Samuel Clarke's "Scripture of the Doctrine of the Trinity"

[arapahoepark]

The opposite is likely the case, if I understand your question correctly. He claimed Jesus was God because of the voluntary act of the Father. This means that the Son was not a necessary existence, but depended upon the Father; whereas traditional theism confesses that God exists necessarily -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Sounds eerily similar to Ware, et. al. At least that the Father can do whatever without the other persons.

 

[MW]

Sounds eerily similar to Ware, et. al.

They confess that the Son is consubstantial with the Father and the Trinity is a necessary existence, notwithstanding their confusing use of "functional" as opposed to "ontological."

 

[Dachaser]

The opposite is likely the case, if I understand your question correctly. He claimed Jesus was God because of the voluntary act of the Father. This means that the Son was not a necessary existence, but depended upon the Father; whereas traditional theism confesses that God exists necessarily -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So he would see it as an eternal subordination state in the trinity?

 

[MW]

So he would see it as an eternal subordination state in the trinity?

Yes; subordinationist is a term that has been used to describe his view.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes; subordinationist is a term that has been used to describe his view.

There does seem though to be a difference between his views and Dr Grudem, as Clarke seemed to not actually have Jesus fully equal to God?

 

[arapahoepark]

There does seem though to be a difference between his views and Dr Grudem, as Clarke seemed to not actually have Jesus fully equal to God?

Yes, hence his earlier reply to me. Grudem affirms the Son's nature of himself as God. Clarke believes that the Father made the Son God.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

Yes, hence his earlier reply to me. Grudem affirms the Son's nature of himself as God. Clarke believes that the Father made the Son God.

Just to be clear, Clarke does believe in the eternity of the Son.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes, hence his earlier reply to me. Grudem affirms the Son's nature of himself as God. Clarke believes that the Father made the Son God.

Which is where some see Clarke teaching higher Arianism then?

 

[arapahoepark]

Which is where some see Clarke teaching higher Arianism then?

Yes.

 

[Dachaser]

Just to be clear, Clarke does believe in the eternity of the Son.

How can he, if he sees the father as where Jesus gets His own existence is gotten from?

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

How can he, if he sees the father as where Jesus gets His own existence is gotten from?

Uhhh.... You do know that the 2nd LBCF and the WCF clearly teach the eternal generation of the Son. Right? 2nd LBCF and WCF Ch. 2.3

 

[Dachaser]

Uhhh.... You do know that the 2nd LBCF and the WCF clearly teach the eternal generation of the Son. Right? 2nd LBCF and WCF Ch. 2.3

Yes, but we would also see that Jesus, as well as the Holy Spirit, are both God by necessity, correct? They have intrinsic ability to God in and of themselves?

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes, but we would also see that Jesus, as well as the Holy Spirit, are both God by necessity, correct? They have intrinsic ability to God in and of themselves?

The person is generated from the Father; the Father doesn't "cause" the God-essence. So he is God of necessity in the sense that his essence isn't dependent on anything else.

 

[Dachaser]

The person is generated from the Father; the Father doesn't "cause" the God-essence. So he is God of necessity in the sense that his essence isn't dependent on anything else.

So Jesus is eternally begotten of the father, but that does not mean that he is eternally subordinate to the father, as Clarke seems to infer?

 

[RamistThomist]

So Jesus is eternally begotten of the father, but that does not mean that he is eternally subordinate to the father, as Clarke seems to infer?

Eternally begotten, yes. Best not to use eternally subordinate language.

 

[Dachaser]

Eternally begotten, yes. Best not to use eternally subordinate language.

It would be acceptable to describe Jesus in that position while here on earth though, for that period of time?

 

[MW]

From eternity He is the Son of the Father, which means He is "necessarily" the second person of the Godhead. This second person of the Godhead "voluntarily" assumed human nature which is subordinate to God and will be subordinate to God time without end.