The Annunciation, Fra Angelico, 15th cen.
One of the many reasons I have long admired the work of John Robbins was his insistence on holding, and skill at handling, question and answer sessions after his talks.
As brilliant as his lectures were, some of his best recorded comments came in the discussions that he had with audience members after he was finished speaking.
A few years ago, Tom Juodaitis was kind enough to send me recordings of a number of sermons preached by Dr. Robbins at Reformation Chapel in Unicoi, TN.
Among the sermons was a two part series on John 3:1-17. At the end of part 2, there is a discussion among Dr. Robbins, an individual whose identity I don’t know, and Tom Juodaitis concerning the incarnation.
In this discussion, Dr. Robbins explains Gordon Clark’s teaching on the incarnation. Clarks mature thinking on this subject is found in the final book he wrote just before his death in 1985, The Incarnation. Clark’s work was at the time, and continues to be, controversial. For at its heart is the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is not, as is commonly taught, one person in two natures, but two persons in one individual, one a divine person and the other a human person.
This really shouldn’t be controversial. Just recently I heard a preacher say, correctly I would add, that Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man. If this is the case, and it is, then we are logically driven to the same conclusion Clark reached.
Yet many people are offended at Clark’s thought, dismissing it as Nestorianism while ignoring the logical force of his argument.
John Robbins was one theologian was persuaded by Clark’s argument and had no problem saying so. In the discussion below, Dr. Robbins is at his best, brilliantly, simply and persuasively summarizing Clark’s argument.
Unknown Questioner: Are you saying then that when Christ was on earth, in a sense God, the second person of the Trinity, and Jesus Christ were separate?
John Robbins: No. He’s incarnate in Christ. He’s incarnate in Jesus. But he’s also in heaven, the Logs is. You cannot, he did not lose his divine attributes at the time of the incarnation. It’s not like somehow the Second Person was squeezed down into one person. The Trinity remains, the Second Person, the Logos as John calls him in Chapter 1, remains, has all, retains all the properties, the attributes of divinity, of deity. But at the same time he’s united with the man Christ Jesus in such a fashion that he is incarnated in him. We talk about our being united to Christ. We’re united to Christ by believing his doctrine. Paul says at one point we have the mind of Christ. But that is nowhere near the union that there is between the Second Person of the Trinity and Jesus of Nazareth. Because as the angel explained to Mary, the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of God will overshadow you, and what will be born of you is the Son of God. He’s conceived totally without any human agency. And there you have something unique in human history.
Tom Juodaitis: Primarily they lay the charge that that’s Nestorianism, is that correct?
John Robbins: Well, that’s the usual charge that’s laid against it. But if, but there are passages in the Bible that teach this very clearly. And then you have difficulty with other passages in Scripture. For instance, Jesus says at one point that he’s ignorant of something. Well, if there are not two minds, as it were, how could he be ignorant of anything? He says he’s ignorant of the time of the Second Coming. He says only the Father knows. Well, the Logos knows everything the Father knows. It’s the man who’s ignorant of the time of the Second Coming. And he says, even I don’t know when the Second Coming’s going to happen. He knows now. But two thousand years ago when he walked on earth he didn’t know the time of the Second Coming.
You find verses like he grew in wisdom. Well, if the only mind there is the divine mind, how can he grow in wisdom? But Jesus grows in wisdom. Not only in statue, but he grows in wisdom. So there has to be more to the incarnation than many theologians have made of it. It’s even more astounding, if you think of it this way, than just saying, as Billy Graham says, he’s God in a body. Now that’s another heresy that was condemned by the early church, was the God in a body theory. But usually that’s the way people think of it, as God in a body. But that’s not true either.
Unknown: Like you said too, that’s the one time in history that that’s ever happened, and what we try to do is form some analogies, some analogy, which is always going to fail.
John Robbins: Yeah, exactly right. That’s the only time it will every happen. He is the unique man. In my little book on slavery, I guess it is, I make the point that one the problems with royalty, the idea of having a king, is that no mere man is worthy of such honor as a king requires. The only man who is metaphysically superior to the rest of us is Jesus, because he is both God and man. And that’s why, as Cromwell put it, Christ, not man, is king. And that’s one of the problems with royalty, the theories of royalty and nobility and all that, because they are mere men.
Tom Juodaitis: Just to sum up, I guess, he’s two persons in one individual?
John Robbins: Yeah.
Tom Juodaitis: I guess that would be the way to say it.
John Robbins: An individual is something or some being that cannot be divided. The Trinity is three persons in one individual. You cannot divide the Trinity. It’s not three separate Gods. And Christ is two persons, one individual. You cannot separate Jesus of Nazareth from the Logos. He was conceived by the action of the Holy Spirit two thousand years ago, indwelt by the Logos, and remains in heaven today in the same condition, and will forever remain as that individual in heaven.
Tom Juodaitis: You can distinguish, but you cannot separate.
John Robbins: Yeah.
Lux Lucet 
Thx Steve. This is very interesting, as the doctrine of the Incarnation in most books that I have read is very confusing and leaves unanswered the key question, How can Christ be two natures, or as you quote above, 100% God and 100% man, but only one person? The Son of God was always a person and Jesus was a person who started in Mary’s womb, so there are definitely two persons here IF we define person in a particular way, that is the sum of their individual thoughts. But if a person is the sum of their thoughts (removing the word “individual”), then Christ with His two natures is still one person, i.e. He is the sum of – his human thoughts and his Divine thoughts. Theses combine into one sum of thoughts and thus He is still one person. This is what I learnt from Clark.
What Clark did was make the definition of the words person, nature etc come to the fore. This is what the creeds and confessions failed to do (due to their brevity I guess), but Clark made clear. Clark was no Nestorian or purveyor of new doctrines, but he was a very clear teacher, who taught faithfully the Westminster Confession systematic theology, except where, I think, he was weak on 6 days of creation. And Dr Robbins, if I may say, built on Clark and made things often clearer.
It’s interesting what you say about the doctrine of the Incarnation, how most books make it so confusing.
That’s exactly my experience as well. In fact, reading what theologians wrote on the Incarnation almost drove me to give up on theology altogether. It never made sense, and I assumed that the problem was with me, that I just wasn’t smart enough to understand them. After reading Clark, I came to realize the problem wasn’t with me, it was with the theologians who, for the most part, had been talking nonsense all along.
What I really liked about the discussion I transcribed is that it, as you say, made Clark’s teaching even clearer.
In my opinion, the most important part of the discussion comes right at the end when Tom summarizes Clark’s teaching by saying that Jesus Christs is two persons in one individual,
To this John agrees and responds that an individual is something / someone that cannot be divided. He says that you cannot separate Jesus of Nazareth from the Logos.
Tom adds that you can distinguish [between Jesus of Nazareth and the Logs] but cannot separate them. John agrees.
Yes, the last sentences make sense and summarise things so well. Thankyou for pointing them out, Steve. I didn’t take them in the first time.
You’re welcome. And by the way, Merry Christmas!
I’m going to see if I can make John’s sermons on the Gospel of John available on the internet. They’re outstanding.
Wonderful. Thank you for this Steve. Would be nice to get hold of the sermons you referred to.
Ditto re: the sermons
You’re welcome, Louis. Let me see what I can do about making the sermons available.
Are there any updates on the sermons from John Robbins?
Not yet. I know that Tom Juodaitis told me he intends to make them available this year, but I don’t know about the specific time frame for when this will happen.
Steve,
I was just re-reading this and realise I have a blank.
I can sorta get Christ as two persons in one individual. I think I can do that because He has a body and I’m looking in my mind’s eye at the outer single shell if you wish,i.e. Christ’s body. I think now that I’ve got this wrong. For if a person is the sum of his thoughts, then we have two separate minds, Son of God and Son of man, but they don’t come together as one mixed entity or mind, do they? The minds are still separate, yet somehow combined as one individual (mind?). Is that discussed in Dr Clark’s Trinity or Incarnation or in Dr Robbins’ writing? ‘cos it sounds like if you have two minds together as one sum, then you have a third mind and that is not right. Ditto for the Trinity, there is no 4th mind which is a combination of the three. Can you you help me here? Thx mate.
John,
You’re definitely on the right track with what you say. The way John Robbins talked about it in the transcript I published, Jesus Christ is two persons (two minds) in one individual, a divine person and a human person. Although you cannot separate the man Christ Jesus from the Second Person of the Trinity, you can distinguish them. There is no third mind.
Correct again on the Trinity. There are three distinct persons in the Godhead, there is no fourth mind.
Regarding your question about where to find a discussion of Clark’s two-person theory, The Incarnation by Clark is the best place to start. You may want to skip ahead to Chapter 8 “Divine and Human Persons,” and read from there to the end. It’s only 15 pages in my edition and covers the material you brought up in your question.
Also, you may want to check out Sean Gerety’s blog, God’s Hammer. Sean agrees with Clark and has done good work defending Clark’s view.
Thx very much Steve.
I have read Clark but will study his book again.
Thx for the reference to Sean. I wasn’t aware he had discussed this, so I will check it out.
Isn’t the WCF somewhat confusing as well?
Suppose an elder or deacon in a Presbyterian Church admit to the 2 person/1individual understanding would continuation in the same be possible? The above definition conflicts with the definition given in WCF Chapter VIII:II where it states, “So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person…”
It seems to me that three courses of action could be followed: 1) submit the “new” teaching to the local presbyters for scrutiny, 2) teach this “new” doctrine without notifying anyone, or 3) leave peacefully.
I think the WCF’s statement on the Incarnation is better than most. but, yes, I agree that it is confusing, and it’s confusing for the reason Clark stated in The Incarnation: It does not define key terms such as nature and person.
Regarding the courses of action available if an elder or deacon admitted to holding the 2 person/1 individual view of the incarnation, some denominations admit of exceptions to the WCF, so that may be a fourth option. But your point is a good one. Any church officer who admitted to holding or teaching Clark’s view would likely find himself embroiled in controversy.
I agree, the WCF is almooooooost there except for that nagging word, “person.”
It seems by necessary consequence the WCF admits of two persons in Christ 1) a human nature (body, and soul), a person, and 2) the second Person of the Trinity, The Son of God, but then goes on to say that these 2 implicit persons are one explicit person.
I am convinced that after the anathermas are pronounced by former councils it can cause men in latter councils to be weak in the knees.
That’s a good point you bring up about fear. I suspect it goes a long way to explaining what Clark called “1500 years of chanting nonsense” about the incarnation.
One other question…
In the two person (a person being their thoughts) one individual paradigm what word in this formula indicates the presence of a human body?
When we speak of Jesus Christ as two persons in one individual, it’s important to keep in mind the two persons we’re talking about, one is a divine person, and the other a human person. A human person implies a body.
Thank you very much for this very valuable summary by John R and your comments. I am sorry i am posting late as I have only just noticed this blog.
May I ask a Question, Clark would say the man Jesus died on the cross as the logos cannot. What then happened to the human person Jesus after the resurrection? Is the risen Christ still one individual with a divine and human personality with the human personality now ‘knowing as it was known”?
Many thanks
Rob Burford (a lone Aussie Clarkian)
Hi Robert. I believe that’s an accurate summary..
Read Martin Chemnitz on the Two Nature’s of Christ as well as Luther and you should draw a different conclusion of what is discussed here. Tommy
Thanks, Tommy. I’m not sure they would change my mind on this issue, but Chemnitz and Luther are worth reading on this and other matters.
How this view would interpreter passages like John 8.58?
If the Jesus is two persons, which person speaks when he talks? The human person is responsible to answer sometimes and the divine person others?
If the human person is who deals and anwers directly, and the human person clearly have a beginning, how he could speak he was before Abraham?
Just to get clear, I’m not trying to criticize or refute Clark’s view, I have just started to read his works and trying to get rid my doubts the better I can.
Hi Marcus. You’ve largely answered your own question. Gordon Clark made the point in The Incarnation that there were times when the Man Christ Jesus was speaking and times when God the Son was speaking. As you have already noted, logically John 8:58 is an example of the latter,
Hey Marcus,
There is a lengthy discussion about Clark’s teaching on the Incarnation at: https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/christological-confusion/
Hth,
John