The Incarnation (Trinity Paper ; No. 23)

This book is the closest thing to a resolution of the age old enigma of the person and nature of Christ.While I did not agree (or yet have agreed) with Clark's position in all points, this is one of the very few erudite (at least philisophically speaking) works that actually adds value to the study of something most Christians think is unsolvable. In essence, the issue with the incarnation is simply mathematics. Three existentially seperate beings cannot at once be one. And no amount of idiotic appeal to "the mathematics of heaven" will erase the problem. Clark assumes that the universe is rational and that 3 cannot be 1 at the same time and in the same relationship. He goes about it by distinguishing and defining personhood in order to resolve the arithmetic. The terms "Christ" and "Logos" and "Father" and "Spirit" do not designate a PHYSICAL BODY. All these (the trinity) are mind (i.e., spirit or propositions). According to Clark, a personality is a complex of propositions. And since numerics apply only to physical bodies extended in space, he escapes the problem of individuation. The "mind" or "proposition" is not extended in space. Therefore the three persons of the trinity being spacially non-extended, are able to be one proposition (though distint). The Logos is fully known to Christ and Christ is fully known to the Logos. Yet each knows of a distinction. It gets a bit confused at this point. Clark doesn't actually state his conclusion because he died. But his pupil inserted two paragraphs that summed up the work and Actually phrased the conclusion: The relationship between the Logos and the mind of Christ is distinct than from any other relationship between the Logos and other men. Simply put, the Logos not only lit the mind of Christ but was fully in Christ. The solution is still messy. But regardless of what you think thus far, you will be astounded by the saliency and rigor of the arguments and of the author. I personally do not believe that the text of the Bible is either philisophical nor even scientific and therefore, I limit how much one can deduce from simple scriptural axioms most of which are ethical. The surprise when I first read this book was the good amount of historical information which I had failed to see in Clark's other works. It really is a breathtaking thing when sound historical and logical sense are tied within the same work and this is one of the more appealing things about this book.

In this slim book, Gordon Clark offers his pithy insights on the doctrine of the Logos made flesh. Clark was unable to finish _The Incarnation_ because he died; John Robbins, upon Clark's request, grafted two paragraphs onto Clark's incomplete conclusion. This annexed conclusion is essentially a summation of what Clark has already expounded in the text: Jesus Christ was both God and man: the Logos "did not merely light the mind of Christ"--the Logos _is_ Christ.Does this sound like Nestorianism? It isn't: Clark, anticipating false charges, argues that his doctrine is _not_ a revived version of Nestorianism.Clark begins this argument in his introduction: he quotes in full the Creed of Chalcedon, calling it "the most important source of information on the early heretical theories [on the Incarnation]." The Creed sets out to explain what the Incarnation is not; thus, these "negative definitions" describe the early heresies (i.e., the Creed's charge that Christ was "...not parted or divided into two persons" is a charge against Nestorianism). Clark remarks that the rather brief Creed of Chalcedon is not all that helpful for someone who wishes to know what the Incarnation _is_. But more importantly, he notes the undefined terms within the Creed: "consubstantial," "nature," "person," et al.Next, in his chapter "The Heresies," Clark describes Cassian's account of Nestorius's doctrine on the Incarnation. According to Nestorius (according to Cassius (according to Clark)), Christ was a 'double Person in one nature.'Clark then (admirably) denounces the ambiguity of the aforementioned terms, for these undefined terms are the "fatal flaw" within the Creed. Free from the non-sense words, Clark is thus able to offer his own definitions. And so, he defines "person" as a "composite of propositions." This definition is derived from Proverbs ("As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he"); in a less elegant way, Clark says, "A man _is_ what he _thinks_."Clark having thus paved the way, Robbins asserts, "Jesus Christ was and is both God and man, a divine person and a human person." The Incarnation did not compromise God's divinity, nor did it compromise Jesus' humanity. Indeed, it is impossible for there to be such a compromise--God cannot be omni-potent and im-potent. God cannot die upon a cross. Yet Jesus did.For Clark and Robbins, the resolution to this paradox is that Jesus Christ is both a Person and a person.Clark says much more than this in a much better way. I recommend this book to any Christian who has never sufficiently answered the question, "Who is Christ?"