Perry tipped me off to an interchange between Bruce McCormack and Scott Clark concerning Calvin’s Christology. I can only find Clark’s reply to McCormack. I’ve gathered that McCormack won the debate, but I can’t find his response at the moment. In any case, I’ve pieced together the essence (no pun intended) of the debate.
- It seems that many Reformed scholars see Chalcedon’s Christology as inadequate and is later improved by Reformed confessions.
- Clark himself is “skeptical” of many of the criticisms brought against Calvin and the Reformers on Christology. I think his skepticism is genuine, but naive. Clark himself admits he is not a Patrologist, but can’t imagine Calvin abandoning the ancient councils on such major points (though Calvin’s descendants do it with wild glee). No one is saying that the Reformers *want* to abandon and reject Chalcedon, but that they inevitably must, given their outlook.
The Confession appears to be ambiguous on whether Christ’s two natures produce the one person. This is heretical, but many defenders of the Confession argue that’s not what the Confession is saying. Well, if it’s not what the Confession writers meant, they picked an odd way of presenting it!
While McCormack’s reply is still blocked, Perry had copied most of it in a previous blog post, so I got the essence of it from there.