Comments on: Recasting Nicea

By: The Spirit of Truth and Power « Theology Forum

The Spirit of Truth and Power « Theology Forum — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:55:02 +0000

[...] This article is particularly interesting in light of the emphasis in my previous post “Re-Casting Nicea,” which looked at Samuel Clarke’s doctrine of the [...]

By: Brettongarcia

Brettongarcia — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 21:18:17 +0000

Where is everybody? Hope I didn’t finally confuse everyone so much they gave up.

Then too, these are controversial things, to be sure.

But others should feel free to interject.

I’m happy to stand back a bit – and turn comments over to others.

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 01:03:06 +0000

Thanks for this. Clarke did hold to an eternal generation of the Son. This is why I originally used the word “produced.” Clarke believed, with many in his era, that if a person exists, that person must have it’s own essence. This is why he believed that trinitarian dogma almost always slipped into modalism or tritheism. What Clarke fails to provide is a biblical account for that, and since he was railing against metaphysics (as if he didn’t utilise metaphysics in his account), he would need to do so.

By: bgronewoller

bgronewoller — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:05:23 +0000

So for Clarke Christ does not have a beginning (I think my brain attached to that idea when I wrote my first comment because of the use of the word “produced” in the quote that you included)?

If Christ does have a beginning for Clarke, I would argue that he isn’t on a different plane than Creation, at least as far as the “eternally willed” part goes.

If he doesn’t have a beginning and is truly eternal, does Clarke basically affirm two (or three with the Spirit) eternal essences? And, how is he defining essence (my understanding is that the Patristics largely treated ousios and physis as a predicate once they were able to sort out their language application at Chalcedon)?

Finally, does he engage the Synod of Alexandria in his work at all? This may be helpful, especially in light of McGuckin’s understanding that the synod reveals a large amount of homoiousios supporters were actually in agreement with Athanasius’ homoousios camp in meaning, but were using different terms b/c of their dislike for homoousios’ Sabellian history.

Sorry for all of the questions…Trinitarian development just happens to be a current interest and I’m quite curious about Trinitarian claims and arguments.

By: Brettongarcia

Brettongarcia — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:36:21 +0000

Whether Clarke supports it or not … isn’t it easy to argue that 1) everything that exists, was known and willed by God, from the beginning? And 2) so everything – Christ and Creation say – really had no begnning at all, any more or less than God himself? This WOULD put Jesus and Nature on increasingly similar footing, by the way.

So that, by the way, 3) EVERYTHING is of one substance with God? As one might expect biblically; from a God who made all things; and who “fills all things, in heaven and earth” (Jer.?).

So that 4) in effect, Creation joins the Trinity in a Sense? Rather as through Jesus, “flesh” is joined to deity. Or God becomes flesh, etc..

Putting both Jesus and Creation on higher footing in the Trinity too?

This make any sense to anyone?

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:49:51 +0000

Ok, I see where you are coming from now. Clarke does not talk about creation in this book, so I don’t know where he stands on that. Christ’s existence would be on a different plane than creation though because he is eternally willed and begotton. Clarke just denies that it is possible for two persons (or three) to partake of a singular essence, and so he is offering an account that tries to do justice to the biblical emphasis that the Father is deemed “God” and maintain the eternality of the Son and Spirit.

By: bgronewoller

bgronewoller — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:40:07 +0000

OK, this explains it and makes his position consistent. However, it puts him at odds with the idea of God as Creator. Most early Church theologians understood that since God couldn’t add anything to himself later (such as becoming a Creator), he had to eternally will Creation, even though the Creation didn’t come about until “later” (which is the exact position that he seems to be claiming about Christ).

To answer your next question, this is why it would be inconsistent – the Creation and Christ would be put on the exact same plane as eternally willed but Created as immortal (rather than eternal as they both have beginnings), thus the infinite qualitative distinction is broken down between Christ and Creation. Instead, one is left with a quantitative distinction between the two.

However, if, as you put it, he doesn’t hold that the Creation was willed eternally, then the area to push him on is that God has become mutable in his construct.

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:05:13 +0000

Both my comment about a ‘robust homoiosian’ theology and my comment about Athanasius were meant to be from Clarke’s own position. He saw himself as Eusebian and, therefore, within the boundaries of orthodoxy.

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:02:23 +0000

I should also ask why this would be inconsistent?

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:01:42 +0000

Clarke would not hold that everything is willed eternally by the Father, only the Son and Spirit.