My name is Steve Matthews. Welcome to my blog. I appreciate your interest.
I live and work in Cincinnati. In my spare time, I read and write, with special interest in the areas of in Scripturalism (the philosophy developed by Gordon Clark and John Robbins), politics and economics.
Why the name Lux Lucet? Well, I liked the sound of it. At least that’s one reason. But on a more serious note, I chose it because it reflects my prayer for this blog. Lux Lucet is Latin for “The light shines” and is taken from the Vulgate translation of the John 1:5, which reads in English, “And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it.”
The masthead photo is from a Waldensian church in Palermo, Italy. The Waldensians were Italian Christians who, when it was all but forgotten during the middle ages, preached the gospel of grace and suffered greatly at the hands of the Roman Catholics for their faith. The symbol of a lamp surrounded by seven stars with the words Lux Lucet in Tenebris was a symbol used by the Waldensians and also by other Christian groups during the time of the Reformation.
Hi -
I’m wondering if you’ve read Clark’s Incarnation. If so, what are your thoughts about it?
Yes I have, and I thought Clark was right on target.
For years I’d always been discouraged by Christological discussions, because they were filled with lots of undefined and incomprehensible vebiage. And Clark referred to this sort of thing as fifteen hundred years of chanting nonsense. Clark, on the other hand, carefully defined his terms – especially the key term ‘person’ which he defined as a complex of thoughts or propositions- and and drew the correct conclusion. To quote John Robbins’ summary, “Jesus Christ was and is both God and man, a divine person and a human person.”
Do you think that Clark argued for two persons in the incarnation such that a predicate can be applied to one person but not to the other? If so, how successful do you think was Clark in proving this through Scripture?
Yes and very. The Man Christ Jesus suffered and died, the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, did not (pp.67-69).
BTW, what are your thoughts on Clark’s views?
I don’t believe Clark to be successful in proving his view from Scripture. I say this in the sense that his methods seem to change in proving three persons in the Trinity and in proving two persons in the incarnation. The latter seems to be mainly based on silence.
As I understand it, Clark’s problem with the confessional view is the problem of the communication of attributes. I say this because even under Clark’s definition of “person”, a collection of propositions, one can still say that there is one person, or one collection of propositions, in the incarnation. So while some hang on to their dislike for Clark’s definition of person, I put more emphasis on the issue of predication. If there are two persons, how is there any real incarnation? What does incarnation mean under this two-persons view? What unity is there between the Second Person of the Trinity and Jesus the Human that is unlike the unity between the Second Person of the Trinity and a Christian? Are those who hold the confessional view wolves in sheep’s clothing? Or are they saving-ly ignorant?
I appreciate you taking your time in answering some of my questions. Other Clarkians seem to have less patience while trying to spell out their position.
I don’t have Clark’s Trinity or the Incarnation with me, so I’m going to have to work from memory. As I recall, Clark argued that the distinctions in the Trinity were based on the different propositions they thought. This seems to me to be consistent with his arguments for distinguishing the divine person and the human person in the hypostatic union.
I don’t agree that Clark’s arguments for the two person view of the incarnation are based on silence. He sites several examples in Scripture that imply the two person view: Jesus the man grew in wisdom and statue, the Logos doesn’t learn; Jesus the man died on the cross, God cannot die; Jesus the man was limited to a single location, the Second Person of the Trinity fills the heaves and the earth.
As I see it, Clark’s biggest problem with traditional formulations is that they are nonsense, literally. For those who use them rarely attempt to define the key terms in their argument such as ‘person’ ‘nature’ ‘substance.’
I hope that clarifies my views vis-a-vis Clark’s and the incarnation. I’m happy to discuss the matter with you, but I also know that there are others in the Clarkian camp who would do the same.
The same evidence you use to establish two persons within the incarnation is the same evidence to argue that Jesus is God. But under the two-persons view can it be properly said that Jesus is God?
The hypostatic union joins a divine and human person in the incarnation. That’s my best answer Speigel. You can have the last word.
I rather not have the last word being that I’m trying to understand what your position is. But I’m unsure as to what you mean by hypostatic union being that it means something else under the confessional view. Perhaps someone else can fill me in.
Steve,
It’s nice to be introduced to your blog. Thanks for your helpful follow-up post on Knox Theological Seminary. I will feature it on my blog tomorrow.
I’m now following your blog.
Blessings to you, Wes
Thanks, Wes. It’s good to hear from you. I’m glad you like the article and I appreciate your support.
In Christ, Steve
Hi Steve, I just noticed that you’ve added me to your blogroll. Thank you!
You’re welcome.
Good to meet yet another scripturalist on the web but I must say that I strongly urge you to rethink the two person view of Christ. I think the view is a heresy and I think I have earned the right to say that since I believed it for over a year, wrote quite a bit on the issue, was persoanlly attacked on numerous occasions and came under the discipline of my presbytery over this. My writings on the issue are here:
https://sites.google.com/a/thekingsparlor.com/the-kings-parlor/christology/my-resolution-concerning-the-hypostatic-union-by-drake-shelton
I would be interested in your thoughts, at least different ones that haven’t already been dealt with.
Drake
I’ll check it out, Drake.
This is not a comment per se. Just thought I woul link this to you.
http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/triadology/the-monarchy-of-the-father-by-drake-shelton
I think I figured out exactly the error of Van Til’s view of the trinity which turns out to be a problem for western scholasticism in general. Feel free to delete this comment.
Huge issue please read:
http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/my-response-to-wes-white-on-merit-and-created-grace/
Steve,
It’s good to meet someone with the same admiration for Gordon Clark and John Robbins that I have. I’ve studied their works for the past 14 years or so. I led a men’s study for our church recently and we went through Clark’s CVMT, so I’m enjoying your comments since the book is so fresh in my mind.
Great blog! Check out mine: http://tbftgoggi.wordpress.com/
It’s a growing collection of quotes from Reformed sources that I’ve been reading.
God bless!
Jim Snyder
Thanks, Jim. It’s always good to hear from a fellow Scripturalist. I think that’s great that you led a discussion of CVMT at your church. Not many people get a chance to read Clark’s books in a church setting, and I think it is important for those of us who support the work of Clark and Robbins to take the initiative to get their material out in front of people.
I’ll definitely be swinging by your blog.
Hi Steve!
Yes, I agree. We’ve gone through other books as well; What is Saving Faith, Predestinaiton, the Justification controversy books and Not What My Hands have done. Hopefully this Fall we will get into Clark’s CHristian Philosophy. Right now we are using Crampton’s Scripture Alone book. Our congregation has been very acceptive of these books.
God bless you labors!
Jim