Regardless of the conclusions one comes to after reading Clark's work, something I appreciate about him is that he attempts to explain doctrines that most people just go around saying they believe without understanding. For example, if you say "God is a Trinity" and I ask "What does it mean that God is a Trinity?" and you can't provide an answer, you might as well say "God is a blarmanator." Neither term provides me any knowledge about God. The same would apply if you should say "God is three persons in one essence." What does that mean? If the terms can't be defined, God might as well be one asdl;fkjf and three asdflasjfa;sdjlf. Likewise, if God's nature, "as it is" or "as it is revealed to us" is contradictory, then I gain no knowledge about God. If my knowledge of God is equal to my knowledge of a square triangle, then it would seem that God doesn't exist or has become unknowable. Clark attempts to make sense out of these issues and for that I appreciate him, even though some people find not merely his conclusions, but even his efforts, impious, something which I just don't understand.

***

Pulling myself back on topic...

What you're saying sounds reasonable to me. I'd be interested to know how you define mind, will, person, and nature, though.

__________________
Davidius
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

And though the really inspired artist may complain that, with the majority, piano-playing is mere strumming, and painting little more than daubing, yet, the exuberant feeling of having a share in the privileges of art is so overwhelming, that the scorn of the artist is preferred to the abandonment of art training in education. To have laid a production of your own, however poor, upon the altar of art becomes more and more the characteristic of an accomplished civilization. - Abraham Kuyper