Clark Quick Quote

While considering an upcoming review of Van Tilian James Anderson’s ode to irrationality in his, Paradox in Christian Theology, and in light of recent discussions on this blog concerning Gordon Clark’s solutions to the problems entailed in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, I’ve had the opportunity to revisit Clark’s monographs on these extremely difficult doctrines.  Below I’ve included  a couple of selections from Clark’s devastating discussion of Bavink and Van Til in his treatise on the Trinity plus one or two other helpful quotes.   You’ll notice in this first citation in reply to Bavink, Clark’s solution to the question of the Trinity is clearly present even if some prideful professors at Reformed Theological Seminary are too confused or obtuse to grasp it.

In explaining the persons of the Trinity by opposing their intertrinitarian relations to the relations among human beings, Bavinck (op.cit., p. 298) argues, “The concept ‘human nature’ is a universal concept . . . it is real and present in each individual human being, but it is differently and finitely present in any single man.  It is never fully and infinitely present in any single man.”  The term infinitely has no meaning here.  The quality succulent is in every cactus, but it is not so much false as it is nonsense to say it is or it is not infinitely in a suguaro.  But it is in each suguaro fully or completely.  So also with man.  Unless the definition of man is fully in a single object, that object is not a man.  As a cactus has five characteristics, so a human being has a fixed number of characteristics. If anyone one be absent, the thing is not a suguaro or not a man.  Any argument denying the presence of the complete definition in its particular examples denies that the full definition of Deity is applicable to the Son.  Bavinck, because of his faulty philosophy, distorts the doctrine of the Trinity.

Building on Bavinck’s distortions of the Trinity, Clark turns his attention to Van Til:

When opponents have objected that the doctrine of the Trinity is logically self-contradictory because it makes three equal to one, Christians have usually replied that there are many examples of situations that are three in one sense and one in a different sense.  Hence there is no contradiction.  Here Van Til rejects this defense of the Trinity and asserts that the Trinity is both one and three in the same sense: not one substance and three Persons, but one Person and three Persons.  This is indeed contradictory and utterly irrational [note: James Anderson contends in a piece on Triablogue and by implication in his book that Van Til is not only correct in asserting that God is one person and three persons, but that this is also a faithful expression of Christian orthodoxy -SG].  Look at his words again: “We do assert that God, that is the whole Godhead, is one person.”  He defends this irrationalism on the ground that “each attribute is co-extensive with the Being of God.” Now, some attributes apply equally to all three Persons; for example, omnipotence and omniscience. But the attribute of the Fatherhood and Sonship are not “co-extensive with the Being of God.”  Sonship is not attributable to the Father, nor to the Spirit.

Perhaps Van Til will reply that Sonship is not an “attribute.” If this is his reply, one must ask, How does an attribute differ from a quality? Christ has the quality or characteristic of being omnipotent and of being Son.  Why is one predicate an attribute and other not an attribute? De we not attribute paternity to the Father, and to the Father alone?  How can Fatherhood be coterminous with Sonship?

As the Athanasian Creed stated, there are some predicates that attach to each of the three Persons equally.  There are not three “Greats,” but one “Great.”  But there are also predicates that attach to one Person singly.  If this were not so, there could not be three Persons, and the Father would be the Son.

. . .  Who can be so obtuse to deny that Substance and Person are intended to have different meanings?  And if the meanings are different, all appearance of contradiction vanishes from a normal mind.  Augustine himself, even though not so advanced as the creed his influence initiated, made it unmistakably clear that three and one have different referents.

And, concerning the theory of individuation, Clark writes:

Hodge and Shedd differ on federal headship and traducianism because, apparently, Shedd defends a numerical unity of Adam and his posterity, while Hodge does not.  The difficulty here, relative to the latter two doctrines as well as to the Trinity, is the meaning of numerical oneness and the problem of individuation.

The most obvious phase of the difficulty lies in the fact that species and genera can be counted as well as individuals.  This pussy, Timothy Ticklepitches by name, and this puppy, Sport, are two numerically different animals.  But feline and canine are also numerically different species.  One is as numerical as the other. We can count and number species as easily as we can individuals.  In the case of Shedd and federal headship, with the exception of one peculiarly worded sentence, Shedd could be numbering species rather than individuals; though Hodge does not think so.  The present writer has the impression that some theologians count species, that some have no clear notion of numerical unity, that some therefore oscillate, and that many are confused.  This judgment is justified because hardly any of them study the theories of individuation.

And, finally, concerning Clark’s Realist or Augustinian solution to the problem of the Trinity:

With respect to the Trinity a series of considerations apply.  Most obviously Plato argued from the changing things in the sphere of “Becoming” to the immutable realities in the sphere of “Being.” But the three Persons of the Trinity are already immutable and eternal, so that nothing higher is conceivable.  It would be like asserting that three mutable cubes require a fourth mutable cube. But a genus is not one of its included individuals.

Furthermore, as has been hinted, Augustinianism differs from Platonism.  Plato had Ideas.  Augustine has truths or propositions.  In reading what Augustine wrote, most people fail to note what he did not write; namely, they fail to note that he has no theory of abstraction.  Instead of abstract ideas, he has truths.  The present treatise follows Augustine on this point: There are no such things as abstraction and abstract ideas.

A critic may reply, “how is that?  Does not the identity or similarity of the propositions constituting the three Persons require a fourth Person above them?”  No, it does not, at least if personality requires, among other things, those propositions that are not common to the Three.  The propositions relative to the term Father, and Arius’ misused term Ingenerate, and to the terms Son, Generated, incarnated, are not common to all three Persons.  But if Father and Son are essential to personality, there cannot be a fourth person in the Godhead.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Gordon Clark, Theology

70 Comments on “Clark Quick Quote”


  1. Clark said:

    A critic may reply, “how is that? Does not the identity or similarity of the propositions constituting the three Persons require a fourth Person above them?” No, it does not, at least if personality requires, among other things, those propositions that are not common to the Three. The propositions relative to the term Father, and Arius’ misused term Ingenerate, and to the terms Son, Generated, incarnated, are not common to all three Persons. But if Father and Son are essential to personality, there cannot be a fourth person in the Godhead.

    If there is no fourth person in the Godhead, then who is seated at the right hand of the Father? The fourth “person” according to you is the “man” Jesus Christ. And if the fourth person is merely a man, then there is a fourth person in the Godhead who is not God!

    How IRRATIONAL is that???????

    No, there is only ONE PERSON who is Jesus Christ. While on earth He had two wills but not two personalities for that would divide Christ from Christ and is therefore irrational and illogical.

    Charlie


  2. How odd that Clark quotes from that damned Roman Catholic creed. The Athanasian Creed?

  3. Roger Mann Says:

    Here’s a quote from Vincent Cheung, conclusively demonstrating that neither the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity nor the Incarnation generates a logical paradox or contradiction. Unless his argument can be refuted (which it can’t), the orthodox doctrines ought to be believed and defended — indeed, they are the only legitimate choices for Bible believing Christians. Cheung writes:

    Although God alone determines human destiny by choosing to save some and condemn all others, he saves his elect by means of producing within them faith in Christ. This means that one’s destiny is revealed by what he thinks about Christ. Depending on the degree and manner of deviation from biblical revelation, holding to a false view of Christ may result in eternal damnation. Therefore, we must study the biblical doctrine of Christ with care and reverence, rejecting any position that compromises or distorts what the Scripture teaches about him

    Biblical Christianity holds that Christ possesses two natures, that he is both divine and human. He exists along with God the Father in eternity as the second person of the Trinity, but took upon himself a human nature in the INCARNATION. The result compromised or confused neither the divine nor the human nature, so that Christ was fully God and fully man, and he will remain in this condition forever. The two natures of Christ subsisting in one person is called the HYPOSTATIC UNION.

    Some people allege that this doctrine generates a contradiction; therefore, before providing the biblical data for this doctrine, we will first defend its logical consistency. Recall our earlier discussion on the Trinity. The historic doctrinal formulation of the Trinity says, “God is one in essence and three in person.” This proposition entails no contradiction. For there to be a contradiction, we must affirm that “A is non-A.” In our case, this translates into, “God is one in essence and three in essence,” or “God is one in person and three in person.” To affirm that God is one and three (not one) at the same time and in the same sense is self-contradictory. However, our formulation of the doctrine says that God is one in one sense and three in a different sense: “God is one in essence and three in person.” Moreover, although each of the three persons fully participates in the one Godhead, the doctrine does not turn into tritheism since there is still only one God and not three.

    The “essence” in the above formulation refers to the divine attributes, or the very definition of God, so that all three persons of the Godhead completely fulfill the definition of deity. But this does not imply tritheism because the very definition of deity includes the ontological attribute of the Trinity, so that each member is not an independent God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct “persons” because they represent three centers of consciousness within the Godhead. Therefore, although all three fully participate in the divine essence so as to make them one God, these three centers of consciousness render them three persons within this one Godhead. In a similar way, the doctrinal formulation for the personhood and incarnation of Christ states that he is one in one sense, and two in a different sense. That is, he is one in person, but two in natures.

    To clarify this doctrinal formulation, we need to define the terms and relate them to the doctrinal formulation of the Trinity. The way “nature” is used in the doctrinal formulation of the incarnation is similar to the way “essence” is used in the doctrinal formulation of the Trinity. They refer to the definition of something, and the definition of something in turn refers to the attributes or properties of something. Personhood is again defined by the consciousness or intellect. Now, the definition of God includes the ontological attribute of the Trinity, and therefore there is only one God although there are three divine persons who share fully and equally in the same set of attributes that define deity.

    In the incarnation, God the Son took upon himself the nature of man; that is, he added to his person the set of attributes that define man. He did so without mingling the two natures, so that both sets of attributes remained independent. Thus, his divine nature was not diminished by his human nature, and his human nature was not deified by his divine nature. This formulation also protects the immutability of God the Son, since the human nature did not modify his divine nature at all.

    The objection that divine and human attributes necessarily contradict one another when possessed by the same person fails to take into account that the two sets of attributes are independent from each other in God the Son. For example, Christ was not omniscient according to his human attributes, but he was omniscient according to his divine attributes, and this remains true even to this day. His divine attributes has not deified his human attributes.

    This doctrinal formulation of the incarnation is immune to the charge of contradiction, since we do not claim that Christ is one and two at the same time and in the same sense. What we assert is that Christ is one person with two sets of attributes. Since this formulation does not generate a logical contradiction, it is established as true if we can show that Christ is both God and man through biblical exegesis [which Cheung goes on to show in the following paragraphs]. (Systematic Theology, pg. 138-139)

  4. Sean Gerety Says:

    Charlie, I’m really starting to think you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed. First, the discussion is concerning the Trinity, not the Incarnation. Second, Clark is arguing against the idea that God is both one person and three (although the generic unity Clark is advancing in the Trinity can also be applied to the God-man in the Incarnation). Third, Jesus was fully man as well as fully God. Any dilution or confusion of the two (i.e, that which is characteristic of man and characteristic God) is unbiblical. So, if you want to play with matches and play the heretic game, you are the heretic for you deny that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Instead you assert rather than two minds, Jesus had two wills. And since a will cannot grow in knowledge, it follows that the Second Person grew in knowledge. That is neither orthodox nor biblical and you’ve lost God in the process.

    Now, where are those matches when you need them?

  5. Hugh Says:

    Awesome! THANK YOU, Sean!

    I found CVT so frustrating, reducing words to gibberish.

    Thank God for GHC, people.

    Without definitions, PERSON, BEING, ESSENCE, NATURE, ATTRIBUTE, etc. are meaningless and useless (except as clubs with which the ‘enlightened’ can bash us simpletons).

    Hugh
    \/\/


  6. Therefore, although all three fully participate in the divine essence so as to make them one God, these three centers of consciousness render them three persons within this one Godhead. In a similar way, the doctrinal formulation for the personhood and incarnation of Christ states that he is one in one sense, and two in a different sense. That is, he is one in person, but two in natures.

    Sean, I’m beginning to believe–at least so far from what I’m reading of Clark–is that you have misunderstood Clark. Clark has better sense than to say that Christ is divided. I think the problem lies with folks who do not understand theology.

    Charlie


  7. Clark defines humanity and deity as related to one man, Jesus Christ:

    Unless the definition of man is fully in a single object, that object is not a man. As a cactus has five characteristics, so a human being has a fixed number of characteristics. If anyone one be absent, the thing is not a suguaro or not a man. Any argument denying the presence of the complete definition in its particular examples denies that the full definition of Deity is applicable to the Son.

    The short of it is that nothing Clark says above is out of line with what Cheung says. Rather, what you said in your other blog comments is way out of line with the creeds, the confessions, and with both Cheung and Clark. If Clark were alive today I suspect he would be offended that you think what he wrote contradicts the creed of Chalecdon.

    I won’t be home for another week so I can’t read the book yet. But that is my suspicion.

    Charlie


  8. @ Hugh

    Maybe you should try learning something rather than parroting what you “think” Clark said???

    Charlie


  9. Sean, Nestorianism is still heresy and always will be. I’m glad the cat is out of the bag. I wonder if you and the others are merely misunderstanding Clark? I think that is the case because I suspect that you have no training in either theology or philosophy. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

    Funny thing is… Roger has no theological training yet he has a better understanding of the issues than uneducated anti-intellectuals who “think” they are following Clark and have no clue what Clark is saying.

    The above quote from Clarks shows that Clark puts the definition of man and the definition of deity in one Person, Jesus Christ. Clark also says above that there are only THREE persons in the Godhead. Since Jesus IS God, then WHERE is this FOURTH man you keep speaking of ??????

    Clark isn’t the heretic. YOU ARE.

  10. Sean Gerety Says:

    Sean, I’m beginning to believe–at least so far from what I’m reading of Clark–is that you have misunderstood Clark.

    Charlie, you haven’t read either Clark’s treatise on the Trinity or the Incarnation. It is certainly possible that I have not understood Clark and perhaps after you read the books you will be able to correct me.


  11. I generally try to tone down my remarks. But in this case you’re obviously inconsistent. You say that Scripture alone is infallible YET you follow a fallible teaching which you THINK Clark taught. Perhaps you should not trust your own reasoning ability quite so much? It just might be that you’re misreading Clark.

    I think that is the case.

    It’s becoming more and more obvious as time goes on.

    Scripture, however, is unambiguous. Jesus is God. Jesus is pre-existent in the Godhead. (John 1:1-3; John 1:14; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 3:16).

    Maybe you should try sticking with Scripture alone rather than following your fallible reason, Sean???

    Or maybe that’s too rational for you????

  12. Sean Gerety Says:

    The above quote from Clarks shows that Clark puts the definition of man and the definition of deity in one Person, Jesus Christ. Clark also says above that there are only THREE persons in the Godhead. Since Jesus IS God, then WHERE is this FOURTH man you keep speaking of ??????

    You really aren’t following are you Charlie? Hopefully when you can stop frothing at the mouth and actually read the books under discussion you’ll have a better understanding of what you’re talking about.

  13. Sean Gerety Says:

    It just might be that you’re misreading Clark.

    I think that is the case.

    I said that might be the case, but I doubt it. However your emotional tirades both here and on unsolicited emails I have received from you are not helpful. Besides, you haven’t read either book by Clark (I don’t know if you’ve read any of Clark’s books) yet you’re an authority? Give me a break.

    Scripture, however, is unambiguous. Jesus is God. Jesus is pre-existent in the Godhead. (John 1:1-3; John 1:14; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 3:16).

    Maybe you should try sticking with Scripture alone rather than following your fallible reason, Sean???

    Indeed Jesus is God. However, perhaps you are the one who needs to stick to Scripture more closely because, among other things, in it we see that Jesus grew in wisdom and is ignorant of some things. Yet, the per-existent Second Person doesn’t grow in wisdom and is ignorant of nothing.

    Further, a will (which, per you, is the only thing human in the God-Man Jesus Christ) doesn’t grow in wisdom nor is it ignorant. Only minds or souls can grown in wisdom and can be ignorant of some things. Take your soul or mind for example, it is clearly ignorant of many things under discussion yet it keeps talking as if it had some understanding or grasp of what it was talking about.


  14. And since a will cannot grow in knowledge, it follows that the Second Person grew in knowledge. That is neither orthodox nor biblical and you’ve lost God in the process.

    It is unfortunate that your ability to reason is so limited, Sean. Roger’s quote from Cheung above demonstrates quite well that there is no paradox or contradiction in saying that the hypostatic union does not violate the distinction between the two natures. The incommunicable attributes are not attributed to the human nature/definition.

    It’s becoming more clear to me now. Clark seems to be simply restating the traditional view in different terms but some folks are not able to understand EITHER way of describing the same thing.

    For Clark the “definition” is equivalent to the church father’s term “nature.” The human “definition” is the “human nature.” The divine “definition” is what constitutes the attributes of deity or the “divine nature.” The two sets of “definitions” are hypostatically united in one person, Jesus Christ. The two “definitions” are not confused or mixed but neither are they “separated”.
    The two are not separate but distinct and not confused or mixed but “united.”

    But these sorts of distinctions are beyond those who refuse to “think” and “reason.” Hence, anti-intellectualism is inherently “irrational” and paradoxical.

    So where is this fourth person that Clark says is not there????

    Charlie


  15. Sean, whether or not you like it, if you claim to be a “brother” then your remarks “elicit” a response.

    “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. (Matthew 18:15-19 ESV)

  16. Sean Gerety Says:

    So where is this fourth person that Clark says is not there????

    Here, I’ll help you with a little arithmetic since aside from confusing apples with oranges you can’t seem to count. First, Clark refutes Van Til and when discussing his theory of individuation is also answering the Third Man argument which you can find on pgs 107-109. Clark argues “one could argue that the similarity among the three Persons presupposes a higher Person than the three.” He then goes on to demonstrate that this “argument is defective against Platonism and even more so against Trinitarianism.”

    So the discussion is how God can said to be three persons yet one God. He is not discussing how a human “nature” relates or is joined to a divine “nature” in the Incarnation. Yet, for some odd reason, you keep confusing the two? Bizarre.

  17. Sean Gerety Says:

    Sean, whether or not you like it, if you claim to be a “brother” then your remarks “elicit” a response.

    I see, you quote Matthew 18 to me after you repeatedly and publicly attack me and after you call me a heretic and then some. That’s a good one. Should I share with the list what you said to me privately? Why don’t we let them decide if you are following your own advice, not to mention Matthew 18.

  18. Ryan Says:

    I did not know Clark rejected the theory of abstraction. It is no wonder he thought “sensation” was a meaningless term.


  19. Charlie, how can you have not read Clark’s books on the Trinity and the Incarnation, and still be able to tell that Sean is misunderstanding Clark? You haven’t even read the books to begin with?

    To those who have actually read these works, some of your interpretations (inventions, actually, since you haven’t read Clark) are downright laughable. Stop embarrassing yourself by talking about what you don’t understand, and stop wasting time by confusing the issue: the post is about the *TRINITY* not the *INCARNATION*…

  20. Hugh Says:

    Charlie,

    We now move to the public sphere.

    NAME SEAN’S SINS, AND IN LOVE REPROVE HIM, or else cease & desist.

    Yours,
    Hugh

  21. Roger Mann Says:

    Sean wrote,

    Indeed Jesus is God. However, perhaps you are the one who needs to stick to Scripture more closely because, among other things, in it we see that Jesus grew in wisdom and is ignorant of some things. Yet, the per-existent Second Person doesn’t grow in wisdom and is ignorant of nothing.

    The Second Person doesn’t grow in wisdom and is ignorant of nothing per His union with the divine attributes. However, because the Second Person became Incarnate, He did grow in wisdom and is ignorant of some things per His union with the human attributes. That’s why Cheung wrote:

    “The objection that divine and human attributes necessarily contradict one another when possessed by the same person fails to take into account that the two sets of attributes are independent from each other in God the Son. For example, Christ was not omniscient according to his human attributes, but he was omniscient according to his divine attributes, and this remains true even to this day. His divine attributes has not deified his human attributes.”

    Further, a will (which, per you, is the only thing human in the God-Man Jesus Christ) doesn’t grow in wisdom nor is it ignorant. Only minds or souls can grown in wisdom and can be ignorant of some things.

    The Second Person assumed the full complex of human attributes while retaining the full complex of divine attributes. The full complex of human attributes includes a human will and mind that grows in wisdom and knowledge. However, as I mentioned before, a “person” or “ego” is a principle in its own right, and cannot be deduced from the “nature” or “attributes” that define either God or man. That’s why I wrote earlier:

    “I never said that a bare ‘human nature’ grew in knowledge; I said that the Second Person grew in knowledge according to His human nature. To be more precise, it was the rational, human soul of Jesus, which derived its personality from the Second Person, that grew in knowledge.”

    As I’ve repeatedly shown now, there is nothing incoherent, nonsensical, or contradictory about that. Moreover, it is faithful to Scripture, which plainly states that “the Word [the Logos or Second Person of the Godhead] became flesh [fully human].” He didn’t merely “indwell” or “take up residence” in a human body with a separate human soul. That is unbiblical. That is Nestorianism. That is heresy! I pray that God will open your eyes and grant you repentance.

    By the way, I have read Clark’s The Trinity and The Incarnation (a couple of times now), and I believe Sean is understanding him correctly. Clark definitely was teaching the two-person heresy of the “Incarnation” in his final book.

  22. Roger Mann Says:

    Sorry, the sentence in my second to last paragraph should have said:

    He didn’t merely “indwell” or “take up residence” in a human body with a separate human person [not “soul” — that was a typo].

  23. Sean Gerety Says:

    The Second Person doesn’t grow in wisdom and is ignorant of nothing per His union with the divine attributes. However, because the Second Person became Incarnate, He did grow in wisdom and is ignorant of some things per His union with the human attributes.

    Needless to say, arguments like the one above really don’t help your case. First, the Second person is not united with “the divine attributes,” as if the divine attributes were something the Second Person partakes of. He IS defined by his attributes which are all divine because He is God. So the first part is simply nonsense.

    The second idea that the Second Person is ignorant of some things according to His union with “human attributes” also makes no sense. One person, the Second Person, is ignorant of somethings and ignorant of nothing. If you can’t see the complete and utter incoherence in this I really can’t help you Roger.

    So, explain, what human attribute would cause the Omniscient Lord God Almighty, the Eternal Lord who created and upholds the world, who is the Alpha and Omega, who knoweth all the works of His hand, to be ignorant of anything? How can God the Second Person cease being God as the result of this union with “human attributes”?


  24. Sean, your misrepresentations of the orthodox position are laughable at best. First of all, as Roger pointed out no one on the orthodox side of the argument says that God grows in knowledge, etc., etc. That is only true of the human nature. The incommunicable attributes of deity are not transferred to the human nature. The eternal Son does not lay aside His deity in order to assume a human nature and a human soul into the divine nature. Rather the Logos lays aside the free exercise of the incommunicable divine attributes and submits Himself to the Father’s will temporarily.

    What is really laughable is that you try to maintain that the man Jesus Christ is God while denying that He is the same Person as God the Son. If Jesus is not the Eternal Son of God in the flesh, then who is He? It would be idolatry to worship some person who is just a man.

    You’re contradicting yourself again, Sean. In your efforts to appear rational you become more and more paradoxical and irrational.

    BTW, Apollinarianism said that the Logos replaced the human soul. But the orthodox position says that the Logos assumes a human soul into the divine nature. So Jesus truly is both God and Man without confusing the two nature or their distinctive attributes.

    Nestorianism for all practical purposes denies the complete deity of Jesus Christ and your remarks prove that over and over again. Scripture affirms both His full deity AND his full humanity. Selling out to Nestorianism divides Christ from Christ and ends up with an Eternal Son who never becomes human and thus cannot be our substitute for our sins. And more than that the human person would not be able to bear our sins and the wrath of God against sinners since he would be only a man and not divine.

    You haven’t thought through the implications of Nestorianism, Sean. But then heretics are always smugly sinful in their rebellion.

    It might do you well to stop idolizing one particular theologian and read more widely. It’s called “theological education.”

    Education is much better than idolatry. Critical thinking requires examining your own position critically. If it cannot stand the test then you need to change it–particularly when the rest of the Christian world is against you. That would include EVERYONE. Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox–with perhaps the exception of the Ethiopian church?

    Personally, I don’t follow mere men. I follow Scripture. Apparently, however, you’re more concerned with following Clark and your own grandiose delusions than being faithful to Scripture. Perhaps you should change the name of your blog to something more honest?

    I could care less if Clark taught Nestorianism. No matter who teaches it the doctrine remains a heresy and it is a doctrine that is nowhere taught explicitly or even implicitly in Scripture. It is purely an invention of men.

    Charlie


  25. Sean said:

    First, the Second person is not united with “the divine attributes,” as if the divine attributes were something the Second Person partakes of. He IS defined by his attributes which are all divine because He is God. So the first part is simply nonsense.

    Sean, that’s a brilliant strawman. But then logic escapes those who have no logic. Who has said that the Logos is “united” to His attributes. His attributes are who He is by nature. It’s His divine nature/being. But then, you don’t understand the orthodox position. You keep proving that over and over again.

    We’re talking about the human nature being united to the divine nature through one Person in hypostatic union. The attributes of one nature are not communicated to the other. That explains how Jesus is fully human and fully God at the same time. In His human nature and human soul He is voluntarily and temporarily limited by His own choice. But at the same time in His divine nature He is still in full possession of all the incommunicable attributes of deity. This explains how He is still fully God even while on earth in the incarnation.

    There are only three Persons in the Divine Nature/Godhead and there is only one Person who becomes human. All the fullness of deity dwelt in Him bodily (Colossians 2:9). But then, you say that is impossible. The Bible disagrees with you. The two natures are hypostatically united without confusing the two natures and without dividing the two natures. How are they united? They are united in one Person. There is no other way they can be united. But you deny there is a union of the two natures. That means you wind up with two persons. Two persons means there is one human and one divine and there is no union. So you cannot say that Jesus is God. You can only say that he is a man.

    If Jesus is God, then He is the Eternal Son who assumes human form. (Philippians 2:5ff; 1 Timothy 3:15-16; John 1:14, 18). It would be a horrible twisting of the context of Scripture to not take it at the face value. God was manifested in the flesh. The Word “became” flesh.

    That’s Bible.

    Charlie


  26. Sean said:

    The second idea that the Second Person is ignorant of some things according to His union with “human attributes” also makes no sense. One person, the Second Person, is ignorant of somethings and ignorant of nothing. If you can’t see the complete and utter incoherence in this I really can’t help you Roger.

    Again, the doctrine of the hypostatic union makes this possible. In His human nature the Logos is limited. In His divine nature He is not limited. One Person who experiences human limitations in the human soul and nature and who experiences the fullness of the incommunicable attributes of deity in His divine nature. This does not entail Nestorianism.

    Nestorianism does not solve the “apparent” contradition you have created. There is no contradiction in saying that there is one person with two natures in hypostatic union. It is no more a contradiction than saying that God is one is being/nature and three in subsistence/person.

    Nestorianism creates a fourth person that is only human and not divine. Such a person cannot possibly bear our sins because he cannot bear the eternal penalty required by an absolutely holy deity. The Logos cannot identitfy with humanity in the Nestorian view because He never becomes or assumes human form or nature. This denies Philippians 2, John 1, and 1 Timothy 3:16.j

    Also, Nestorianism would entail idolatry since you are worshipping a mere creature and not a divine Person, Jesus Christ. Nestorianism is really on a step away from Arianism which said that Christ is a created being.

    Charlie


  27. Jesus is only limited in His human and reasonable soul. He is not limited in the Logos. Both exist at the same time. This does not entail two persons but two aspects/natures of the same Person perfectly united in the hypostatic union.


  28. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (1 John 4:1-3 ESV)


  29. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Corinthians 2:8 ESV)


  30. Charlie, if you won’t read Clark’s ‘The Trinity’ before you attempt to instruct Sean’s understanding of it, then stop trolling. Perhaps if you actually read it, you would understand Clark’s motivation, and his position (as well as Sean’s).

    The language of Chalcedon is vague and undefined, in many instances. Your own post illustrates the problem:

    “no one on the orthodox side of the argument says that God grows in knowledge…”

    So, A) God does not grow in knowledge.
    B) Luke 2:52
    C) Therefore… what?

    I don’t intend to imply that you deny that Jesus is God. I do mean to show that definition of terms is paramount. Clark, in his book that you haven’t gotten around to reading yet, clearly defines his terms. You have assigned your own definitions to Clark’s terms, and thereby called him (by your accusations against Sean) a heretic. Clark had an uncommon definition of the word “person.” He did not teach Nestorianism.

    “You haven’t thought through the implications of Nestorianism, Sean. But then heretics are always smugly sinful in their rebellion.”

    You haven’t shown any sign of any attempt to understand Clark’s and Sean’s position. It’s not Nestorianism. If you had read Clark, you’d understand that. C’mon man, the book isn’t even that thick…

    “It might do you well to stop idolizing one particular theologian and read more widely. It’s called ‘theological education.'”

    I see you’ve read the classic, “Mastering the art of pathetic sarcasm: How to appear wise in your own mind while appearing like a pathetic coward to your readers.” Enough pointless jabs, Charlie. It’s unbecoming, especially coming from someone who hasn’t read THE BOOK UNDER DISCUSSION.

    “Personally, I don’t follow mere men. I follow Scripture.”

    How pious. And idiotic to imply Sean doesn’t care about Scripture. Shame on you; rather than intelligently consider the book at hand, you slide in jabs. Sad.

    “I could care less if Clark taught Nestorianism.”

    He didn’t, which you would understand if you READ. THE. BOOK. But you won’t. You obviously have time to post your tirades here, perhaps it would be better spent reading, engaging in theological education?


  31. yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:6 ESV)

    How can there be two Jesus Christ’s? One who is merely human and another who is the Logos and through whom all things exist?

    Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8 ESV)


  32. saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” (Revelation 5:12-13 ESV)

    How can you worship the Lamb if He is merely a man?

    Charlie


  33. Charlie, you ok man? Calm down, nobody’s saying there are two Jesus Christs.


  34. Charles Hodge:

    Nestorianism.

    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. This was not the avowed or real doctrine of Nestorius, but it was the doctrine charged upon him, and was the conclusion to which his principles were supposed to lead. Nestorius was a man of great excellence and eminence; first a presbyter in Antioch, and afterwards Patriarch of Constantinople. The controversy on this subject arose from his defending one of his presbyters who denied that the Virgin Mary could properly be called the Mother of God. As this designation of the blessed Virgin had already received the sanction of the Church, and was familiar and dear to the people, Nestorius’s objection to its use excited general and violent opposition. He was on this account alone accused of heresy. As, however, there is a sense in which Mary was the Mother of God, and a sense in which such a designation is blasphemous, everything depends on the real meaning attached to the terms. What Nestorius meant, according to his own statement, was simply that God, the divine nature, could neither be born nor die. In his third letter to Coelestin, Bishop of Rome, he said, “Ego autem ad hanc quidem vocem, quae est qeoto,koj, nisi secundum Apollinaris et Arii furorem ad confusionem naturarum proferatur, volentibus dicere non resisto; nec tamen ambigo quia haec vox qeoto,koj illi voci cedat, quae est cristoto.koj, tanquam prolatae ab Angelis et evangelistis” What he asserted was, “Non peperit creatura creatorem, sed peperit hominem deitatis instrumentum. . . . Spiritus sanctus . . . Deo Verbo templum fabricatus est, quod habitaret, ex virgine.” Nevertheless, he obviously carried the distinction of natures too far, for neither he nor his followers could bring themselves to use the Scriptural language, “The Church of God which he purchased with his blood.” The Syriac version used by the Nestorians, reads Cristo,” instead of Theo,” in Acts xx. 28. The principal opponent of Nestorius was Cyril of Alexandria, who secured his condemnation by violent means in the Synod of Ephesus in A. D. 431. This irregular decision was resisted by the Greek and Syrian bishops, so that the controversy, for a time at least, was a conflict between these two sections of the Church. Ultimately Nestorius was deposed and banished, and died A. D. 440. His followers removed eastward to Persia, and organized themselves into a separate communion, which continues until this day. From Soteriology: Person of Christ


  35. Hey! I finally bought that book the other day. Got it for $20 on ChristianBook.com.

    Unfortunately, Charlie cannot distinguish between the two persons of Gordon Clark and Charles Hodge. (See what I did there? 😉

    Seriously Charlie. Come on. Read Clark. You know you want to. You can do it.


  36. “Ego autem ad hanc quidem vocem, quae est theotokos, nisi secundum Apollinaris et Arii furorem ad confusionem naturarum proferatur, volentibus dicere non resisto; nec tamen ambigo quia haec vox qeoto,koj illi voci cedat, quae est christotokos.”


  37. If you read Hodge, he answers practically every objection you raise, Sean. So does Robert Reymond and practically every other systematic theology.

    I haven’t finished reading Hoeksema yet but I suspect Hoeksema would likewise condemn Nestorianism.

    Charlie


  38. 1 Corinthians 14:27

    Blogging in tongues requires interpretation.

  39. Roger Mann Says:

    Sean wrote,

    Needless to say, arguments like the one above really don’t help your case. First, the Second person is not united with “the divine attributes,” as if the divine attributes were something the Second Person partakes of. He IS defined by his attributes which are all divine because He is God. So the first part is simply nonsense.

    Of course the three Persons of the Godhead are “defined” by the divine attributes. Why? Because they equally “share” or “partake” of the divine attributes. That is why they constitute one God despite their three personal differentiations within the Godhead. What you heretically deny is that the Second Person also “became flesh” by assuming a human nature, and therefore “shares” or “partakes” of the full complex of human attributes — including a reasonable soul/mind that grows in knowledge, is ignorant of some things, and can die. Thus the Second Person of the Godhead is also “defined” by the human attributes that He assumed in the Incarnation. I am faithful to Scripture and affirm both; you are not.

    The second idea that the Second Person is ignorant of some things according to His union with “human attributes” also makes no sense. One person, the Second Person, is ignorant of somethings and ignorant of nothing. If you can’t see the complete and utter incoherence in this I really can’t help you Roger.

    As Cheung pointed out:

    “The objection that divine and human attributes necessarily contradict one another when possessed by the same person fails to take into account that the two sets of attributes are independent from each other in God the Son. For example, Christ was not omniscient according to his human attributes, but he was omniscient according to his divine attributes, and this remains true even to this day. His divine attributes has not deified his human attributes.”

    If you can’t see the complete, utter coherence of this, then I really can’t help you either. You not only deny the Biblical data regarding the Incarnation, but you don’t understand basic logical distinctions.

    So, explain, what human attribute would cause the Omniscient Lord God Almighty, the Eternal Lord who created and upholds the world, who is the Alpha and Omega, who knoweth all the works of His hand, to be ignorant of anything? How can God the Second Person cease being God as the result of this union with “human attributes”?

    The human attribute of a finite mind causes the Second Person to be ignorant of some things according to His “human nature”. This really isn’t that difficult, Sean. Moreover, I’ve repeatedly pointed out that the Second Person did not “cease being God as the result of this union with “human attributes,” so your last “point” is utter nonsense. Have you been paying NO attention at all?


  40. Question for Roger:
    “…the Second Person also “became flesh” by assuming a human nature, and therefore “shares” or “partakes” of the full complex of human attributes — including a reasonable soul/mind that grows in knowledge, is ignorant of some things, and can die.”

    Does this mean that Jesus Christ had two minds? And by your last three words did you mean that the mind could die?

    Just seeking clarification, thanks.

  41. Phil Derksen Says:

    “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” (Matthew 24:34-36; ESV)


  42. Well Charlie? I see you’ve taken the time to make three irrelevant comments on my blog… How goes that Clark reading? Ready to respond to my comments yet?

    …Didn’t think so. Coward.

  43. Hugh Says:

    Brethren,

    It appears fruitless to argue with Charlie Ray.

    I have personally had to give up, as his emails became the tired, abusive ad hominem variety sans reason.

    We still await his naming Sean’s sins, and actually reading Clark.

    Wait we in vain?

    Hugh

  44. Cliffton Says:

    Sean writes: First, the Second person is not united with “the divine attributes,” as if the divine attributes were something the Second Person partakes of. He IS defined by his attributes which are all divine because He is God. So the first part is simply nonsense.

    Cliffton: Sean, you may want to rethink that. The last two questions that I directed toward you concerned this very issue. Clark maintained that the Son participates in the definition of deity (I would not say “united with”-ctt). He also maintained that the Son doesn’t possess the predicate “eternal” because He is the Son, but because He is deity. You don’t have to respond, but maybe it’s something to consider. And by the way, I don’t believe you are a heretic, or Clark for that matter. I think those who are suggesting as much may be manifesting a missunderstanding of both Clark and Nestorianism (or rather the views of those who claimed they followed Nestorius).

  45. Sean Gerety Says:

    Thank you Cliffton.

  46. speigel Says:

    @Sean:
    What did you think of Clark’s argument for Christ being both God and man in his “Trinity”?

    @Cliffton:
    Can you elaborate as to how you understand Clark’s position on the Incarnation and how you under Nestorianism? And perhaps, how the two are not the same. Thanks.


  47. Hugh, I’m starting to think you’re right. He’s started commenting on my blog, and every time is like a driveby, erratic outbursts that don’t even seem to be connected to an argument.

  48. Hugh Says:

    Saints,

    One wrote above: “BTW, Apollinarianism said that the Logos replaced the human soul. But the orthodox position says that the Logos assumes a human soul into the divine nature. So Jesus truly is both God and Man without confusing the two nature[s] or their distinctive attributes.”

    Or, personalities?

    Acc. to Theopedia:

    ‘Nestorianism is basically the doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, rather than as a unified person. This doctrine is identified with Nestorius (c.386-451), Patriarch of Constantinople, although he himself denied holding this belief. This view of Christ was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the conflict over this view led to the Nestorian schism, separating the Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church.

    ‘The motivation for this view was an aversion to the idea that “God” suffered and died on the cross, be it the divinity itself, the Trinity, or one of the persons of the Trinity. Thus, they would say, Jesus the perfect man suffered and died, not the divine second person of the Trinity, for such is an impossible thought — hence the inference that two “persons” essentially inhabited the one body of Jesus. Nestorius himself argued against calling Mary the “Mother of God” (Theotokos) as the church was beginning to do. He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council at Ephesus (431) accused Nestorius of the heresy of teaching “two persons” in Christ and insisted that Theotokos was an appropriate title for Mary.

    ‘The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the “human person” then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.’

    IS THIS ACCURATE?

    Thanks,
    Hugh

  49. lawyertheologian Says:

    If by Nestorian one means being two persons, then that is indeed what Clark taught. But Nestorius didn’t define “person” so they can’t be the same teaching. However, even when examining it is not at clear that what Nestorius taught what heretical. His main issue was with the church’s teaching that Mary was the mother of God. Nestorius says, “what was formed in the womb of Mary was not God Himself.” But, as Clark said, this is no heresy. So also many other statements of Nestorius don’t warrant a charge of heresy, as Clark showed.

    In any event, we can’t simply cite church history to determine whether a teaching/doctrine is heretical.

    The thing, the only thing, that needs to be discussed and determined, is whether two persons is inconsistent with Jesus being God and man. Again, no one is denying that Jesus is two in one. The issue is whether two natures in one person intelligibly and correctly articulates this two in one or whether two persons in one inexplainable unity is a clearer, intelligible and thus preferable articulation of who Jesus is.

  50. Hugh Says:

    Thanks for weighing in, L.T.

    “…we can’t simply cite church history to determine whether a teaching/doctrine is heretical.”

    >> A contention of mine, too. To judge a situation or a man from over a millennia ago based on one side’s testimony (often, Rome’s alone), is to ignore the Scriptural requirement of 2 or more witnesses. Also, many merely parrot what earlier writers have culled.

    Pro. 18:17 ~ “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.’ <> Agreed. Can nature = person[ality]? <<

    Hugh

  51. Hugh Says:

    OOPS ~ somehow a whole chunk got lost:

    “The thing, the only thing, that needs to be discussed and determined, is whether two persons is inconsistent with Jesus being God and man. Again, no one is denying that Jesus is two in one. The issue is whether two natures in one person intelligibly and correctly articulates this two in one or whether two persons in one inexplainable unity is a clearer, intelligible and thus preferable articulation of who Jesus is.”

    >> Agreed. Can nature = person[ality]? <<

    Hugh

  52. lawyertheologian Says:

    It’s not a question whether nature can equal personality, but whether “man” in the case of Jesus means nature, rather than person, like the rest of us men.


  53. Well, leave it to a bunch of papists to think they have all the authority:)

    I think for myself. Modern papists are still papists. I don’t follow heretics, schismatics, or Anabaptists or even Nestorians. I follow Scripture alone.

    However, that does not mean that the Reformation principle of sola scriptura means the church has no authority at all. If you’re going to say the church errs then your own position might be the one in error. How do we decide?

    Toss up a coin? Your arguments against the creeds and confessions of faith cut against your own favorite heresy. Or do you have the logical and rational ability to realize this?

    As for Patrick’s baiting, I have better sense:)

    Charlie


  54. Roger, you keep pointing out the obvious. But those determined to re-invent ancient heresies refuse to listen–even if the orthodox position is more biblical.

    The Bible never mentions any idea that Christ is two persons. Scripture always refers to him as one person.

    Now, if folks refuse to believe the Bible in its plain and propositional statements, what else can be said to convince them?


  55. Charlie: The irony of these two statements in the same post is not lost on me:

    “I think for myself.” and “If you’re going to say the church errs then your own position might be the one in error. How do we decide?”

    I’m not aware of any papists posting in this thread. Have I missed one?

    Baiting? I invite anyone to come visit my own blog and have a look at your irrelevant baiting.

    Read Clark yet?

  56. Hugh Says:

    Hmm — so some of us are alternately

    papistic,
    schismatic,
    anabaptistic,
    Nestorian,
    illogical,
    unscriptural,
    anti-creedal,
    unconfessional,
    unorthodox,
    unbelieving,
    irrational,
    and of course,
    heretical.

    Let’s call the whole thing off.

    Hugh


  57. Hugh: Obviously, you’d fall under “schismatic.” 😉 haha

  58. Hugh Says:

    Hey Charlie,

    Show me the verse(s) that say Jesus was a person, and while you’re at it, great hunter o’ heretics, biblically define person, nature, essence, substance, and being.

    If you can’t, then will you PLEASE shut up? {Can we say that, Sean?}

    Enough is enough, Chas — you’re not teaching us anything, except how to be obnoxious.

    Thank you!
    Hugh

  59. qeqesha Says:

    Human attributes define a human person, whilst divine attributes define a divine person, ordinarily. Or another way, human persons possess human attributes whilst divine persons possess divine attributes. Can anything have fully human attributes and still not be a human person, like a fully human car? What does it mean, ‘And the Word became flesh(man)’, ‘the man Christ Jesus’? Who suffered and died at Calvary, God or a human person? Further, who said, ‘I and the Father are one’, ‘Before Abraham was I am’, ‘Father, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the Foundation of the World’? Those who say it is ‘one person’ with human and divine attributes, is this not akin to schizophrenia, let alone the lack of definitions?
    Two persons can be united with one will! ‘I came not to do mine will but His that sent me’, ‘Not my will but thine be done’ etc etc.

    Denson

  60. lawyertheologian Says:

    Charlie:”The Bible never mentions any idea that Christ is two persons. Scripture always refers to him as one person.

    Now, if folks refuse to believe the Bible in its plain and propositional statements, what else can be said to convince them?”

    Where in the Bible does it refer to Jesus as one person?

  61. Hugh Says:

    OK, if lawyertheologian and I ask the same question, look out!

    C’mon Charlie, the gaunlet is thrown down.

    Where’s Writ say Jesus is one person? If it “always” thus “refers to him,” this implies at least two quotes you’re preparing to send us…

    Hugh

  62. lawyertheologian Says:

    At best, I think one could try to infer by the fact that Jesus is referred to as “he” that Jesus is thus referred to as one person. However, God also is referred to as “he” and we know that he is three persons.

  63. lawyertheologian Says:

    So when the Scriptures say “he was hungry”, it’s possible to think of the collective unit as “he” the God-man, but we know that it was only the man part of the unit that got hungry.


  64. Looks like Pat thinks he has some sort of papal authority over everyone else?

    As I said, I think for myself. I don’t need a bunch of juvenile delinquents to tell me what to think.

    I call it like I see it. First of all, you guys do not understand sola scriptura. Second of all, you fail to acknowledge that if the creeds and confessions “can and do err” that means YOU are even LESS trustworthy…

    And yes, I would include your idolatrous exaltation of Clark on to a pedestal in that. Why should one dead theologian trump the rest of the Protestant churches throughout several centuries?

    Duh!

    You guys just do not get it. And saying that Jesus is 2 persons is an argument from silence as far as Scripture goes. Scripture presents Jesus as one individual person, not two. Scripture teaches the trinity and the incarnation. All this other silly equivocation about definitions of persons is just the devil trying to confuse and divide.

    I had never in my wildest imagination thought that so-called “Reformed” folks would be so unconfessional and heretical on the doctrine of Christ.

    As I said before, this pretty much does it for me. I’m done with The Trinity Foundation and with God’s Hammer and all the rest of you. And you can bet your bottom dollar I will be warning everyone else I know about this heresy.

    Lesson #1: Never mess with a Christian who cares about the truth.

    Charlie

  65. lawyertheologian Says:

    Charlie: “Why should one dead theologian trump the rest of the Protestant churches throughout several centuries?”

    Because he was more brilliant theologian than most of them. Besides, maybe they just never gave it much thought. Or maybe, God simply gave him that great insight before he died as a gift to the church. Whatever the case, we need to examine what he wrote on its own merit, not decide based on what others say or said.

    Charlie: “You guys just do not get it. And saying that Jesus is 2 persons is an argument from silence as far as Scripture goes. Scripture presents Jesus as one individual person, not two.”

    You can keep claiming this until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t make it so. Again, you’re begging the question.

    This is no way to have an intelligent worthwhile discussion.

  66. lawyertheologian Says:

    Charlie: “You guys just do not get it. And saying that Jesus is 2 persons is an argument from silence as far as Scripture goes.”

    No, you don’t get it. The Bible is silent saying either that Jesus was one or two persons. Again, all it says is that Jesus was both God and man. And unless you can demonstrate that claiming Jesus is two persons logically implies a denial of that, you cannot claim that such is heresy.

  67. Hugh Says:

    > St Charles hath found us out, boys!

    Looks like Pat thinks he has some sort of papal authority over everyone else?

    > No, we just voted him pope b/c he has a bass voice, and looks great in a pointy hat and gown.

    As I said, I think for myself. I don’t need a bunch of juvenile delinquents to tell me what to think.

    > We’re actually pimply juvenile delinquents w/ bad b.o. (but don’t tell anyone!).

    I call it like I see it. First of all, you guys do not understand sola scriptura. Second of all, you fail to acknowledge that if the creeds and confessions “can and do err” that means YOU are even LESS trustworthy…

    > Howard Cosell lives! Of course we don’t get s.s.– WE’RE PAPISTS! P.A.P.I.S.T.S! And proud of it, baby! I’m also an anabaptist, too, remember? Very thick.

    And yes, I would include your idolatrous exaltation of Clark on to a pedestal in that. Why should one dead theologian trump the rest of the Protestant churches throughout several centuries?

    > I for one have gained great gain in selling my fine hand-crafted GHC icons and statuary, & my Clarkian altar is the talk of the town. But with your post we’re in danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great god Gordon may be counted as nothing, and that he may even be deposed from his magnificence, he whom all the Foundation and the Review worship.

    Duh!

    > Our chant! How’d YOU find out?!

    You guys just do not get it. And saying that Jesus is 2 persons is an argument from silence as far as Scripture goes. Scripture presents Jesus as one individual person, not two. Scripture teaches the trinity and the incarnation. All this other silly equivocation about definitions of persons is just the devil trying to confuse and divide.

    > I THINK I merely asked questions, and did not assert what youse say us guys said. Mebbe dem guys said dat, but not me.

    I had never in my wildest imagination thought that so-called “Reformed” folks would be so unconfessional and heretical on the doctrine of Christ.

    > Hee hee; we’re the best-kept secret in Reformed Christendom: the putatively-Scriptural Clarkolaters. (Robbins is being beatified next month!)

    As I said before, this pretty much does it for me. I’m done with The Trinity Foundation and with God’s Hammer and all the rest of you. And you can bet your bottom dollar I will be warning everyone else I know about this heresy.

    > NO! NO! PLEASE DON’T LEAVE US! To whom shall we go for wisdom, love, peace, joy, etc.?

    Lesson #1: Never mess with a Christian who cares about the truth.

    Charlie

    > OUCH! Thou hast cut us to the quick! I feel genuine repentance and true faith coming on, the skies are opening, I hear a voice; it saith: “Don’t let the door hit… oh, LET the door hit you on the way out!”

    This is no way to have an intelligent worthwhile discussion. Now THAT’S an understatement, L.T.!

  68. qeqesha Says:

    “Looks like Pat thinks he has some sort of papal authority over everyone else?”

    Charlie, Charlie, Charlie!! Master of irony!!

    “I call it like I see it.”
    Well said charlie!!!

    “First of all, you guys do not understand sola scriptura.”

    Let alone the creeds !!!!

    “Second of all, you fail to acknowledge that if the creeds and confessions “can and do err” that means YOU are even LESS trustworthy…”

    And so, when they err, we can never know, since we are even less trustworthy!!! I am begining to like you Charlie!

    “As I said, I think for myself.”
    How true!!!

    “I don’t need a bunch of juvenile delinquents to tell me what to think.”
    It looks to me you could use some help Charlie!!!

    “As I said before, this pretty much does it for me. I’m done with The Trinity Foundation and with God’s Hammer and all the rest of you. And you can bet your bottom dollar I will be warning everyone else I know about this heresy.”

    The trinityfoundation has been around since the seventies. Clark’s books on the trinity and incarnation have been read by many people. I do not know what rabbit hole you have been hiding in!!
    Good luck in your campaign, warning people about books you have not read!!!

    “Lesson #1: Never mess with a Christian who cares about the truth.”

    Bwa -ha -ha -ha -ha !!!!!

    Thank you Charlie for the comic relief!
    Bwa -ha -ha -ha -ha !!!!!

    Denson


  69. […] of these charges have been leveled against me in multiple threads over at God’s Hammer, here and […]


Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: