Doulos McKenzie
Puritan Board Freshman
I have begun reading Samuel Clarke's "Scripture of the Doctrine of the Trinity." Have any of y'all on the board read it? And what are you thoughts on it if you have?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He did not see Jesus as fully God?I have not read the book myself. If you're going into it, however, it might be best to be aware that Clarke is usually considered unorthodox. Certainly the thesis maintained that, "The Father (or First Person) is, absolutely speaking, the God of the Universe..." is either incorrect or so badly expressed as to call into question the competence of the writer. Contrast that with the confessional doctrine (WLC 9):
Q. 9. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.
He did not see Jesus as fully God?
Kind of how Dr Grudem see eternal subordination within the Godhead then?It is not quite that simple. He views the Son as being of the exact same nature as the Father, but he also denys the concept of a multi-personal God. He sees the Father as occupying the chief role in the position of God. It is very complex and I don't think I can adequately explain it very well. I would encourage you to just read the book.
I would encourage you to just read the book.
Why, exactly?
Run. Do not walk to the nearest exit.
I just think it is an Interesting view. I think it is fun to read about unorthodox view points. It makes you become more sure of your own position while enjoying learning about different view points. This is the same reason why I like reading stuff from NT Wright, not because I agree but because it is interesting.
I am glad it has been your experience so far that reading the unorthodox has strengthened you in the proper posture. With regard to recommending the same reading, however, it's good to be aware that people's mileage varies. What is stimulating in one case may prove deceptive or depressive in another.
My intent in recommending the book was in order that he could better understand Clarke's position. My intent was not to lead any brothers on the board. I probably should have clarified that in the original post. My bad.
To whom were you recommending it? New Christians? Mature Christians? It could really lead new Christians astray. I've seen it personally, with painful consequences.
He would deny Jesus as being very God of very God then?He denied the consubstantiality of the Son. This leaves one vacillating between Arianism and polytheism.
He would deny Jesus as being very God of very God then?
As the creeds confessed him as being!Depends on what you mean by "very," "of," and "God."
As the creeds confessed him as being!
He is eternally begotten from/of the Father, made up of the "same stuff" correct?Does "of God" mean that the Son is God of himself (autotheos), or does it mean that he derives his Godhood from the Father? It's not immediately self-evident.
He would deny Jesus as being very God of very God then?
He would then have been affirming that Jesus was like God first and greatest created being, like the JW do?He used the words but denied the sense in which they were understood by the orthodox. The orthodox regard this as being necessary to the divine nature whereas Clarke referred it to an act of the Father's will, which makes it voluntary, and of the same kind of act as creation.
He would then have been affirming that Jesus was like God first and greatest created being, like the JW do?
So he would make a distinction between the quality Jesus had within Himself, and those given to Him by God the Father?It seems to be more subtle than that. Shedd (History of Christian Doctrine, 1:386-387) distinguishes between high and low Arianism and identifies Clarke's problem with "his failure to discriminate carefully between the essence and the hypostasis. Hence, in quoting from the Scriptures, and the Fathers, he refers to the essential nature phraseology that implies subordination, and which was intended by those employing it, to apply only to the hypostatical character." In other words he attributed to the "essence" what only belongs to the "person."
So he would make a distinction between the quality Jesus had within Himself, and those given to Him by God the Father?
He would seem to have aspects of Unitarian viewpoints in his theology regarding the nature of God and the persons of Him?A simple Google search would answer most of you questions brother.
He would seem to have aspects of Unitarian viewpoints in his theology regarding the nature of God and the persons of Him?
Asking the question, as was having a hard time trying to get what he really thought on this issue onlineAre you asking a question or making a statement? And like I said a simply google search could answer your questions. Or simply read his short book on the subject.
So he would make a distinction between the quality Jesus had within Himself, and those given to Him by God the Father?