in His human nature would mean that it would be possible to separate the human nature from the divine nature when the two are perfectly united in the one Person of Jesus Christ. It would mean that God's decrees are tentative and that divine predestination is not true! The idea that Christ "could have sinned" is not the Reformed view of the incarnation, mission, sinless life, and the atonement on the cross.  It would mean that these doctrines were all contingencies and that Christ's mission "could have failed"! In short, the idea of Christ being peccable or able to sin is in essence the Arminian or semi-pelagian view, not the Calvinist or Reformed view.

In fact, it was not Luther's view either! Luther plainly said that absolutely nothing happens by contingency and that there is no such thing as libertarian free will--not even in Adam prior to the fall! The Fall was certain to happen because God decreed it to be so. Luther says:

Sect. 9.—THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, "Free-will" is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert "Free-will," must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. But, however, before I establish this point by any arguments of my own, and by the authority of Scripture, I will first set it forth in your words.

Are you not then the person, friend Erasmus, who just now asserted, that God is by nature just, and by nature most merciful? If this be true, does it not follow that He is immutably just and merciful? That, as His nature is not changed to all eternity, so neither His justice nor His mercy? And what is said concerning His justice and His mercy, must be said also concerning His knowledge, His wisdom, His goodness, His will, and His other Attributes. If therefore these things are asserted religiously, piously, and wholesomely concerning God, as you say yourself, what has come to you, that, contrary to your own self, you now assert, that it is irreligious, curious, and vain, to say, that God foreknows of necessity? You openly declare that the immutable will of God is to be known, but you forbid the knowledge of His immutable prescience. Do you believe that He foreknows against His will, or that He wills in ignorance? If then, He foreknows, willing, His will is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so: and, if He wills, foreknowing, His knowledge is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so.

From which it follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done thus contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is natural to Him, and His wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. And as His will cannot be hindered, the work itself cannot be hindered from being done in the place, at the time, in the measure, and by whom He foresees and wills.

The Sovereignty of God: The Bondage of the Will

It seems to me that R. C. Sproul's commitment to reason above Scripture via the "classical" apologetics of Thomas Aquinas has prejudiced him against the plain teaching of Scripture in regards to both the absolute deity of Jesus Christ and the absolute predestination of God and His decrees.

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- 23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; (Acts 2:22-23 NKJ)

"For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. (Acts 4:27-28 NKJ)

"And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:22 NKJ)

Logically speaking if it were possible for Jesus to sin--even in His human nature--it would mean that it is possible for God to not know what the future holds. If it were possible for Jesus to sin in His human nature, then it logically follows that it would be possible for Jesus to become less than fully God, since it is impossible for God to sin. Since it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18), it follows that it would be impossible for Jesus to fail to keep God's promise to save the elect (Genesis 3:15; Matthew 1:21). It is truly sad to see someone who claims to be Reformed teaching obviously Arminian doctrines like the peccability of Jesus Christ while He was on earth.

Even J. I. Packer does not make that sort of mistake:

Jesus, being divine, was impeccable (could not sin), but this does not mean he could not be tempted. Satan tempted him to disobey the Father by self-gratification, self-display, and self-aggrandizement (Matt. 4:1-11), and the temptation to retreat from the cross was constant (Luke 22:28, where the Greek for “trials” can be translated “temptations”; Matt. 16:23; and Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane). Being human, Jesus could not conquer temptation without a struggle, but being divine it was his nature to do his Father’s will (John 5:19, 30), and therefore to resist and fight temptation until he had overcome it. From Gethsemane we may infer that his struggles were sometimes more acute and agonizing than any we ever know. The happy end-result is that “because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Heb. 2:18).


Packer, J. I. (1995). Concise theology : A guide to historic Christian beliefs. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

Furthermore, the suggestion that Jesus could have sinned ignores the fact that Jesus had an advantage that Adam did not have prior to the Fall. Jesus was and is fully God, and He additionally had the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:34; John 1:1, 14, 18; Colossians 1:19, 20; Colossians 2:9). Although Jesus suffered in every point like we do, He never sinned and in fact it was destined to be so! (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). It was never possible that God would fail to keep His promise to save His elect. Jesus is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8 NKJV).

To read R. C. Sproul's remarks click here: Could Jesus Have Sinned? by R.C. Sproul | Ligonier Ministries Blog

Vincent Cheung's Response to the Nestorian Controversy: Gordon H. Clark, The Incarnation

Addendum:  I no longer view Clark's position as Nestorian.  He clearly did not reject Chalcedon but sought to further define the creed.  I do not take the view that Sean Gerety takes, namely that Clark rejected the Definition of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.  Charlie J. Ray, 9/5/2013.

As you can see below, Vincent Cheung mistakenly thought that the issue of the correct doctrine of the trinity and the incarnation of Jesus Christ is not a biblical issue but rather an issue of interpreting what Gordon H. Clark meant in his book, The Incarnation.   Nothing could be further from the truth.  Since Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is one person who is both God and man, the early church sought to explain this doctrine without compromising either His deity or His humanity.  Gordon H. Clark refused to accept the plain teaching of Scripture and instead said that it was impossible for one person to be both God and man at the same time.  So instead Clark postulated that Jesus Christ was really two persons, a divine person and a human person.  How those two persons could be united Clark never tells us.  The real problem with Clark's view is that while He solves the apparent contradiction of uniting the second Person of the Godhead, the divine Logos, with the human nature in Jesus Christ, Clark's solution effectually divides Christ into two persons who are not united at all.  In essence, then, the person of Jesus Christ for Clark is not divine!   The Bible, on the other hand, says many times over that the man, Jesus Christ, is fully divine and only one person.  (John 1:1, 14, 18; 1 Timothy 3:16; Colossians 1:19; 2:9; Titus 1:3, 4).

In other words, Clark's view undermines not only the atonement (Isaiah 53:4-6, 11; 1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 9:28) but the mediatorship of Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5, 6).  All of Clark's earlier books, including The Trinity, uphold the doctrine of a unity of two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ.  But suddenly Clark changed his mind in his last book due to his over reaction to the premature appeal to paradox and mystery by the followers of Cornelius Van Til, who essentially proposed a semi neo-orthodox doctrine of Scripture where Van Til said that Scripture is an "analogy" of God's Word and that even the propositional truth claims of the Scriptures are not "identical to" or "univocally" the very words of God in written form.  It would appear that both men, although contributing many good points of theology to the Reformed and Evangelical churches, end up in heterodoxy and heresy.

The Anabaptist emphasis on the "leading of the Spirit" has obviously taken hold of many of Clark's followers just as the same sort of wrong teaching has taken hold among Van Til's followers.  Vincent Cheung is a perfect example of that.  And just as bad, many of Clark's modern day followers try to reconcile theonomy with Clark's theology of propositional truth.  That view is about as logical as saying that Van Til and Clark were never in conflict!

You can read Vincent Cheung's irrational remarks below.  I did not post this when it was originally e-mailed because I wanted to check all my sources first.  As it stands now, The Trinity Foundation is as heretical on the doctrine of the incarnation as the Federal Visionists are heretical on the law/gospel distinction, imputed righteousness/justification by faith alone.  Would that Sean Gerety and his friends could see that Nestorianism undermines the very salvation they "think" they are defending!

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie J. Ray

------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: Gordon H. Clark, The Incarnation
Date:	Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:02:19 -0500
From:	Vincent Cheung <vincent@rmiweb.org>
To:	cranmer1959@hotmail.com

I was made aware of the debate on Gerety's web site a while ago. Although I still have not read the debate itself, a number of people have asked me about it. It appears that some people consider me a small authority on Clark, and so when there is a controversy, they consult me about it. But I am not an expert on Clark, and have never claimed to be, although I have read his works and I think that they are overall very good and correct. 

I read his Incarnation and Philippians about 9 or 10 years ago. If I recall correctly, the Incarnation was released after Philippians, and there is a note by John Robbins in Philippians that says Clark changed his view (from a one-person to two-person view). The Incarnation indeed gave me the impression that Clark held a two-person view. Again, this is an impression that I got from reading these books 10 years ago. Whether Clark meant something very different by "person," so that even a two-person view would not essentially contradict Chalcedon, or whether he really rejected Chalcedon, I cannot say. 

Also, I understand that, at least as stated in your message, this controversy, or this part of the controversy that you mention to me, is over the correct interpretation of Clark, and not over the correct interpretation of Scripture, or the correct theological formulation based on Scripture. Because of this, I regard the significance of the debate quite limited. 

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Charlie J. Ray <cranmer1959@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am sorry to bother you as I know you are inundated with e-mail and you are busy.  But a few months ago I became involved in a heated debate over at the God's Hammer blog run by Sean Gerety.  It is Gerety's contention that Dr. Clark rejected the Definition of Chalecdon 451 A.D. and said that Jesus was actually two persons, one divine and one human.  He redefined person in some technical fashion that I cannot remember offhand.  I wonder if you could offer an opinion as to what Dr. Clark's final book actually said about the incarnation and did Clark deny the Definition of Chalcedon?

Thank-you in advance for any opinion you might offer. *****

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Charlie J. Ray

Conspiracy of the Anonymous « God's Hammer

It looks like a cover-up is underway in the Presbyterian Church in America. Now it seems that bloggers reporting on heresy trials and such is more problematic than the actual heresies that are arising within the PCA. Sean Gerety reports on this on the God's Hammer blog article, Conspiracy of the Anonymous:

Now, the focus of the meeting, at least according to byFaith, was to “ease denominational tension” that has been caused, not by false teaching and the false gospel that continues to spread like cancer virtually unabated throughout the PCA, but by bloggers and a narrow minded faction within presbyteries (read TRs) who are evidently too concerned with orthodoxy when examining candidates seeking ordination in the PCA. According to one nameless attendee; “At the presbytery level, pockets of the PCA have become overly concerned with measuring orthodoxy.” Oh, my. We can’t have that. Of course, this raises the question what else should those at the presbytery level be concerned with when examining candidates for ministry besides measuring a candidate’s level of orthodoxy? Admittedly, there are other variables that need to be taken under consideration when someone is seeking ordination like can he teach or does he become tongue-tied or break into a sweat when speaking before a room full of people. Beyond that his personal character, maturity in the faith, along with his ability to manage his family are all areas to be examined. However, I would have thought that measuring the orthodoxy of prospective pastors would be the primary concern of those at the presbytery level. In fact, PCA BCO 21 requires a “careful examination” (would that be same as a precise examination) of a candidate’s “knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages, Bible content, theology, the Sacraments, Church history, the history of the Presbyterian Church in America, and the principles and rules of the government and discipline of the church.”

To read the rest of Sean's comments click here: Conspiracy of the Anonymous « God's Hammer

As an aside, I always point out that The Trinity Foundation and the God's Hammer blog have apparently endorsed the Nestorian views of Gordon H. Clark's final book, The Incarnation.  Although I generally support the work of The Trinity Foundation, I believe that Nestorianism is as serious a departure from confessional Reformed teaching as the Federal Vision or the New Perspectives on Paul. This is true because there is only one mediator between God and man. He must be both divine and human to fully execute the penal substitutionary atonement in the place of the elect persons chosen by God before the foundation of the world.

See:

Thirty-nine Articles of Religion: Article II

Of the Word, or Son of God, which was made very man

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

John Robbins Versus Charles Hodge

Actually, if you compare what John Robbins said in the postscript to The Incarnation and what Charles Hodge says about Nestorianism, it becomes even more obvious that Charles Hodge would have said Robbins' and Clark's view was heretical.

Charles Hodge:

The integrity of the two natures in Christ having been thus asserted and declared to be the faith of the Church, the next question which arose concerned the relations of the two natures, the one to the other, in the one person of Christ. Nestorianism is the designation adopted in church history, for the doctrine which either affirms, or implies a twofold personality in our Lord. The divine Logos was represented as dwelling in the man Christ Jesus, so that the union between the two natures was somewhat analogous to the indwelling of the Spirit. The true divinity of Christ was thus endangered. He was distinguished from other men in whom God dwelt, only by the plenitude of the divine presence, and the absolute control of the divine over the human. From: Nestorianism.

Compare that to what Robbins said:

The relationship that obtains between the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, and Jesus Christ is unique, unlike that between the Logos and every other man who comes into the world (see John 1:9). The Logos did not merely light the mind of Christ; the Logos Himself is fully in Christ. Christ could therefore say, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." No mere prophet could make such an astounding claim. Prophets inspired by God possess some of the divine propositions. Christ, however, possesses them all, as the author of Hebrews argues in his first chapter. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. . . . Jesus Christ was and is both God and man, a divine person and a human person. To deny either is to fall into error. Once key terms are defined and clearly understood, the Incarnation is an even more stupendous and awe-inspiring miracle than the Church has hitherto surmised. [The Incarnation, pages 77-78]

In other words, Robbins is saying that what makes Christ unique is that he has "more" of the divine propositions than other men. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily but not in union with the human person, Jesus Christ. Also, Robbins fails to distinguish between the incommunicable attributes of deity and the communicable attributes. In this case, Clark's definition of "propositions" seems to fail since it confuses the "divine propositions" with the "human propositions." Clearly Robbins is implying that there are two persons in Christ, which is what Clark had already concluded.  This is an example of what A. A. Hodge is talking about in this question:

19. How may all Heresies on this subject be classified?

As they seek relief from the impossibility which reason experiences in the effort fully to comprehend the mutual consistency of all the elements of this doctrine (1) in the denial of the divine element, (2) or in the denial of the human element in its reality and integrity, or (3) in the denial of the unity of the person embracing both natures.

From: "The Person of Christ" in Outlines of Theology, A. A. Hodge.

A. A. Hodge has just described perfectly those who place reason above revelation.

Charlie

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.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/

www.reasonablechristian.blogspot.com

Roger Mann's Unposted Comment Regarding Clark's Neo-Nestorian Heresy

The comments were closed at God's Hammer, Crampton on the Incarnation, prior to the following being posted.

Roger Mann said:

Here's my final responses that were never posted:

Speigel wrote,


Everyone should read Sean's quotation of Reymond more carefully as the portion quoted does not give the complete picture as to Reymond's position on Chalcedon.

You took the word's right out of my mouth, Speigel. I was just about to start my own reply to Sean's misrepresentation of Reymond's position when I read your post. Now, I have one simple question for Sean. I only see three options for why you misrepresented Reymond's position here.

1) You failed to read just a few sentences down in the same paragraph and were unaware that Reymond wrote this...

2) You read the section cited by Speigel and were simply unable to comprehend what Reymond was saying...

3) You read the section cited by Speigel and understood what Reymond was saying, but deliberately decided to misrepresent him anyway...

So, which option applies to you, Sean?

Sean wrote,

What do you mean, so what? Does the Ninth Commandment means nothing to you (which, I guess it doesn't as anyone reading your posts can see).

I clearly explained what I meant in the three points that followed my question. Did you not read them? Or were you unable to comprehend what I wrote? Also, in what way have I violated the Ninth Commandment here? I challenge you to provide even a single example (and please don't quote me out of context in order to misrepresent my position, as you did with Reymond). Your "two-person" view of the Incarnation is legitimately labeled "Nestorianism" as it has been historically defined, and is a blatant rejection of the Chalcedonian formulation. Moreover, as Reymond rightly observes, "when one moves beyond the borders of Chalcedon he has decided to choose heresy" (Systematic Theology, p. 621). Thus, I have hardly borne false witness against you.

I have not read through the transcripts [of the Council of Ephesus], but you're off your nut as well if you think Cyril's theology was "absolutely correct." See Bugay above. Cyril's theology got " wacked" at Chalcedon. Ironically, it was Nestorious who was evidently vindicated (something I never suspected)

I'm not sure how you (or Bugay) figure that Cyril's theology got "wacked" or Nestorius' view "vindicated" when Chalcedon explicitly "declared the Cyrillian Council at Ephesus in 431 to be the third ecumenical council and adopted both Cyril's synodical letters against Nestorius as a refutation of Nestoriamism and Leo's Tome as a refutation of Eutychianism" (Reymond, Systematic Theology, p. 607). And just to be clear, I was referring to Cyril's theology in his " letters against Nestorius," and specifically his theology regarding Christ's two natures hypostatically united in one Person, when I said that his theology was "absolutely correct."

In fact, why don't you go and post somewhere else? I think you've said your piece and now you're just repeating yourself.

Ok, if you don't want me to post here anymore, I won't post here anymore. I pray that God will open your eyes and grant you repentance for willingly promoting this heretical view of the Incarnation.

Charlie said:

For those not following, the quote from Robert Reymond reads:

So the Definition should never be used to stifle continuing reflection upon Scripture. But I would insist with Berkouwer that "there is a 'halt' at Chalcedon which will indeed continue to sound against every form of speculation which attempts to penetrate into this mystery [of the divine human Person - Reymond] further than is warranted in the light of revelation."

Said another way, the Definition of Chalcedon does mark the terminal point and legitimately so, of all speculation which would discard either its "one Person" doctrine or its "two natures" doctrine so as to eliminate the supernaturalness of the Incarnation and the incarnate Christ. And history is replete with examples that justify the oft-made declaration that "when one moves beyond the borders of Chalcedon he has decided to choose a heresy." — Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology, page 621.

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.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/

www.reasonablechristian.blogspot.com

Did Gordon H. Clark Cross the Line into Nestorianism?

Did Gordon H. Clark Cross the Line into Nestorianism?

[I no longer agree with what I wrote here.  I had not read much of Clark's works when I wrote this and did not appreciate the finer points of Clark's view that all knowledge is propositional.  For a proposition to be meaningful it must have both a subject and a predicate joined by a copula.  A definition is simply the meaning given to the word that stands for the concept behind the word.  For Dr. Clark logic is how God thinks; if we know anything that is true, we know it because God knows that same truth and has enlightened our minds with that truth.  I no longer believe Dr. Clark was guilty of Nestorianism and I am writing a series of blog posts at this time to explain why.  Charlie J. Ray, M.Div.]

Honestly, most seminarians these days are not required to read Gordon H. Clark's apologetics or philosophy. The man died in 1985; so, what is all the fuss about, you might ask? That is a good question, particularly in the light of what Clark had to say in his last book, The Incarnation, (Trinity Foundation: Jefferson, 1988). Since blog posts serve a different purpose than purely academic writing, I will get straight to the point and announce Clark's conclusions first and then particularize why Clark's reasoning process was in error at several steps along the way.

First of all, the fact that Clark's position is essentially neo-Nestorian is easy to establish simply from the closing statements in his book, The Incarnation. I will post his own words here for all to see and judge for themselves:

9. The Conclusion

Some unfriendly critics will instantly brand the following defense of Christ's humanity as the heresy of Nestorianism. Nestorius, you remember from the early pages of this study, taught, or was supposed to have taught, that the Incarnation of the Logos resulted in two persons. This view of Nestorius, with its accompanying condemnation, cannot be sustained either logically or historically. As for the history, several scholars assign the heretical view to his followers, who supposedly developed his suggestions beyond his approval. Nor can the charge of heresy be logically stantiated. The reason should have become obvious pages ago. Neither Nestorius nor his opponents had any clear idea of what a person is. They used the word but attached no meaning to it. In their discussion and writings the term was as much nonsense syllables as substance and nature. However distasteful it may be to those students whose knowledge is confined to fifteen minutes of a broader lecture in the Systematic Theology class, and all the more distasteful to the professor who knows little more than those fifteen minutes, they must be forced to acknowledge that the Chalcedonian bishops and the later theologians were talking non-sense, because their terms had no sense at all.

To remedy this disgraceful situation, I have not only denounced the use of and expurgated the term substance, but in an attempt to be occasionally positive, I have offered a definition of person. Most people will find it queer. Most theologians will find it unacceptable. Well and good, let them formulate and propose a different definition. That is the honest and logical thing to do. Then there will be an intelligible subject of discussion. One can reasonably suppose that it could be a better definition than mine. But even if not, it could not be reasonably branded as nonsense. …..

The usual theological treatment of the problem is so self-contradictory that nearly any escape looks promising. After stating that Jesus was a man, a "true" man, the theologians continue by arguing that he was not a man at all—he was only a "nature." For them the boy in the temple and the assistant carpenter in Nazareth was some set of qualities attaching to the Second Person. But this is impossible for two reasons. First, it attaches contradictory characteristics to a single Person. He is both omnipotent and frail; he is both omipresent and localized; he is omniscient, but he is ignorant of some things. In the second place, closely related to the first, the characteristics of an ordinary man cannot possibly attach to Deity. The Logos never gets tired or thirsty; the Logos never increases in either stature or wisdom. The Logos is eternal and immutable. How then can these human characteristics possibly be characteristics of God? But by irresponsibly assigning such characteristics to God, the theologians contradict their other statement that Jesus was a true man. Even the word true betrays the weakness of their position. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay. The Scripture simply and plainly says, "The Man Christ Jesus."

The manuscript ends here because of the final illness of the author. [From: The Incarnation, pages 75-77].

I developed an interest in Clark because I read Carl F. H. Henry's God, Revelation and Authority and his view of propositional truth as a defense of inerrancy. However, I must say that I am disappointed with Clark after reading The Trinity and The Incarnation. I found both books to be meandering messes of mixed up logic, despite Clark's disavowal of such criticisms.

Clark seems to be guilty of Nestorianism in my view. Simply redefining the heresy of Nestorianism or denying that it existed in the first place (because Nestorius did not "define" person in a way that Clark finds satisfactory) does not justify taking a position that is overtly a two person view. (See pages 75-77 in The Incarnation).

Essentially, all Clark ends up doing is saying that he disagrees with Chalcedon after continuing his own apophatic negation of practically everything in the Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed which states positively that Jesus Christ is one Person who is both fully and truly God and fully and truly man. Moreover, Clark's view begs the question. According to Clark, no one in Christianity understood the incarnation up until Clark reformulates the definitions of "person" and "nature" to fit his own philosophical presuppositions, which one must note are attached more to extra-biblical reason than to revelation in Holy Scripture itself.

Clark's books are generally too short to deal seriously with any of the implications raised by Clark's own re-interpretation of classical orthodox theology. And why should Clark's views not be used by opponents of Christianity as ammunition against orthodox Christianity? Has Clark actually done Evangelical Christianity a service or has he done more damage?

The fact that Clark's view negates chapter 8 of the Westminster Confession and other statements in the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, and the English Formularies (i.e. the 39 Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer) and the writings of the vast majority of the magisterial Protestant Reformers is indication enough that Clark's view can indeed be classified as "heretical".

Moreover, Clark does not follow his own warnings to students that these are difficult issues and that the noetic effects of sin affect even our ability to reason. It is best to stay with the principle of sola Scriptura and not exalt either reason or tradition above Scripture. Clark seems to have committed the error of elevating reason above Scripture and the creeds. The principle of sola Scriptura does not and never has thrown out secondary authority in the local church and in the creeds. It does, however, test the church and the creed by Scripture. Overturning the creeds that the magisterial Reformers approved in their confessions of faith would take much more than the meager and meandering critique Clark has offered in his book, The Incarnation. Reason has no more authority than the church or tradition, something which Clark seems to have forgotten. Reason, like the authority of the church and of tradition, is to be submitted to the ultimate authority of Scripture.

In addition, Clark himself foresees that most Evangelicals and Reformed folks would indeed classify his view as Nestorianism. Why would Clark anticipate this if in fact there do not seem to be just reasons for reaching this conclusion?

To Clark's credit he does point out that Latin and Greek terms for substance and person were interchangeably used and thus part of the confusion issued from the fact that some of the western theologians did not know Greek. (See pages 6-8, 16). However, this problem is easily resolved by staying with the Greek language rather than Latin. The creeds instantly resolve themselves when the language is consistently Greek. Clark's understanding of the philosophy of language, especially regarding the use of language in epistemology and in translation issues from one language to another is never explained for us here and I do not know if Clark deals with this in any depth in his philosophical writings.

Clark's assessment is that the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon are "hopelessly ambiguous" and that they do not define what a "person" is in modern psychological terms. Clark's complaint seems to be that neither the Bible nor the creeds deal with twentieth century concerns. My question, however, is whether Clark's agnosticism differs in any practical respect from the agnosticism of other modernists with an agenda to undermine biblical and confessional Christianity, especially as it is expressed in the Reformed confessions of faith and catechisms?

Furthermore, since Clark is supposed to be complaining about meaningless "definitions" regarding hypostasis, ousios, homoousios, and prosopon, how does his solution help matters? Is not the modern English translation of those terms just as problematic? For example, Clark complains that the term "person" is meaningless and then proceeds to provide his own unique "definition" of what a "person" is. The problem is that Clark's definition of "person" is not the normal way people understand the word "person." So for all practical purposes Clark is reduplicating the same problem he complains the terms in the orthdox creeds and the Reformed confessions present us. The word "person" has many different meanings and Clark has simply added his own idiosyncratic definition to the list. Normal people understand the term "person" to refer to an individual with a particular personality, mind, set of emotions and even a particular physical body and appearance. Obviously, "person" in this normal usage does not apply to the three Persons of the Godhead in the precise same way, hence the difficulty of describing exactly what the Tri-unity of God is regarding the three hypostases or subsistences. 

It is true that human personality does not precisely and exactly correspond to what a "person" is in the divine nature. But Clark never attempts to deal with this dichotomy in either of his books, The Trinity or The Incarnation. Clark says that man thinks God's thoughts after Him. This is true when man's thoughts correspond to the exact understanding of one propositional statement where man's thoughts converge with exactly what God intended to reveal to the creature.  However, one should not forget that God knows more than man does about any single proposition or collection of propositions.  The Christian theologian should remember that God is not a creature and the Bible relates God's mind or personality in anthropomorphic and anthropopathic terms. We are created in God's image and likeness; God is not like us—we are like Him. Furthermore, God is omniscient and we are not. God's reasoning abilities are not tainted by sin or corrupted by original sin. God has the ability to reason with absolute perfection, something Clark is obviously not able to do. Clark's definition of "person" is essentially meaningless in regards to any connection to Scripture at all. Hence, in regards to the incarnation of Christ Clark is essentially eisogeting his own philosophical and epistemological presuppositions back into Scripture just as all sinful distortions of revelation do.

Scripture is not a textbook on philosophy or "clarkian" definitions of what Scripture should say or what the creeds or the Reformers "must" or "should" say. Rather, Scripture presents the truthful revelation of God in everyday language for anyone who is willing to read it and understand it. The point of the creeds is to summarize in clear, definite and understandable language what is essential doctrine for Christians and the creeds represent what the vast majority of Christians believe the Bible says. In Clark's theology the plow boy needs to earn a degree in philosophy just to understand the Scriptures, the creeds, and even Clark's own views!

So for Clark to re-invent Christianity based on his own personal philosophy is in essence no different from any other gnostic who comes along and claims to have some epiphany that no one else has. Clark's elevation of reason above revelation is a strong indication that his connection to Hume's empirical philosophical views has distorted his ability to recognize that theological terminology is indeed abstract and not concrete or empirical. Clark's complaint is analogous to the logical positivist attack on abstract thought. If there is no concrete definition Clark likes, then to him it is meaningless. But how does this differ from the atheist complaint that Christianity as a theological and ethical system or worldview is "meaningless"? Clark is simply the confusing issues more and for all practical purposes gives ammunition to enemies of the Christian faith.

Clark's objection to the use of the term "ousios" or "nature" or "essence" is that these are "meaningless" terms that have no definition. But Clark simply replaces these terms with the term "definition." For all practical purposes the term "definition" is as meaningless as the terms to which Clark objects. The word "definition" simply refers back to how we describe God. In other words, Clark's term for "attributes" is simply their "definitions". But Clark never defines what HIS definition of "definition" is or what HIS definition of God is—in other words, what are the attributes of God in Clark's view? (See pages 14-15, 30-31). Clark is good at telling us what he thinks is wrong. His approach is to attack the apophatic theology of the creeds with an apophatic theology of his own. His methodology seems a bit hypocritical in light of this. He spends precious little time giving positive statements of his own views but the entire book tells us what is wrong with the creeds, the confessions and with "tradition" views of the unity of Jesus Christ as one Person with two natures, divine and human.

The bottom line here is that Clark openly attacks the doctrine of the incarnation as meaningless and then misrepresents it in order to justify his own departure from the biblical doctrine outlined in the creeds and confessions. For example, Clark asserts that the orthodox position does not uphold the full humanity of Jesus. He says:

That Christ assumes a body causes no difficulty to anyone who believes the Bible; but to understand how the Second Person could have a human soul and be a human person (which virtually all orthodox Christians deny), and how that mind or soul was related to the Divine Person is perhaps the most difficult problem in all theology. (Page 4).

One of the problems we shall have to face is whether or not the human Jesus is an hypostasis. (Page 8).

Notice that Clark says that the orthodox position denies that Jesus "could have a human soul and be a human person." But this is either a straw man fallacy or it is a non sequitur since that is precisely what the orthodox creeds proclaim! When Clark quotes the Definition of Chalcedon he denies the entire second half of the creed as meaningless but it is precisely there that the creed upholds what Clark denies that the orthodox position says! On page 5 Clark quotes the entire creed and at the point where it upholds the full humanity of Christ, Clark says everything after … "in all things like unto us, without sin . . ." contradicts the first part of the creed. In footnote 4 at the bottom of the page he says:

The remainder of the Creed really contradicts this last phrase because it denies that Christ was a human person. Obviously something that is not a human person at all cannot be "in all things like unto us." (Page 5).

The point to be made here is that Clark unfairly assumes that his assessment of what he "thinks" the creed implies is what the creed actually says. The creed obviously upholds the doctrine of the full humanity of Christ with a complete human soul. Even if we take Clark's view Jesus would still not be "like us" in all things because no matter how you slice it Jesus Christ is unique.  If not, why are we discussing the incarnation at all?  If Jesus is merely human then there is no debate.  The real problem here is that Clark "thinks" that the incarnation itself is a logical contradiction and, given his hatred of any hint of neo-orthodoxy, incomplete understanding, or limits to human epistemology is not tolerable. The simple history of the theology of the incarnation shows that all the Protestant Reformers and every orthodox Evangelical theologian since that time has upheld the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ as one Person who is one subsistence/prosopon, with two natures/substances in hypostatic union.  That union is described in the "Definition" of Chalcedon via the limitations of human thought and intelligence.  Scripture tells us all we know about Christ and by logical inferences drawn from Scripture we understand the incarnation as best we can.  Clark's straw man attack fails at this point.

What is telling is that Clark does lip service to the Scripture ascribing full deity to Christ and in his concluding remarks can only bring himself to say that Jesus Christ is fully man. How Christ is united as both God and man Clark is completely unable to tell us. He can only prove that Christ is fully human and that is essentially his theology. So I can only conclude that Clark did cross the line into Nestorianism. He cannot bring himself to say that Jesus Christ is literally God who became a man by assuming a true human soul and nature into union with the Logos, the Second Person of the Godhead. It is not that the human nature is "impersonal" any more than the "divine nature" is impersonal. But what "defines" what a human being is by essence is completely united with what "defines" what a divine being is by essence.  This hypostatic union is completely personal in the one Person, Jesus Christ. Jesus is God and Jesus is man and the two cannot be separated without crossing the line into Nestorianism. The two natures are not confused, mixed, or separated but are perfectly united in the person of Christ.  Clark crossed that line and so does every modern Clarkian who upholds Clark's irrational division of Christ into two persons. (Deuteronomy 6:4; Hebrews 13:8; John 1:1, 14, 18; 2 John 1:7-10).  Nestorianism and the kenotic theories sacrifice the complete deity of Christ to preserve His humanity.  This is why both of these theories are heretical.  (John 1:1, 2; 18; 1 Timothy 3:16).

I have other remarks to make about some of the evidence Clark uses in his book to deny the biblical doctrine of the incarnation. However, I will save those remarks for subsequent posts. Let this stand as my statement that the Trinity Foundation and those "clarkians" who support Clark's view of the incarnation have crossed the line into heresy. How they can claim to uphold chapter 8 of the Westminster Confession without denying that Jesus Christ is one divine and human Person is beyond me.

May the peace of God be with you,

Charlie

Addendum:

3/14/2012   I made some minor editorial changes in the text above.  Also, I have softened my critique of Clark since this was written.  However, it seems to me that Clark's theory of personality as consisting only of what a man "thinks" falls far short of the biblical presentation of man as thinking, feeling, willing, emoting and experiencing.  Being human is much more than sentience or thought processes.  That would seem to imply that man is pure thought.  Obviously the Bible defines man as a physical being as well as an ethical and thinking being.

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.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/

www.reasonablechristian.blogspot.com