St. Augustine on the Son in the Form of God and the Form of a servant

I am reading St. Augustine On the Holy Trinity. Augustine does not define his terms. But I do like what he says here:

 "The Son of God is both understood to be equal to the Father according to the form of God in which He is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which He took; in which form He was found to be not only less than the Father, but also less than the Holy Spirit; and not only so, but less even than Himself...." - St. Augustine, 2.1.2

God controls all things including the sinfulness of man

"Isaiah 45 is an overpowering assertion of God's sovereignty. It begins with Cyrus, the Lord's anointed, and a statement of what God will do by him and for him. Then comes what is probably the most exalted statement in the Bible about the sovereignty of God. It is utterly destructive of Arminianism. The later verses, clear in themselves, are not to be ignored; but the middle section beggars praise. Verse 5 is only a reminder of the whole: 'I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. I girded you, though you have not known me.'
It is a shame to interrupt even an incomplete quotation, but the present task is to call attention to its meaning. God girded Cyrus, though Cyrus did not know it. One must not suppose, when God girds, guides, and controls someone, that the person is aware of it. Even regeneration, as the Puritans point out, is not a conscious experience; much less God's control of Pharaoh, Absalom, or Cyrus. Their knowledge comes later, if at all. Then the text continues: 'I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.'
The two theses most unacceptable to the Arminians are that God is the cause of sin and that God is the cause of salvation. In both cases the Arminians look to free will. Man is the first cause of his sin, and still independent of God, man is the first cause of his conversation. Isaiah in this verse makes Arminianism Biblically impossible.
The Scofield Bible is a good example of how Arminians try to escape from the plain meaning of the verse. Scofield says, 'Heb. ra, translated 'sorrow,' 'wretchedness,' 'adversity,' 'afflictions,' 'calamities,' but never translated sin. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, ect., to be the sure fruits of sin.'
Now the most remarkable point about Scofield's note is that he told the truth when he said, 'ra... [is] never translated sin.' How could he have made such a statement, knowing it was true? The only answer is that he must have examined every instance of ra in the Hebrew text and then he must have determined that in no case did the King James translate it sin. And this is absolutely true. But if he compared every instance of ra with its translation in every case, he could not have failed to note that ra in Genesis 6:5 and in a number of other places is translated wickedness. In fact ra is translated wickedness some fifty times. Scofield could not have failed to notice this; so he says with just truth, ra is never translated sin. Since Scofield favors the word evil, a partial list of verses in which  this translation occurs will be given; and second there will be a partial list where wicked or wickedness is used." - Gordon H. Clark, Predestination, Pg. 131


Gordon H. Clark also says, "It would require too many quotations to list all the verses in which God is declared to be the sole first cause of everything, good or bad. Seeing the end from the beginning and knowing every intermediate event, could God, who created the universe from nothing, be other than the cause of all? But though the proof-texts for omnipotence, omniscience, and creation be omitted, no doubt one more verse that particularly mentions sin will be of help. Isaiah 45:7, in a context extolling the sovereignty of God, quotes him as saying, 'I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.'
Now, a certain edition of the Bible with a lot of heretical notes remarks that the Hebrew word for evil in this verse is never translated sin. Since this seems to be the case, the author of the note probably looked at every verse in which this word occurred. If he did, he must have seen that although the word is never translated sin, it is used in reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; it describes man's depraved imaginations as only evil continually; Jacob says the Angel redeemed him from all evil; Joseph's brothers refer to their treatment of him as evil, and refer to it as trespass and sin - and all this is found in Genesis. Exodus tells us not to follow a multitude to do evil. Deuteronomy 1:35 speaks of an evil, that is, a sinful generation; 4:25 uses the word with reference to idolatry; 19:19 with reference to a false oath; and 22:14 to fornication. So it goes throughout the Old Testament. Hence the attempt to avoid the force of the Lord's statement 'I create evil' is an exegetical and philological blunder. A Christian must on this point too conform his theology to the Word of God." - Volume 7 of the Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark "Clark and His Critics", Pg. 179-180

What does it mean to say God shall destroy?

In 1 Corinthians 3:17 it speaks of God destroying a man for defiling the temple.


Now the question to be considered is whether this destruction is eternal or what not? We often read such verses as such, and not to say that there are no verses that mean eternal destruction, but context should be considered.

What is the Definition of Necessity?

"What is sometimes given as the definition of philosophical Necessity, namely, 'That by which a thing cannot but be,' or 'whereby it cannot  be otherwise,' fails of being a proper explanation of it, on two accounts: First, the words can, or cannot, need explanation as much as the word Necessity; and the former may as well be explained by the latter, as the latter by the former. Thus, if any one asked us what we mean, when we say, a thing cannot but be, we might explain ourselves by saying, it must necessarily be so; as well as explain Necessity, by saying, it is that by which a thing cannot but be. And Secondly, this definition is liable to the fore-mentioned great inconvenience; the words cannot, or unable, are properly relative, and have relation to power exerted, or that may be exerted, in order to the thing spoken of; to which as I have now observed, the word Necessity, as used by philosophers, has no reference.
Philosophical Necessity is really nothing else than the full and fixed connexion between the things signified by the subject and predicate of a proposition, which affirms something to be true. When there is such a connexion then the thing affirmed in the proposition is necessary, in a philosophical sense; whether any opposition or contrary effort be supposed, or no. When the subject and predicate of the proposition, which affirms the existence of any thing, either substance, quality, act, or circumstance, have a full and certain connexion, then the existence or being of that thing is said to be necessary in a metaphysical sense. And in this sense I use the word necessity, in the following discourse, when I endeavor to prove that necessity is not inconsistent with liberty." - Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Pg. 16 -17

The Definition of the term Will

"And therefore I observe, that the Will (without any metaphysical refining) is, That by which the mind chooses any thing. The faculty of the Will, is that power, or principle of mind, by which iti s capable of choosing: an act of the Will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.
If any think it is a more perfect definition of the Will, to say, that it is that by which the soul either chooses or refuses; I am content with it: for in every act of Will whatsoever, the mind chooses one thing rather than another; it chooses something rather than  the contrary or rather than the want or non-existence of that thing. So in every act of refusal, the mind chooses the absence of the thing refused; the positive and the negative; and the mind's making its choice in that case is properly the act of the Will: The Will's determining between the two, is a voluntary determination; but that is the same thing as making a choice. So that by whatever names we call the act of the Will, choosing, refusing approving, disapproving, liking, disliking, embracing, rejecting, determining, directing, commanding, forbidding, inclining, or being averse, being pleased or displeased with; all may be reduced to this of choosing. For the soul to act voluntarily, is evermore to act electively." - Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Pg. 7

What suffered on the cross? Nature or Person?

"The creeds and the volumes on theology, mindful of the heresies prior to A.D. 451, deny that Christ was a human person. They use the phrase 'two distinct natures and one Person forever.' With great uniformity they refuse to define nature. Now this leads to extreme difficulties.
If Jesus was not a human person, who or what suffered on the cross? The Second Person could not have suffered, for Deity is impassible. One of the heresies of the early ages, as mentioned before, was Patripassianism. Substituting a modal trinity for the three distinct Persons, the theory requires the Father to have been crucified. But to require the Second Person, as such, to suffer is equally impossible. The Westminster Confession describes him as 'a most pure Spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions' (II, 1). If then the Second Person could not suffer, could a 'nature' suffer? Perhaps some few readers have heard of Isaac Watts' not so popular hymn with its inference concerning children.

Dogs delight to bark and bite
For 'tis their nature to.

If, then, theologically undefined nature is certain qualities or characteristics, such as susceptibility to fatigue, aptitude for learning, joy, sorrow, or, to extend the list beyond the life of Christ, jealousy, irascibility, sullenness - if nature is such qualities can any one of them suffer pain? Can even a human, physical body suffer? If that were the case a corpse could suffer. On the contrary, only a spirit, a soul (including the souls of animals), or a person can suffer. Apparently demons can suffer (Luke 8:31; Matthew 8:29, in which one should note the word torment), yet they have no bodies." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 67-68

A person is what he thinks

"Aside from whatever objections will be immediately raised against this uncommon conclusions, theologians will complain that this reduces the Trinity to one Person because, being omniscient, they all have, or are, the same complex. This objection is based on a blindness toward certain definite Scriptural information. I am not at the moment referring only to the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit. I am referring to the complex of truths that form the Three Persons. Though they are equally omniscient, they do not all know the same truths. Neither the complex of truths we call the Father nor those we call the Spirit has the proposition, 'I was incarnated.' This proposition occurs only in the Son's complex. Other examples are implied. The Father cannot say, 'I walked from Jerusalem to Jericho.' Nor can the Spirit say, 'I begot the Son.' Hence the Godhead consists of three Persons, each omniscient without having precisely the same content. If this be so, no difficulty can arise as to the distinctiveness of human persons. Each one is an individual complex. Each one is his mind or soul. Whether the propositions be true or false, a person is the propositions he thinks. I hope that some think substance to be a subterfuge." -Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 54-55

H.C. Powell's argument makes humanity divinity

"The pervasive and most annoying difficulty that plagues this whole subject is the deficiency in definition. The crucial nouns (not concepts) are ambiguous, or actually meaningless. On page 149 Powell declares, 'The chief point which was established in regard to both the Holy Trinity and to the . . . Incarnation, was that a real difference was to be recognized between essence, or nature, and personality. If there was no such real difference, then the Sabellian conception of God must be true.' The reader should recall that Sabellianism is the theory of a Unitarian modal trinity. Now, if essence means definition, which is its only suitable meaning, and if personality is a part of that definition, it is hard to see how defining the Father to include personality prevents one from including personality in the somewhat different definition of the Son. Powell's argument implies that all human individuals are one individual because every one of them is a person.
Powell goes even further. Continuing on page 149 he argues, or rather, asserts, 'if there was no distinction between person and nature [nature, he had previously identified with essence], it would seem to follow that there could be no separation in our Incarnate Lord between his Divinity and his humanity, in which case he could not have been really man, as we are.'
In the first place, however, according to the orthodox doctrine, Christ was not really man as we are, for we are persons and Christ was only a 'nature.' In the second place, Powell wants to define person in one way and nature in another way, even though he had earlier identified nature with essence, or definition. The nature is the definition of the person. How this prevents us from separating divinity from humanity, as he says it does, is not at all clear. Condense his argument: Unless person and nature are distinct, the definition of divinity is precisely the definition of humanity." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 30-31

What is the definition of a person?

"It is now time to identify the fatal flaw in the Chalcedonian Symbol, or, more broadly, to face the very real difficulties in formulating a theory of the Incarnation that is both Biblical and intelligible. The great defect in the Creed is the absence of definitions. Its bishop-authors did not explain, and probably did not themselves know the meanings of 'rational soul,' 'consubstantial,' 'nature,' 'subsistence,' and above all 'person.' This was said a few pages ago, but it needs constant emphasis.
. . .
Now, the trouble with the Creed is not that it contains an ambiguous word. The trouble is that there are so many of them. If psuches logikes causes minimum difficulty, how shall we translate omoousion, phuseon, the Latin theatrical mask persona, and especially prosopon? Nor is translation the main difficulty. If upostasis or persona means person, we still must form a definition of person. Can one person have two wills and two intellects? Christ is commonly said to have had two wills, though his human will does not make him a person. What in addition to will and intellect is necessary to make a human body a human person? The human 'nature' of Christ is supposed to have lacked an essential characteristic of a person. What was it that he did not have? How can he be true man without being a human person? Merriam Webster defines person as a character in a stage play, a specific kind of individual character, a being characterized by rational apprehension, rationality, and a moral sense, an individual human being. Was Jesus any of these, or none? Is it not plausible that the Church Fathers did not understand what they were saying? Is it not desirable therefore to give some serious attention to the Incarnation? And while not all persons are men, all men are persons." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 15-17

The merit of the life and death of Christ alone is the only saving difference

Not one elect sinner for whom Jesus Christ effectually died for will ever perish. Christ’s accomplishment of redemption insures their eternal salvation. The merit of the life and death of Christ ALONE is the only saving difference between saved and lost or heaven and hell. In other words the merit of His Person and work is BY ITSELF is what does the saving and His life and death is EFFECTUAL in and of itself. His precious blood and righteousness automatically excludes everything else as the ground of justification and acceptance to God. The Lord Jesus Christ’s whole work resulted in the justification of His people. Christ, as Mediator of the Everlasting Covenant of Grace, brought in and established an everlasting righteousness which is imputes to His people and makes them to be accepted by the Father on that very basis. - Scott Price

Romans 6 on the legal union

Romans 6 is about the elect legal union with Christ not the Spirit's regeneration or progressive work of sanctification (not that there is such thing of progressive sanctification). This means Christ's death on the cross is the elect's death who are legally joined to his death.
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dea...d by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness ofhis resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
- Romans 6

Faith is intellectual and assent not including 'trust'

Read ead what Macarthur says,

The faith God graciously supplies produces both the volition and the ability to comply with His will (cf. Phil 2:13: 'God . . . is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure'). Thus faith is inseparable from obedience. Berkhof sees three elements to genuine faith: An intellectual element (notitia), which is 'a positive recognition of the truth'; an emotional element (assensus), which includes 'a deep conviction [and affirmation] of the truth'; and a volitional element (fiducia), which involves 'a personal trust in Christ as Saviour and Lord, including a surrender . . . to Christ.'" - John Macarthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, Pg. 189

It is interesting that Macarthur says assensus is an emotional element. No one I have read ever said such things. Assensus or accepting as truth what the mind knows is not emotional. What is perhaps not defined properly is the use of fiducia whatever that is. Faith has been said to be intellectual and assent of the will. Interesting enough Macarthur does not speak of Gordon Clark and his understanding at all throughout his book.


Clark says,

A Latin dictionary may throw some light on the terminology. The Latin word fides, translated faith, means: trust (in a person or thing), confidence, reliance, credence, belief. The Latin fiducia means: trust, confidence, reliance, assurance. This reduces the old analysis of faith to a tautology: Faith is composed of knowledge, belief, and faith. Or we might retranslate it: confidence is composed of knowledge, assent, and confidence. Clearly therefore the listing of fiducia as a component of fides is not very enlightening. - Gordon H. Clark

Obligated to love God with our minds

A Christian is obligated to love God with all his mind, and thus these replies are an expression of love. Love is not an emotion; yet, contrary to some commonly held opinions, this does not prevent such expression from being vigorous. Love is a volition, and volition can be vigorous, too. At the same time, the vigor is directed toward the material and argument. To the critics themselves I am happy to direct thanks and esteem. - Gordon H. Clark, Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark

What is hyper-calvinism?

"Contrary to the thinking of some, holding to the doctrine of supralapsarianism does not make one a hyper-Calvinist. There has always been room in the Reformed faith for supralapsarianism. Although the Reformed confessions are infralapsarian, the Canons of Dordt deliberately so over against the strong plea of Gomarus for supralapsarianism, they do not condemn supralapsarianism as unreformed or hyper-Calvinistic.
Nor is one a hyper-Calvinist because he holds the doctrine of eternal justification and immediate regeneration. Sound Reformed theologians have both denied and affirmed these teachings.
Neither is it the case that hyper-Calvinism is a matter of a strong emphasis on God's eternal counsel and God's sovereignty in salvation. No true Calvinist ever lacked this strong emphasis.
But hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher's addressing the call of the gospel, 'repent and believe on Christ crucified,' only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and, thereby, of election, namely, some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation." -David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel

Believing in is simply believing that

". . . Some people find a great difference between believing a person and believing in him. there is no doubt a difference, but it is quite different from the difference these people think they have in mind. Attentive readers who read their publications will conclude that very likely they have nothing in mind, for they regularly avoid stating what the difference is. Let us use a human example, for if we begin by talking about believing in God, our sense of piety may deceive us. Any ordinary instance will do. I meet a stranger on the plane and we begin to talk. His conversation indicates that he is a chemical engineer. Somewhere along the line he remarks that a certain chemical process does so and so. I believe him; I accept his statement as true. But I do not for that reason believe in him. He may be a scoundrel. Occasionally engineers are. On the way home I sit next to some legal matter. But now I not only believe this one statement: I believe in him because I believe that anything he will tell me in the future, especially if it concerns law, will be true. I believe he always tells the truth and always will. Of course, since he is a sinner, he may make a mistake. But when we believe in God, we believe that he will never make a mistake. To believe in is simply a reference to the future beyond the present single statement." - Gordon H. Clark, Faith and Saving Faith

There is no minimum requirement to believe

"The Reformed position therefore makes understanding an essential part of faith, even at the cost of denying that infants can believe. Aside from infants the preaching of a message would make no sense unless the auditors were supposed to know what was being said. This is why missionaries must work hard to learn a foreign language and try to speak it without an American accent. This is why the Apostles on the day of Pentecost spoke in tongues. The Elamites and the dwellers in Mesopotamia heard the message in their own language. If the message were not supposed to be understood, there would be no need to learn Arabic or Chinese. One could simply speak American slang or quote the Bible in the King James Version. Understanding, therefore, is a prerequisite to faith. It is impossible to believe what one does not understand. The evangelist or missionary must spare no pains to help his prospective convert to understand the message. Just how much has to be understood is difficult to measure. Obviously a child of ten cannot understand as much as a highly educated adult; yet God regenerates some children. Does it follow that God will regenerate a highly educated adult if he understands no more than a child? Some individuals and some churches have tried to set down minimum requirements. They have tried to separate the few sentences in the Bible that are essential from all the rest that is unessential. One can see how these people become interested in such an attempt, but one cannot see any Biblical recommendation of such an attempt. Christ commanded us to teach all the things he taught; Paul was guiltless of his auditors' blood because he had declared all the counsel of God; and many other passages condemn ignorance and recommend knowledge. In Scripture there is a no minimum. Some theologians try to explain this situation by insisting that truth is organic. Minimum statements are not inert building blocks which when combined with other building blocks can be arranged into a building. Rather, a truth or proposition is like a seed, and when ingested it grows into a full plant in the mind. Hence, say these theologians, any Biblical statement, or at least some Biblical statements contain the complete Gospel as a seed contains the complete plant. Unfortunately for these theologians, their analogy, though it be a beautiful illustration, is intellectually vacuous. Illustrations are usually if not always deceptive; and to say that a proposition is like a seed that grows means nothing and throws no light on the nature of faith. Since the position this present writer defends places such great emphasis on propositions - on an intelligible message composed of sentences - it would seem that he above all writers should indicate which propositions are essential and which are not. No one can understand all the propositions in the Bible, or at least no one actually understands all that the Bible implies. What then are the facts essential to salvation? The thief on the cross very obviously understood only a little. Is not this little, if we can discover it, sufficient for an evangelist's sermons? Well, the thief called Jesus Lord. And Romans 10:9 says that those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord shall be saved. Here if anywhere is the essential proposition. Nothing else - except belief in the Resurrection - is necessary. Maybe the Resurrection is not necessary, for the thief did not know that. Furthermore, as other references in this book mention the devils believe there is one God, they even believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but by some twist of demonic mentality, they do not confess him as Lord. Have not we therefore found the irreducible minimum? The answer is, No. The reason for this negative answer lies in the necessity of understanding the proposition. It is a matter of intellectual apprehension. There are many who in that day will say to Christ, Lord, Lord. And he will profess, I never knew you. Thus, clearly, a verbal profession of Lord is not saving faith. One must understand what the term Lord means. Further, as has already been pointed out, the name Jesus must be correctly apprehended. Confess that the Jesus of Strauss, Renan, or Schweitzer is Lord, and you will go to Hell. 'Jesus is Lord' therefore is not a minimum that means nothing else." - Gordon H. Clark, What is the Christian Life? Check this box to be notified of replies to this topic. Note: BBcode and smileys are still usable.

Saved by assenting to the propositions of the Gospel

This is really interesting. Saving faith is faith in the propositions of the Gospel. What else could it be? Assenting to the Gospel is in other words believing the Gospel. The Bible says "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." John 11

John 6 says "Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."


"63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."

Do you think the Bible is lying here?


"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." - Acts 8


Your example does not offer up anything. The question is if assenting or believing the truth of the Gospel does not save then what else is needed?

"The further question as to the components of faith regards the status of fiducia. The Apostle said, if thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved. But to assent to the good news is to believe. What else can be required?
A Latin dictionary may throw some light on the terminology. The Latin word fides, translated faith, means: trust (in a person or thing), confidence, reliance, credence, belief. The Latin word fiducia means: trust, confidence, reliance, assurance. This reduces the old analysis of faith to a tautology: faith is composed of knowledge, belief, and faith. Or we might retranslate it: Confidence is composed of knowledge, assent, and confidence. Clearly therefore the listing of fiducia as a component of fides is not very enlightening." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?

Sovereignty of God

God is soveriegn means that God is the ultimate power behind our "power". He alone powers all things including our will, and our actions. Nothing stands outside his soveriegn will and purpose.

What is the Essence of a thing?

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational: psuches logikes] soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence [en prosopon kai mian upostasin] not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." - The Creed of Chalcedon


"In order to understand the creedal statement, one must begin somewhere. There must be a pou sto, a point d'appui, a basic agreement on a fundamental term. Otherwise we shall drown in an ocean of ambiguity. No choice is better than the Nicene term hypostasis. This earliest of all creeds affirms that the Godhead is mia ousia and tres upostaseis. The term ousia is a participial noun from the verb to be; the translation commonly is being. A dog is a being, a rock is a being; but if ousia is simply a form of the verb am, are, is, be, then since there are dreams, dreams are: They are beings. Sometiems the term reality is used. But dreams, especially bad dreams, are real: They are real bad dreams. Plato claimed that his Ideas were realities: The Idea of Justice, the Idea of Man, the Idea of Horse, and the Idea of Number are realities. Therefore the term ousia is not a so good a basic term as hypostasis.
Another form of the verb 'to be' is esse or essence. The term can be useful, if defined. To illustrate: Someone sees a new gadget, or an animal he has never seen before. He asks, 'What is it?' His friend replies, 'It is this sort of gadget or this sort of animal.' In ordinary conversations the answer is usually incomplete, but if the friend is at all knowledgeable he gives a part of the definition. The full answer to the question 'What is it?' is the definition. Now, if the theologians had been content, or able to use the term unambiguously, a great deal of confusion would have been avoided. The essence is the definition. The essence of a plane triangle is an area bounded by three straight lines. The phrase 'it is of the essence. . .' means it is a part of the definition. Unfortunately many theologians do not explicitly say this, but often by usage deny it. In an historical survey, however, the author must reproduce the blunders of those whom he quotes."

Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 5-6