Thread: Purgatory: How much of Western Christianity is Unitarian? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000634
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And much of Western Christianity is unitarian.
Me:
quote:
Er, no it isn't. Hardly any is. A tiny fraction.
quote:
andreas1984:
Unitarian not as "universal salvation", but as opposed to "trinitarian". By the way, I have checked about that with a few converts from Western denominations like Anglicanism to Orthodoxy... They said that this was the case with the vast majority of Western Christians...
I know what "unitarian" means!
Universalism, the idea that God will in the end triumph completely over sin and death and hell, has a long and honourable history as a minority opinion in the Churches. East as well as West.
Unitarianism, anti-trinitarianism, is much much rarer and is not at all a common teaching among Western churches.
If your converts from Anglicanism think it is Unitarian they aren't really "from" Anglicanism because they never really knew it. Or was it just something "like" Anglicanism? I wonder which that could be?
[ 10. August 2007, 00:08: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Both from Anglicanism and other denominations. But that's not the issue here.
Let me pose the question concerning the Triad this way:
Do you (pl.) accept along with the Saints of the second ecumenical council that God is not one numerically speaking? Or do you believe that God is one numerically speaking?
Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on
:
Ken, they were homoiousians -- of a similar substance as Anglicans.
I couldn't resist, and now I regret it.
[ 27. November 2006, 22:46: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Lol. They couldn't have been because all humans are co-essential and homoousians. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
My Unitarian Universalist parents would, I'm sure, like to know whether they are a teeny tiny little denomination dying because of liberal theology, a great big massive threat to ECUSA and, by extension, the Anglican communion, or a cult that has succeeded in taking control of the national media in order to promote their godless liberal social values.
If someone could figure that out and get back to me, I'd appreciate it.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Do you (pl.) accept along with the Saints of the second ecumenical council that God is not one numerically speaking? Or do you believe that God is one numerically speaking?
Could we have a quote from the second ecumenical council denying that God is "numerically one"?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Start with a brief rundown of the main groups of Western Christians.
There certainly are Unitarian churches who call themselves Unitarian. They are minuscule in number in Britain. I believe they are more influential in the USA, and most particularly in central Europe - Hungary is probably the country with the largest proportion of them but they exist in Russia, Poland and the Balkans. But in tiny numbers compared with the mainstream churches. A few hundred thosuand members worldwide I suspect.
About half, maybe rather more, of churchgoing Christians are Roman Catholics. Who of course are Trinitarian, holding to the Creeds.
About a third of the rest are in the mainstream connexional Protestant denominations - the Lutherans, the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition, the Moravians, the Anglicans, the Methodists, a few newer and smaller offshoots. All of them hold to the trinitarian Creeds. Although there have been individual unitarians and the odd unitarian congregation among them (especially the Presbyterians in the 19th century) they have never been near to taking over those denominations. There are also theologians in those churches who are so liberal and non-realist that questions of the trinity simply go awy, because they hardly believe in a separate god at all. But they are - even in ECUSA! - a minority of a minority, and less influential than a generation ago.
The rest include all sorts of independent churches - various kinds of Baptists, Independents, Pentecostals and so on. Most of these don't use creeds but are in practice Trinitarian. Most of the Baptists (a higher proportion of them now than two hundred years ago) and (in Britain if not elsewhere) most of the independent evangelical churches and "New" churches are in the Reformed/Calvinist tradition and most are explicitly Trinitarian.
There are some Independent churches, especially a few breakaways from the Presbyterians, who are explicitly unitarian. But they are a minority of a minority. I would be surprised if they were as many as one percent of churchgoers here in Britain.
Quite a lot of Pentecostalists (and some of the Charismatic evangelicals) might be a little dodgy on trinitrianism, but its not so much that they are unitarian as that they simply don't bother to ask those questions very often. They have little or no repeated liturgy beyond hymns and choruses and a few Biblical prayers, and they don't use creeds, so they don't so much reject the Trinity as not think about it a lot.
The largest non-trinitarian denomination worldwide is probably the Jehovah's witnesses, who are in effect Arian. I suspect they have more numbers than all the capital-U Unitarians put together.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
of a similar substance as Anglicans.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Do you (pl.) accept along with the Saints of the second ecumenical council that God is not one numerically speaking? Or do you believe that God is one numerically speaking?
Could we have a quote from the second ecumenical council denying that God is "numerically one"?
Indeed, the council seems to be rather for a "numerically one" God. I assume we are talking about the
quote:
First Council of Constantinople - 381:
<...> No copy of the council's doctrinal decisions, entitled tomos kai anathematismos engraphos (record of the tome and anathemas), has survived. So what is presented here is the synodical letter of the synod of Constantinople held in 382, which expounded these doctrinal decisions, as the fathers witness, in summary form: namely, along the lines defined by the council of Nicaea, the consubstantiality and coeternity of the three divine persons against the Sabellians, Anomoeans, Arians and Pneumatomachi, who thought that the divinity was divided into several natures; and the enanthropesis (taking of humanity) of the Word, against those who supposed that the Word had in no way taken a human soul. All these matters were in close agreement with the tome that Pope Damasus and a Roman council, held probably in 378, had sent to the East. <...>
A letter of the bishops gathered in Constantinople [Namely the synod of Constantinople in 382]
<...> It tells us how to believe in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit: believing also, of course, that the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit have a single Godhead and power and substance, a dignity deserving the same honour and a co-eternal sovereignty, in three most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons. <...>
<Canon> 5
Regarding the Tome [this tome has not survived; it probably defended Paul of Antioch] of the Westerns: we have also recognised those in Antioch who confess a single Godhead of Father and Son and holy Spirit.
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
In the U.S., at least, even the most wild and wooly liberals in the mainline churches give lip service to the Trinity. Bishop Spong, for example, is a self-described Trinitarian. It may be Mother, Redeemer, and Sanctifier or some other peculiar variation, but it is still always three.
Greta
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
Since the Nicene Creed begins:
quote:
We believe in one God...
I'm a little puzzled by your claim that unitarianism means believing that God is numerically one.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Suffice to say Anglicans are fully trinitarian and that the Nicene Creed is recited at every mass in the Episcopal Church USA.
Your friends that told your we're unitarians were wrong, Andreas.
Zach
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
Off the top of my head, I would guess that the Holy Trinity is invoked at least six times in the course of Mass in TEC/The ECUSA. The number would become even greater if Trinitarian references in hymns and other service music are included (not to mention sermons).
Greta
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
Our services usually start "Grace, mercy and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you". I suspect that this proves that Anglicans are di-theists.
And so was Saint Paul.
Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on
:
Not that this necessarily proves anything, but it is interesting to note that the first verse of the first hymn during the investiture of the new Presiding Bishop (an historic event with wide media coverage) ends in an affirmation of the Trinity.
Greta
Posted by HangarQueen (# 6914) on
:
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Andreas, you're beginning to sound like the Muslim apologists I encountered at University. Next you'll be asking us if 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 or 1.
However, from perusing Wikipedia (usual disclaimers apply) it appears that a chunk of Pentecostalism is Unitarian or Sabellian after a fashion.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Oneness Pentecostals and card-carrying Unitarians aside, I think the rest of Western Christendom is Trinitarian; those Anglicans who've been subsumed within The Plot™ and then claimed that Anglicanism is Unitarian have obviously been reciting the Nicene Creed with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Well, although this is anecdotal, I think that most if not all of my tutors at Salisbury and Wells Theological college in the early 80's were either closet or explicit Unitarians, (even the more Catholic examples were neo-Nestorian I suspect). They (and that generation) were past masters at "mouthing the Creed" and effectively denying it in public.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I think that most if not all of my tutors at Salisbury and Wells Theological college in the early 80's were either closet or explicit Unitarians
In what sense? There's the "only the Father is God" Arian version and there's the modalist version, but I've also come across the "don't scare the horses" version that some priests and/or ministers come out with when (for want of a better term) nominal Christians are present. I wouldn't say that's Unitarianism, but it's certainly openly to a variety of interpretations ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Suffice to say Anglicans are fully trinitarian and that the Nicene Creed is recited at every mass in the Episcopal Church USA.
Your friends that told your we're unitarians were wrong, Andreas.
Zach
The Anglican Communion is Trinitarian but that does not mean that every Anglican who recites the Creed actually believes it.
Posted by HangarQueen (# 6914) on
:
Actually, I must confess that modalism crops up in Evo circles from time to time. I've been guilty of it myself ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
. I think this is more due to theological sloppiness than out-and-out heresy.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Greyface
No, I mean the "only the Father is God" version ... and even "Father" is a switchable metaphor.
Another old favourite was that only the death of Christ had any faith significance.
My New Testament tutor (in a genuine attempt to be more orthodox) once said that the doctrine of the Trinity became necessary as a way of saving the Church from the tritheistic possibilities of its own early experience .... in other words, it was a re-assertion of monotheism. Arguably on that score, I suppose, when the experience has gone the Trinity isn't necessary for the defence of monotheism either ... which is, I think what we see in many departments of post-critical Protestant scholasticism ... Barth and his admirers notwithstanding.
[ 28. November 2006, 10:15: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
The question here is whether God is a unity or a union. The Orthodox voted for the latter, condemning the former.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Since the Nicene Creed begins:
quote:
We believe in one God...
I'm a little puzzled by your claim that unitarianism means believing that God is numerically one.
...in one God the Father! The "one" in that place of the Creed is about the person of the Father alone, and not about the entire trinity.
1+1+1=3
re IngoB:
In your quotes from the council's take it is said that the Godhead is one... Well, human nature is one also. One human nature, but not one human numerically speaking. (1)
re FCB:
I can't find the exact quote right now... The closest I found online is this from Gregory the Theologian: "I do not want to propose that the Divinity is a spring which never ceases (this is in distinction to Plotinus), because this comparison involves a numerical unity."
(1) Gregory from Nyssa, for example, writes:
quote:
yet their [humans'] nature is one, at union in itself, and an absolutely indivisible unit, not capable of increase by addition or of diminution by subtraction, but in its essence being and continually remaining one, inseparable even though it appear in plurality, continuous, complete, and not divided with the individuals who participate in it.
[ 28. November 2006, 10:31: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Anglican Communion is Trinitarian but that does not mean that every Anglican who recites the Creed actually believes it.
Nor every Greek or Russian.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
My New Testament tutor (in a genuine attempt to be more orthodox) once said that the doctrine of the Trinity became necessary as a way of saving the Church from the tritheistic possibilities of its own early experience .... in other words, it was a re-assertion of monotheism.
That might well be the case. So what? The historical emergence of the doctrine of the Trinity is hardly the same thing as the Trinity itself.
The earliest Christians "sang hyms to Jesus as to a god" yet also as Jews asserted along with Jesus that there was one God, the Father, creator of Heaven and Earth. Within a few generations they were praying to the Father and also Christ "who reigns with thee and thy Holy Spirit".
Far be it for me as a mere Protestant to say this, but in this case it does look as if the lirurgy came first. It was a hundred years befoe there was any explicit doctrine of the Trinity (formulated against gnostics and Sabellians and suchlike). "Honest guv, we are monotheists really". And another three hundred to get from there to Chalcedon.
Assuming its all true, then the Fathers must have beem led over time into a fuller understanding of the Trinity by the Holy Spirit working in the Church, slowly persuaded of the truth by their historical and liturgical experiences, as well as by argument, prayer, and study. (Either that or they made it all up).
The orthodoxy or otherwise of your NT tutor doesn't depend on whether he imagines that St. Luke or St. Jude had an explicitly Trinitarian faith.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Even the Prophets worshiped the trinity, but the first Christians grew into understanding? The fullness of our faith is revealed in theofanies, it is not a matter of the intellect to decide.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I can't find the exact quote right now... The closest I found online is this from Gregory the Theologian: "I do not want to propose that the Divinity is a spring which never ceases (this is in distinction to Plotinus), because this comparison involves a numerical unity."
Clearly Gregory is distinguishing Christian monotheism from Plotinian talk of "the One," not from the belief that the divine nature is one.
Gregory himself gets into a bit of trouble in this regard when he implies that Father, Son and Spirit could be thought of as being three members of a common genus, which would be polytheism. I don't think Gregory explicitly avowed this, but I do think he hadn't thought through the implications of all his examples.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
FCB, the divine nature being one does not mean that God is one numerically speaking! Human nature is one, but humankind is not one numerically speaking.
Do you see the three divine persons as a unity or a union?
By the way, Gregory was not unique on that. All the fathers of the first and the second council argued in lines similar to his... Didn't they say that we reject the Jewish teaching along with the heathen teaching? If God is a unity, then the Jewish teaching wasn't to be rejected!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Even the Prophets worshiped the trinity, but the first Christians grew into understanding?
Well yes. Do you really disagree with that? Why?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Because you cannot go past Pentecost. The fullness of the faith comes at each one of us' personal Pentecost. The wholeness of our faith is nothing more and nothing less than theofany. We can only repeat Pentecost in our lives, not go past that... Of course, the words we use to describe that transcendent experience differ, but the experience itself is one and the same from Moses to Abraham, to Isaiah, to James during Christ's Transformation, to the 12 in the Pentecost, to Paul on Damascus, to Stephen right before his death, etc etc...
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
FCB, the divine nature being one does not mean that God is one numerically speaking! Human nature is one, but humankind is not one numerically speaking.
Do you see the three divine persons as a unity or a union?
By the way, Gregory was not unique on that. All the fathers of the first and the second council argued in lines similar to his... Didn't they say that we reject the Jewish teaching along with the heathen teaching? If God is a unity, then the Jewish teaching wasn't to be rejected!
Wow, I don't even understand the Trinity. I believe in it but to me it's a total mystery. Its reassuring to know that the Orthodox have got it all wrapped up into such a neat package.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Playing with words, aren't we? I didn't say anything about understanding the trinity. I did say about understanding what "one divine nature in three persons" means.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Playing with words, aren't we? I didn't say anything about understanding the trinity. I did say about understanding what "one divine nature in three persons" means.
No, I think you are playing with words. I don't think it's possible to understand what 'one divine nature in three persons' means or to explain it adequately. And then to suggest that it's a distinction between 'unity' or 'union' that tips a person into unitarianism is way too simplistic for my liking.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I find it impossible to understand what the trinity is. I find it, however, ignorant to claim that what the phrase "one nature in N persons" means is impossible to understand. I also find acceptance of statements that are not understood quite questionable. How can you accept what you do not understand?
Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on
:
Sorry Andreas, you really sound like you're slipping into polytheism. 3 in 1 AND 1 in 3.
I think a lot of nominal Anglicans are simply deists (Christian by geography and culture), but to imply the West is not trinitarian by your definition is a bit of a sweeping statement and, TBH, offensive.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Well, you say I sound like slipping into polytheism... Why can't I say (some of) you (pl.) sound like slipping into unitarianism?
[ 28. November 2006, 12:38: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Originally I just thought Andreas was speaking through his hat, but suddenly I may see what he means.
So the question that would settle it is: Is Orthodoxy the same, albeit probably more philosophically exppressed, as Herbert W Armstrong's Radio Church of God which teaches that there are three spearate persons of the Father Son and Holy Spirit who are distinct persons just as in our normal usage. The unity is what HWA calls the "God Family" and what he means is that there is a single divine nature possessed by those three persons.
Since HWA has normally been considered heretical, as a tri-theis in the (small) orthodox West, it may explain Andreas' viewpoint. Of course we wouldn't label the Orthodox as heretical tri-theists, because you only do that sort of thing to upstart Americal religions, not Hallowed Traditions. But they look pretty similar to me.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Ken
The difference is that you will not survive as a teacher in the Orthodox Church (ordained or not) if you do not both believe and teach the faith as received. Sadly, many Anglicans and others manage that with impunity and without sanction ... but I do not now expect that to be any different.
Anteater
You haven't studied enough patristics to make a comment like that I fear.
[ 28. November 2006, 12:41: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Anteater
You haven't studied enough patristics to make a comment like that I fear.
Brill!
(Actually, he just has made that comment.)
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Well, you say I sound like slipping into polytheism... Why can't I say (some of) you (pl.) sound like slipping into unitarianism?
You can say that, if you like of course. The point is, some of us are saying (as I would with Spawn) I don't understand the trinity, nor do I expect to, but as am adherent of a trinitarian faith tradition, I accept it and ponder it, as a mystery. It was Fr. Gregory and Josephine who told me long ago that the Orthodox teach that such things are mysteries to be contemplated rather than facts to be understood. I trust that contemplating rather than understanding does not make me a Unitarian. Or else say say can tell his parents that, indeed, the Unitarians are the greatest threat to Christendom since the Moors, and we should all run and hide.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Human nature is one, but humankind is not one numerically speaking.
Andreas,
This is polytheism. If Father, Son and Holy Spirit are only one because they are members of the genus "divine beings", then the Christian God is one only in the sense that the Greek pantheon is one. Gregory was simply using a potentially misleading analogy when he compared the persons of the Trinity to Adam, Eve and Seth (Fifth Theological Oration, para. 11), as he seems to realize (Ibid., para. 15).
I'm willing to grant that the divine nature is not "numerically one" if by this one means that it is countable -- as if there could conceivably be two divine natures.
quote:
Do you see the three divine persons as a unity or a union?
This strikes me more as a slogan than a genuine question. You would have to define the terms for me. To me a "union" implies independent entities that join together to form a whole that is accidental to its members. Obviously the Trinity is not this sort of "union." So I guess, given that it's the only other choice offered, I would have to go with door number 1, though I myself have no great stake in the term unity.
quote:
Didn't they say that we reject the Jewish teaching along with the heathen teaching? If God is a unity, then the Jewish teaching wasn't to be rejected!
So far as I know, Christian have never rejected Jewish teaching on divine unity, but only the Jewish denial of the Trinity of persons.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
- (1) I didn't say anything about understanding the trinity.
- (2) I did say about understanding what "one divine nature in three persons" means.
- (3) I find it impossible to understand what the trinity is.
- (4) I find it ... ignorant to claim that what the phrase "one nature in N persons" means is impossible to understand.
- (5) I ... find acceptance of statements that are not understood quite questionable. How can you accept what you do not understand?
This does not compute, Captain.
[ 28. November 2006, 13:13: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
Just to add grist to the mill, here's a quotation from an Orthodox theologian:
quote:
This issue [of the relation of persons to essence] has become painfully perplexing in recent decades on account of the misguided willingness of many modern theologians to accept, and employ, the distinction that Theodore de Regnon so modestly, but so influentially, claimed to have discovered between Western and Eastern styles of trinitarian theology: the tendency, that is, of Latin thought to proceed from general nature to concrete person (the latter as a mode of the former), so as to accord priority to divine unity, and of Greek thought to proceed from person to nature (the latter as the content of the former), so placing the emphasis first on the plurality of divine persons. There is some minimal truth to this distinction perhaps, at least as regards the wery early difference of Alexandrian subordinationism from Roman modalism, but it is more myth than reality, and has served little purpose in recent years but to feed Eastern polemic and Western insecurity, and to distort the tradition both share.
David Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite, 169-170
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I don't think you can ever figure how much of Christianity is unitarian becaue many of us don't have a clue what we believe or what you'd call it. I'd say there's one God and humans understand (or rather don't understand) three aspects of him. I think someone told me I was heretical last time I said that. Whatever.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
No, I do not think that the "one nature" is all there is to Orthodox monotheism...
One nature plus the union makes the fullness of Orthodox monotheism.
John, in his gospel, writes that Christ and the Father are one, and that He prays so that we can also be one like He and the Father are one. In this text, the term "one" refers to a union, and not to a unity. It is this union, this alleloperichorisis (fr. Gregory, what is the English term for that?) that makes Orthodoxy monotheist.
Alleloperichorisis along with one nature...
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Circumincession.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Is this is a new meaning of the word "English" of which I was previously unaware?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Speak English, boys!
More seriously, "Three Persons in One Divine Nature" works for me and pretty much always has done.
[Bah! CP with Ken during a post-signing session at work]
[ 28. November 2006, 15:11: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
No, it's here.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
You haven't studied enough patristics to make a comment like that I fear.
Is there a reference for the spiritual gift of arrogant condescension? I though I was asking for a clarification, not making a statement, and was trying to further the debate.
If the question is felt not to deserve a response, then I'll go away.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Is there a reference for the spiritual gift of arrogant condescension?
First Shipofoolsians 11:28
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Well I'm happy to define a biological species as a group of semapharonts interconnected by tokogenetic relationships, but only connected to other semapharonts by phylogenetic relationships.
But I wouldn't want to claim it as English
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Is there a reference for the spiritual gift of arrogant condescension?
First Shipofoolsians 11:28
That implies that a Second Letter will be sadly necessary.
And Ken does it again ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Has anyone got an authorised English translation?
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on
:
To get us back to somewhere near the OP, I'd like to add to ken's admirably comprehensive list of British unitarians, the Christadelphians to whom my husband's family all belong. They are explicitly unitarian and base this on the Bible, which they say does not teach Trinitarianism (and indeed it doesn't, as such, though the seeds of Trinitarianism are there if you want to look for them).
Christadelphians (along with some modern Anabaptists/Mennonites) do not accept the historic creeds as true or binding. With which I have some sympathy, as I find the creeds quite unsatisfactory in some respects, notably the 'Jesus-shaped hole' in the middle of them as they jump straight from 'born of the Virgin Mary' to 'suffered under Pontius Pilate' without any room for Jesus' life, ministry and and teaching, leaving our faith significantly unbalanced. Of course they were formulated to address the theological questions of their time, not of ours - but their validity is a thread all of its own, if someone wishes to start it (I'm sure there must have been several before).
[ 28. November 2006, 15:40: Message edited by: Esmeralda ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think you can ever figure how much of Christianity is unitarian becaue many of us don't have a clue what we believe or what you'd call it. I'd say there's one God and humans understand (or rather don't understand) three aspects of him. I think someone told me I was heretical last time I said that. Whatever.
I think that your statement here is pretty representative, Gwai.
In my experience the average Christian just thinks in terms of one God.
When they are reminded of the Trinity they don't deny it, they are just confused. They are not sure whether they pray to the Father or to Jesus. But they do think that Jesus and the Father are somehow two but also somehow the same.
I'm not sure if that is unitarian or not.
If you go with what people's first impulse is, then I would say that it is definitely unitarian - they say to themselves "Please God, help me get out of this jam!"
No one intuitively says "Please Father, deliver me for the sake of Your Son by Your Holy Spirit."
At least, no one in the movies ever says this.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
How about "mutual indwelling" as the English rendering of perichoresis?
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I've never found the Trinity either easy to understand or believe, but I recently read this in "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" by Vladimir Lossky:
"The highest point of revelation, the dogma of the Holy Trinity, is pre-eminently an antinomy. To attain to the contemplation of this primordial reality in all its fullness, it is necessary to reach the goal which is set before us, to attain to the state of deification..."
This explanation satisfies me, because I am able to take Lossky's word for it that the Trinity is essentially a paradox until one reaches a sufficient state of theosis to fully contemplate it. So my lack of understanding is appropriate to my state of spiritual development. I don't think the subject will ever trouble me again. I hope to grow enough in spirituality to fully appreciate it either in this life or the next.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Can I try again to get at the difference.
Maybe given the question: Are there Three Gods or One? The Orthodox would refuse to accept the question in that form, since neither represents truth. I would simply say One. Period.
So I can see how that may sound Unitarian, and this is exacerbated by the fact that well known unitarian sects (and I was a JW) also deny that Jesus is God. So people lump the two together. But logically you can be unitarian and believe that Jesus was God.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think you can ever figure how much of Christianity is unitarian becaue many of us don't have a clue what we believe or what you'd call it. I'd say there's one God and humans understand (or rather don't understand) three aspects of him. I think someone told me I was heretical last time I said that. Whatever.
Whether anyone considers you heretical or not I think your understanding is sufficient because Christianity is still a monotheistic faith. There is only one God which we experience as a Trinity. I don't think anyone can say more than that because we aren't capable of understanding God in His essence.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
My "feeling" is this, dear anteater:
It seems to me that some say "there is one divine essence" and they mean that there is one "something" which the three divine persons "possess" in common. But if this "something" is one, then this is unitarianism and not trinitarianism. It's one thing to say, as the fathers said, that there is one divine essence, like there is one human essence, and another to say that yes, there is one divine essence and this is our monotheism, but there is not one human essence, but many, because there are many humans.
The way I see it, it's a misunderstanding of what the ancient church meant by "one essence". Some kept the phrase but changed the meaning so that it no longer is orthodox!
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
However you slice it, Andreas, I believe in one God.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
But if this "something" is one, then this is unitarianism and not trinitarianism.
From my point of view, the position you're espousing looks like unitarianism itself. You're saying, unless I've got you entirely wrong, that the Father is one substance, and that the Son and Spirit are distinct substances. I think I would call that unitarianism (and tritheism).
(I had thought that the West and East had agreed that their formulations of the Creed were equivalent. If they aren't then the trouble goes back even further than Augustine.)
It may be true that the West has Antiochine tendencies in its theology. But I think that in trying to avoid the excesses of the Antiochine school you are in danger of plunging into the excesses of the Alexandrian school.
In speaking of a union, you imply that the union is logically subsequent to the existence of three persons who thus could conceivably exist independently of each other. Or rather, you imply this of the Father (hence unitarianism). It seems to me that (subject to the necessity of counterbalancing statements) the existence of each person is dependent upon and inherent in the existence of the others (although the relationship is asymmetrical in that the Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds).
Note that I am by no means a scholar.
Dafyd
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But logically you can be unitarian and believe that Jesus was God.
More than logically. Jesus is the one only God. In Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily. This is the way I see it.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
However you slice it, Andreas, I believe in one God.
Has the Creed changed and nobody notified me? Because I still believe in one God the Father... and in one Lord Jesus Christ... and in the Holy Spirit.
In all seriousness, I ask you, why do you cut the "I believe in one God" from the Creed? Because the seen in context it does not say "I believe in one God. period."
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In speaking of a union, you imply that the union is logically subsequent to the existence of three persons who thus could conceivably exist independently of each other. Or rather, you imply this of the Father (hence unitarianism).
No, it's not logically subsequent, because this is the LIFE of the three divine persons, they live in each other. There is no individualistic logically subsequent take on this, because when we bring one of them to our minds, the other two come to our minds at the same time.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In all seriousness, I ask you, why do you cut the "I believe in one God" from the Creed? Because the seen in context it does not say "I believe in one God. period."
Whatever it goes on to say, does not contradict the first part. There is only one God.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
It's like saying "there is only".... Only what? You can't cut a sentence in the middle and claim that the first part is true, because it is not independent of the second part. And, by the way, the Creed does not say "I believe in only one God the Father..."
I still don't understand how you interpret the creed's first "one" to refer to the entire trinity instead of God the Father. I believe in ONE God the Father... AND in ONE Lord Jesus Christ...
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
So you're a tritheist? Or is Jesus not God, and you're an Arian?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
No, I am a trinitarian. You know, let them be one like we are one.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is this is a new meaning of the word "English" of which I was previously unaware?
"Andreas-ish" perhaps, in which English words have a hidden meaning known only to Andreas.
John
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, I am a trinitarian. You know, let them be one like we are one.
Except we aren't, and they are.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The question here is whether God is a unity or a union. The Orthodox voted for the latter, condemning the former.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Since the Nicene Creed begins:
quote:
We believe in one God...
I'm a little puzzled by your claim that unitarianism means believing that God is numerically one.
...in one God the Father! The "one" in that place of the Creed is about the person of the Father alone, and not about the entire trinity.
If your interpretation is right, then the English translators have a lot to answer for.
Because the structure of the Nicene creed is clear:
We believe in one god:
- the father
- the son
- the Holy spirit
John
[ 28. November 2006, 17:45: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Except we aren't, and they are.
First of all, some are. Or else Christianity would be nonsense. But anyways, the important thing is that we can become one like they are one. Don't you see what I am saying?
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is this is a new meaning of the word "English" of which I was previously unaware?
"Andreas-ish" perhaps, in which English words have a hidden meaning known only to Andreas.
John
That was completely uncalled for. Why are you attacking me this way?
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
No I don't see what you're saying. The Father and the Son are one because the Father is the cause and ground and end of the Son. The Father and the Spirit are one because the Father is the cause and ground and end of the Spirit. The Spirit and the Son are one because they are both caused and grounded in, and end in, the Father.
This is not true of any two human beings.
Our oneness is not like their oneness.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
If your interpretation is right, then the English translators have a lot to answer for.
Because the structure of the Nicene creed is clear:
We believe in one god:
- the father
- the son
- the Holy spirit
John
This is an abusive change to the creed.
It doesn't say in:the-the-the, but :in-and in-and in.
We believe:
-in one God the Father
-and in one Lord Jesus Christ
-and in the Spirit the Holy
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
Can anyone explain in simple terms that I can understand how one can be a Unitarian and still believe that Jesus was God. I thought those positions were mutually contradictory, but comments on this thread suggest otherwise. It seems like I really don't know what the terms mean at all (and I suspect I'm not the only one).
I went to a Unitarian church, once and noticed that they called the Lord's prayer 'the Prayer of Jesus' and various things like that. I assumed this was because they did not accept that Jesus was God, but maybe that was too simplistic an interpretation.
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Can anyone explain in simple terms that I can understand how one can be a Unitarian and still believe that Jesus was God.
One could think Jesus is God, and that "The Father" and "The Spirit" are just different names or aspects of Jesus. I think that's what the Swedenborgians think; Freddy will correct me if I'm wrong.
I also seem to remember that some pentecostal denominations in the deep south take this particular stance.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
I'm not intending to attack you personally -- that would be a breach of the 10C.
I am reflecting on the fact that from the perspective I have as a writer and editor of English, you frequently use English words (theological words) as if they have a meaning known only to you, which is certainly not the normal meaning in English. SOmetimes your understanding is based on etymology -- where the word came from and what the (greek) parent meant -- in blithe disregard of the fact that the word no longer means that in current usage.
I am also, I suppose, reflecting the fact that many of the Orthodox on these boards, seem to believe that much of the time what you say is not standard Orthodox interpretation or theology. I choose to believe you are not willfully misrepresenting the Orthodox concensus but have an unconventional understanding of what the words mean as they are used in contemporary english.
Because in communication on an open board, words are used for their plain meaning today, not what they meant once, not what their parents meant, not to mean whatever the writer means, however well intentioned.
The subtle distinctions you reflect (I presume accurately) flowing from an initmate knowledge of greek words do not have any accurate counterparts in english. You suggest implicitly that theology can only validly be written in Greek, since only in greek can the necessary disinctions and issues be articulated. I can't go with that -- I can't even go with your implicit assumption that the greek (language) formularies are the only defining ones, so that only those who are fluent greek speakers are able and entitled to talk about the issues they raise, and that only those who speak greek can really understand what the faith is or express it -- which would have to be in greek of course, since all other languages fail to translate greek perfectly and exactly.
John
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
If your interpretation is right, then the English translators have a lot to answer for.
Because the structure of the Nicene creed is clear:
We believe in one god:
- the father
- the son
- the Holy spirit
John
This is an abusive change to the creed.
It doesn't say in:the-the-the, but :in-and in-and in.
We believe:
-in one God the Father
-and in one Lord Jesus Christ
-and in the Spirit the Holy
Then that sounds like I believe in A, B, and C.
Wouldn't that either be 1 God (Father) and then two other things? Or 3 Gods?
It doesn't sound like 1 God.
Although I was always taught that the Nicene Creed said that there was one God, with three somethings that I never have quite understood...
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
John
This does not answer why you used my name to comment a post about a word another man wrote. Wasn't the post you commented on about the word "circumincession"? I did not use that word.
PataLeBon
This is the question here, whether what you have been taught is historically accurate or not!
[ 28. November 2006, 18:10: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Andreas, do you even know what a strawman argument is?
Zach
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
One could think Jesus is God, and that "The Father" and "The Spirit" are just different names or aspects of Jesus. I think that's what the Swedenborgians think; Freddy will correct me if I'm wrong.
Not different aspects. That would be modalism. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit make up one God in the same sense that soul, body and activity make up one person. As the Athanasian Creed says:
quote:
For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
Jesus is God as He is visible and understandable to us.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, it's not logically subsequent, because this is the LIFE of the three divine persons, they live in each other.
So you believe that there is a unity of life rather than a union of lives.
Dafyd
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
I don't mean to misrepresent you, Freddy. But when you say "God as he is visible and understandable to us" it sure sounds like modalism to me. Can you flesh out the difference between the Swedenborgian position and modalism?
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I think some of you should cut Andreas a bit of slack especially where it comes to his choice of words. Remember that English isn't his first language and he does an excellent job in communicating quite complex themes in our language. I wish I had as good a grasp of another language!
It seems to me that trinitarianism walks a razor's edge between modalism on the one side and tritheism on the other, both of which must be wrong. So I don't quite get Andreas' point. How, in a monotheistic religion can there be anything but one God?
After the rise of Christianity, Rabbinic Judaism defined God in absolute monotheistic terms which it had never used earlier in its history. Christians believe in the Trinity of hypostases, personae or masks of the one God, but it remains one God. That is an absolute principle of Christianity which it shares with Judaism and Islam.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I don't mean to misrepresent you, Freddy. But when you say "God as he is visible and understandable to us" it sure sounds like modalism to me. Can you flesh out the difference between the Swedenborgian position and modalism?
Sure.
Here is a definition of modalism from Theopedia:
quote:
Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the heretical belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes. This is in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God never exists as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time, he can only manifest himself as one person at any specific time. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.
So in modalism God manifest Himself in different roles, but never at the same time.
The New Church teaches, by contrast, that God continually acts as one, just as any person acts as one person, with the soul, or inner person, acting by means of the body, or outer person. In God the soul is the Father, the body is the Son, and the activity is the Holy Spirit.
The Father and Holy Spirit are not manifestations of God - the Son is the only manifestation, which is why He is called the Logos, and is said to have been "going forth from of old, from everlasting" (Micah 5.2). The act of manifesting, however, is the Holy Spirit, so it is described and visualized in various ways, such as by a dove, or fire, or breath, or wind, but never a person.
I think that this is quite different from modalism, and that it could be called unitarian, but that it still acknowledges Jesus as God. You could read more here.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Sabelianism is one form of Modalism, not the wholeness of Modalism.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Sabelianism is one form of Modalism, not the wholeness of Modalism.
It would be a good idea to write in to Theopedia and let them know.
Posted by Professor Kirke (# 9037) on
:
To be fair, Freddy, the external link at the bottom of the Theopedia entry for Modalism does link to basictheology.com, where they also mention Sabellianism, describing it as an "extension of the Trinitarian error of Modalism". But I think we may be getting off the point.
I have to say, I think Andreas has made an excellent argument for three distinct persons making up the Godhead by using the simile of human-kind "one-ness", but especially with his demonstration of the Nicene creed. Looking at the English text of the creed again, it does certainly seem to portray the belief in three at least somewhat separate entities.
Andreas, how does that still qualify as being One God, rather than Three Gods?
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
it does certainly seem to portray the belief in three at least somewhat separate entities.
Of course it does. To deny this would be modalism. I don't think most Christians who claim to be trinitarian would deny this. But the "simile of human-kind 'one-ness'" ends up with the opposite problem: tritheism. It seems to presume that there is a genus called "divinity" in which there can be more than one member.
[ 28. November 2006, 22:04: Message edited by: FCB ]
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
It seems to presume that there is a genus called "divinity" in which there can be more than one member .
But there can't or it wouldn't be monotheism.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
All models of the Trinity are defective in some respects .... sun / heat / light; 3 men, one nature; triangles, parenting and breathing, voice / transmitter / sound .... you name it they all have holes in them. Lesson .... don't reify the model .... it's an approximation. The only appreciation we really can have is in worship .... and that's often beyond words.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Gregory:
All models of the Trinity are defective in some respects .... sun / heat / light; 3 men, one nature; triangles, parenting and breathing, voice / transmitter / sound .... you name it they all have holes in them. Lesson .... don't reify the model .... it's an approximation. The only appreciation we really can have is in worship .... and that's often beyond words
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
All models of the Trinity are defective in some respects .... sun / heat / light; 3 men, one nature; triangles, parenting and breathing, voice / transmitter / sound .... you name it they all have holes in them. Lesson .... don't reify the model .... it's an approximation. The only appreciation we really can have is in worship .... and that's often beyond words.
Which is something that I at least, run into again and again.
I can't explain to Andreas (or anyone else for that matter) what I believe about the Trinity because you are asking me to put an experience of worship into words.
And I simply can't find the words to explain that.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
That's fine. Very Orthodox! My saint (St. Gregory of Nazianzen) said that those who pry risk going mad, (or boring the pants off everyone else which is probably just as bad).
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
That's fine. Very Orthodox! My saint (St. Gregory of Nazianzen) said that
those who pry risk going mad,
(or boring the pants off everyone else which is probably just as bad).
But did it rhyme when he said it?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
I have to say, I think Andreas has made an excellent argument for three distinct persons making up the Godhead by using the simile of human-kind "one-ness",
Andreas has often made this argument. I am mystified as to how it could be seen as a good argument. It means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in the same sense that you and I are one. It amounts to saying that there is no such thing as polytheism. Would anyone really make that argument?
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
but especially with his demonstration of the Nicene creed. Looking at the English text of the creed again, it does certainly seem to portray the belief in three at least somewhat separate entities.
That can't be denied. The ancient fathers, in their zeal to abolish Arianism, made a slight error there, in my opinion.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
Andreas has often made this argument. I am mystified as to how it could be seen as a good argument. It means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in the same sense that you and I are one.
I don't think this follows at all. It's like saying Jesus is God's son in the same way that my son is my son. It is entirely possible for the divine persons to have a mutual indwelling which is inconceivable for humans.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
"Son" is a potentially misleading term, (not that we should stop using it!). In "Son" of God it does not mean biological origin (contra Islam). However, Anteater's comment about mutual indwelling is spot on.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Indeed. They are not just one in nature (like we humans are) ALTHOUGH this was enough for the ancient creed ("co-essential with the father") BUT ALSO one is in the other and we can be like that too. God is one not numerically speaking... but because there is a UNION of the three divine persons. There is no unity, but union. Unity is unitarianism. Union is trinitarianism.
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
Alan Bennett solves the whole problem for me in "Forty Years On" when during the "Confirmation Class" he says..."Problems with the Trinity? See your Maths master."
I'll leave it to the mathematicians.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Andreas
I know what you are saying but you MAY not be saying it well in English according to the meaning you intend. Please clarify.
"Unity" can have two senses ...
- a simple primordial oneness - this would indicate unitarianism in respect of the Godhead.
or
- the mutual concord of two or more parties which remain more or less separate. So, national unity is several parts acting and relating as one within any given society. - this would indicate tritheism in respect of the Godhead.
"Union" has a stronger sense of two or more becoming or being one body or at the very least belonging to one body ... not simply by association or absorption (unity) but by an incorporation preserving the distinctness within (eg., marriage).
I actually agree with you .... provided that you receive the above definitions in your own understanding. The Godhead is a union not a unity. A "unity" would indicate tritheism or unitarianism depending on which meaning of the word "unity" is used. Union is a much better word for trinitarianism since it maintains the distinctness of the hypostases within the one ousia.
There remains a problem though. The non-Orthodox DO tend to start from an abstract monotheistic notion and try to build the Trinity into that. We tend to start from the trinitarian EXPERIENCE and see how monotheism is modified ontologically by that encounter.
[ 29. November 2006, 10:47: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear father
I agree fully with the definitions and the explanation you give. I accept the union and I reject the unity.
I want to note that it is mistaken to try to build the trinity into an abstract monotheistic notion... The only way is to surpass the abstract monotheistic notion, like climbing through a cloud, and see things more accurately, getting to experience the distinctions in the trinity...
In my opinion, Protestantism and Catholicism do not have as clear an understanding/experience of the Triad as Orthodoxy does... although they do have a clearer understanding/experience that Islam or Judaism...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
Andreas has often made this argument. I am mystified as to how it could be seen as a good argument. It means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in the same sense that you and I are one.
I don't think this follows at all. It's like saying Jesus is God's son in the same way that my son is my son. It is entirely possible for the divine persons to have a mutual indwelling which is inconceivable for humans.
That's just the point. If it is inconceivable for humans then how can it be a good argument to make the comparison to the oneness of all humans?
Humans are not "one", and if the members of the Trinity are "one" in the same sense, then this means that they aren't "one" either. It would mean that there are many gods in the same sense that there are many humans. It would mean that the ancient Greeks worshiped one God on Mt. Olympus.
I don't disagree that there is some truth to the argument. All humans are, in a certain sense, one. My point is just that it is not a strong argument.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Freddy, I said that this is what "one essence" means, not that this is all of Orthodox trinitarian theology... The wholeness is the "one essence" along with the "union". But I don't think that you agree with the "union". As far as I can tell, you only accept that something is one so long as it is a unity. This the Orthodox Church rejects.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
....PROVIDED Andreas that Freddy is using the "primordial oneness" definition of unity, NOT the unity by association (which would be tritheism).
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Freddy, I said that this is what "one essence" means, not that this is all of Orthodox trinitarian theology... The wholeness is the "one essence" along with the "union". But I don't think that you agree with the "union". As far as I can tell, you only accept that something is one so long as it is a unity. This the Orthodox Church rejects.
OK. I think that is probably right. I just think that it is curious that the Orthodox reject the unity of God, opting instead for the union of God.
Doesn't this mean that you have to think hard when you think of God? When you pray, which one do you have in mind? In times of trouble when you think "God help me!" do you keep all of them in mind or do they blend together?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Well, if you take a look at the liturgies, you will see that (eventually) it is made clear to Whom we are praying... For example: God, you who............................. and your only-begotten Son.... or Lord.......... you who.... have been crucified for us.....
In fact, in Greek (as per the New Testament) the term "God" is used also as a proper name... for the Father. Like Paul writes "God and Jesus Christ"...
BUT, and this is IMPORTANT, because of the union, when we approach one divine person, at the same time, we approach the other two also, but the experience is different... safeguarding the distinction...
[ 29. November 2006, 11:46: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In my opinion, Protestantism and Catholicism do not have as clear an understanding/experience of the Triad as Orthodoxy does... although they do have a clearer understanding/experience that Islam or Judaism...
Andres, you are simply wrong here. You can keep saying this, but you are wrong. Western Trinitarian theology falls entirely within the parameters of the Creed of 381, as much as Easter Trinitarian theology.
I'd offer an argument, but they don't seem to do any good.
So I'll just reassert:
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
The non-Orthodox DO tend to start from an abstract monotheistic notion and try to build the Trinity into that. We tend to start from the trinitarian EXPERIENCE and see how monotheism is modified ontologically by that encounter.
I'm not sure that the Reformed view (which I know best) starts from an abstract monotheistic notion, but I agree that it views the unity as primary. At least that has always been my view, and I've read a lot of Reformed theology without ever having though I was heterodox. In particular, I do not have any problem with the Jewish notion of the One God.
There are some other issues I would like to raise. The first concerns the difference between the Economic Trinity (i.e. as revealed) to us, and the Essential Trinity (as God is in himself). It is usual to view the Economic Trinity in much the same way as it appears the Orthodox do, namely that God is revealed as Three Persons in Union. The Reformed would usually also go on to say that The Son is revealed as Subordinate. However, the caveat is, that where this seems to contradict the Unity of God, we must remember that what we say of his revelation cannot be said of his essence. I'm not sure why the Orthodox have a problem with this.
Secondly, although etymology would support the view that anyone who believes God is a Unity is a Unitarian, this is not how the word has developed, and using it in this sense, does not help understanding. Unitarianism - the Denomination - typically denies the Deity of Christ and the Personality of the Spirt. Can we think of a term for the Western view? I'll try.
PS I did here an interesting point, which may or may not be true, that in iconography, the East thinks of God as three Persons, and the West as two Persons and a Bird. Interesting thought.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
"Union" has a stronger sense of two or more becoming or being one body or at the very least belonging to one body ... not simply by association or absorption (unity) but by an incorporation preserving the distinctness within (eg., marriage).
As far as I understand Andreas, and I hope I do, he is denying that there are two or more anything becoming one thing.
If I may go back to my point about Antioch and Alexandria, or your point about no one model of the Trinity being sufficient...
It may be that there is a distinction between starting from the unity of God and moving to the Trinity and starting from the Threefold of God and moving to the union. However, the two need to be taken as complementary models, surely?
Andreas would be fine if he were merely asserting that God is the union of three persons. However, I think he is going overboard in denying that the union amounts to anything more than a marriage does.
Am I right in thinking that the Eastern Orthodox accept the traslation of the Creed according to which God is one substance?
Dafyd
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
For the Greeks the "of one substance with the Father" of the Creed means exactly the same with "all men are of one substance" or "of one substance with His Mother"... i.e. the "one substance" of the Creed has always been a Greek philosophical term that means "one nature" and NOTHING MORE.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Am I right in thinking that the Eastern Orthodox accept the traslation of the Creed according to which God is one substance?
The Eastern Orthodox accept that "Christ is of one substance with the Father and of one substance with Virgin Mary".
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, it's not logically subsequent, because this is the LIFE of the three divine persons, they live in each other.
and also:
quote:
one is in the other and we can be like that too.
Some contradiction here. If we can be like this, then the union is logically subsequent to the individuals, since we are currently logically distinct individuals who are not part of the divine union.
In salvation, we may be incorporated into the divine life, but to us it will belong accidentally and contingently but to the three persons it belongs substantially and of necessity.
Hence the union of the divine persons must be affirmed as stronger than their mutual participation in each other, if by that we mean solely what we will attain.
Dafyd
Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on
:
Is it the Athanasian creed which in English includes: 'the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, the Spirit incomprehensible'? To which some wag long ago added: 'the whole bloody lot incomprehensible'!
Seriously if we could understand it, it surely wouldn't be God.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear Dafyd
We may attain to it, but we ALREADY exist in a hierarchical way... Think about the Universe the way e.g. Dionysios described it... We are all inter-linked either we know it or not... The creation is already unified, but not all participate in this unified creation consciously. This is why we pray in the divine liturgy "for the union of all" and why Christ prays so that "all can be one just like we [Christ and the Father] are one"
I think that the problem comes because the union as Christian monotheism is seen only clearly in a text like John, which was supposed to be read AFTER the initiation of baptism... So, because many texts for the uninitiated are in circulation, they might influence heavily churches where the living tradition of getting to know God from experience is disrupted...
[ETA] God the Father is the source of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit... This means that logically nobody is prior or subsequent to anyone else, but they are all in union, because if the Father was logically prior then He would not be the Father properly etc... When we think if the Father, the Son and the Spirit also enter our thought, so they are in union also logically...
[ 29. November 2006, 13:07: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In my opinion, Protestantism and Catholicism do not have as clear an understanding/experience of the Triad as Orthodoxy does... although they do have a clearer understanding/experience that Islam or Judaism...
I'm with FCB - this is hugely insulting and condescending to fellow Christians, though in fact it essentially says you don't consider us such. TBH I'm tempted to call you to hell.
Fr G - thanks for your take on different meanings for union and unity. I'll accept union if it's akin to marital union, rather than trade. Thank you for your gracious conversation as a member of one denomination to those from others.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Andreas, you might want to take a look at Common Worship's Authorised Affirmation of Faith, used as an alternative to both the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds; it's straight-down-the-line Trinitarian and Athanasian in origin
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
If according to this: quote:
The Eastern Orthodox accept that "Christ is of one substance with the Father and of one substance with Virgin Mary".
one might conclude that Our Lady the Theotokos is a goddess and the Chalcedonian definition "One in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and known in two natures (my italics) without confusion" is in error!
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
M
Still confused from a thread in Eccles. where the same poster boldly declared that "Hesychasm was condemned by the Church"....
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
TBH I'm tempted to call you to hell.
I beg you not to. He doesn't get easier to understand over there.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In fact, in Greek (as per the New Testament) the term "God" is used also as a proper name... for the Father. Like Paul writes "God and Jesus Christ"...
The Father is God. Doesn’t this imply that the Son is not actually God? And what about Mary?
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Eastern Orthodox accept that "Christ is of one substance with the Father and of one substance with Virgin Mary".
You don't see a problem with this?
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
BUT, and this is IMPORTANT, because of the union, when we approach one divine person, at the same time, we approach the other two also, but the experience is different... safeguarding the distinction...
So we approach the Father, and in so doing we approach Jesus also? Didn't Jesus tell us to do it the other way around?
quote:
No one hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath brought Him forth to view (John 1:18).
Ye have neither heard the Father's voice at any time, nor seen His shape (John 5:37).
No one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal Him (Matt. 11:27).
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but through Me (John 14:6).
If ye know Me ye know My Father also; he that seeth Me seeth the Father. Philip, believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me (John 14:7-11).
These passages seem to me to say that we are to approach God the Son, not the Father.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
this is hugely insulting and condescending to fellow Christians, though in fact it essentially says you don't consider us such.
But it is the point he's trying to make. He wants to establish that Protestants and Catholics are different religions from Orthodoxy, are outside the One True Church.
The jumping into the thread on Mormons is the same rhetorical tactic - an attempt to paint Mormons as more like Protestants than either are like the Orthodox. And all that harping on and on and on about Augustine is the same again.
They are drawing a line around the Church and we are definitely supposed to be on the outside.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
It may not be that divisive, Ken. Our common acceptance of the Chalcedonian definition, provided people understand the difference between essence (substance) and nature, should make Orthodoxy sound a bit less impenetrable to the rest of the Orthodox, who apparently are "outside the Church" too, since we cannot follow these definitions we're getting either.
M
[Russian dialect removed]
[ 29. November 2006, 15:49: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear Leetle Masha
1. Chalcedon defined that Christ is "consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood" (from the definition of the council).
2. In that thread on Ecclesiantics, I was being sarcastic.
Dear ken
I have said in more posts that one that I consider all Protestants and Catholics to be Christians. I want to affirm publicly that Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants have one and the same religion.
Dear Leetle Masha (again)
You say that essence is different from nature. I have been taught and I can quote many fathers saying that nature and essence are the same thing. Can you quote any ancient Eastern authority saying that essence is different from nature?
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
andreas1984, as before, I am not going to play word games with you.
Your "sarcasm" is not obvious; it is confusing, as are your other citations and definitions. You need to learn to use English with greater clarity. One of the chief causes of confusion is the use of the words "essence" and "nature" as synonyms. In the English language, they are definitely not synonymous, especially when used in a theological context.
I do not need to quote you any authorities except the Nicene Creed to show you that. You may have one source of the Chalcedonian definition, and I another, but we both subscribe to that definition and we must not use English words to confuse other Christians. If we say that Christ has the divine nature of God the Father (being begotten of his Father before all ages) and that Christ took on, in his Incarnation, our human nature through his mother the Theotokos, we will be getting it right. The Most Holy Theotokos' essence, however, was only human, and if we say that Christ took her essence, we are then saying that he was only human.
"Not divided into two persons, but known in two natures without confusion." That's what you need to remember.
Mary
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear Mary, Greek theology was developed in the East, in a time when Russia was not Christian yet. So, when I say "Greek theology" I do not mean theology peculiar for Greece, but I mean "Orthodox theology" because it is this theology that was accepted by the Slavs also when they became Christians.
In Greek, there are two terms. Ousia and fysis. They both have exactly the same meaning, and are used by the fathers interchangeably. In the Creed, the first word, ousia, is used. The Son is of the same ousia with the Father.
Now, some pointed that this phrase of the Creed points to the unity in the trinity. I pointed out that the fathers used the same word in phrases like "Christ is of the same ousia with us humans" or "Christ is of the same ousia with His Mother". If the term in the Creed shows unity, then this unity has to extend to the wholeness of humanity as well. I said this because those claiming a unity rejected such a unity in the case of humanity.
Now, you say that in English essence and nature are different in meaning. How on earth then do you recite the same creed with me, when for me they have the same meaning, while for you they differ? As far as I know, the Creed in English reads "of the same essence with the Father" and not "of the same nature with the Father".
If I read "of the same ousia" and understand "of the same nature" and you read "of the same essence" and understand something different, then how are we reciting the same creed?
I do ask you to engage with me and reply to that simple question I am asking you.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
The full definition is here:
quote:
Following the five holy and universal synods and the holy and accepted fathers, and defining in unison, it professes our lord Jesus Christ our true God, one of the holy Trinity, which is of one same being and is the source of life, to be perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity, like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, who is properly and truly called mother of God, as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no separation, no division; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single subsistent being [in unam personam et in unam subsistentiam concurrente]; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, Word of God, lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as Jesus the Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the holy fathers handed it down to us.
If the distinction between essence and nature is not made, confusion with Nestorianism and Eutychianism can occur.
M
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
And here is the previous definition from Chalcedon, 451:
The two natures of Christ
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
You did not reply to my question. I am sad you didn't.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
I replied with the decrees of two ecumenical councils. If that's not enough for you, I am sad too.
Please have regard for others on these topics and do not play with words as you are doing, because it's not helping anyone. It is, as Ken said,
quote:
drawing a line around the Church and we are definitely supposed to be on the outside.
By insisting on an ambiguous definition, you are putting me on the outside too.
M
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
John
This does not answer why you used my name to comment a post about a word another man wrote. Wasn't the post you commented on about the word "circumincession"? I did not use that word.
PataLeBon
This is the question here, whether what you have been taught is historically accurate or not!
If I misunderstood the point of the original post, then I certainly do apologize for making a comment directed at you in that context.
John
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
I think "circumincession" was just a translation of the Greek term "alleloperichoresis", John Holding.
It was in a post by Fr. Gregory, that immediately followed one by andreas1984, who used the equivalent Greek term (hope I spelled it right!).
M
[ 29. November 2006, 18:01: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
i.e. the "one substance" of the Creed has always been a Greek philosophical term that means "one nature" and NOTHING MORE.
Actually, the term homoousious was not current in Greek philosophy prior to Nicea. It cropped up, I believe, in Valentinian Gnosticism (which made it quite suspect), but that was about it.
The point about Chalcedon describing Christ as "homoousion with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same homoousion with us as regards his humanity" is true. But the further claim that this means that the persons of the Trinity are simply three members of a common genus called "divinity," since Christ is a member of the genus "human beings," is an unwarranted extrapolation. It presumes that "homoousion" is predicated univocally of divine and human beings. Words are far more flexible than that.
[ 29. November 2006, 18:07: Message edited by: FCB ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
FCB, I have here in my hand a book of Letters from the great Sorbonne professor, Étienne Gilson, to his friend Henri (later Cardinal) de Lubac. The letter cited was written to Gilson's friend Anton Pegis, on July 17, 1966, right after the translators "for vernacular liturgies" had translated the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed into French as "de la męme nature" [italics mine]. He wrote:
quote:
I am now considered retrograde because 'nature' is leftist whereas 'substance' is rightist. . . . These modern liturgists are so naďve that they find 'nature' easier to understand than 'substance'. By Jove, if they ever succeed in making the dogma of the Trinity even slightly intelligible, they will have done a remarkable thing.
[ Letters of Étienne Gilson to Henri de Lubac, (San Francisco, 1988), p. 90.]
M
[corrected ref.]
[ 29. November 2006, 19:10: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Leetle Masha says that essence does not mean nature, especially in a theological context... FCB says that ousia has a different meaning when applied to God than when applied to man.
I asked for a definition, so that the difference can become clear. This way we could judge for ourselves whether the definition leads to unitarian or trinitarian theology.
It's a pity there was no further clarification.
I can only affirm my faith in the union (John 17.22)
[ 29. November 2006, 20:57: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
say that The Son is revealed as Subordinate. However, the caveat is, that where this seems to contradict the Unity of God, we must remember that what we say of his revelation cannot be said of his essence .
My long standing interest in Judaism is known to those who have posted here with me for several years. I'm steering clear of it at present in order to more fully intefrate myself within Christianity, but this raises a point I feel unable to deny. I don't want to go off on a heretical limb but it seems to me that if we can only experience the energies of God, but never comprehend His essence, and the Trinity is part od our experience then we can only say for certain that His energies are Trinitarian. What He may be in His essence is unknown and unknowable to us.
I only make this point because its part of kabbalistic teaching that God is a simple, unified spirit, but that within creation He manifests by various attributes. This led the nineteenth century Italian Rabbi and kabbalist Elijah Benamozegh to the conclusion that Trinitarianism was just an experience of God's attributes, not of God's essence which is incomprehensible to human thought. While Christian theology would disagree with that viewpoint it would still have to concede that God is unknowable in His essence so anything said about him is pure speculation.
Incidently I would highly recommend to anyone Elijah Benemozegh's book "Israel and Humanity" published by Paulist Press under its "Classics of Western Spirituality" series. Benamozegh died in 1900. He was an Italian of Moroccan parentage Had he lived to see the horrors of the 20th century he might not have been so tolerant, but he truly believed that Judaism, Christianity and Islam could and should live side by side in the mutual respect of the fact that they all worship the same God.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
"Unity" can have two senses ...
- a simple primordial oneness - this would indicate unitarianism in respect of the Godhead.
or
- the mutual concord of two or more parties which remain more or less separate. So, national unity is several parts acting and relating as one within any given society. - this would indicate tritheism in respect of the Godhead.
This ambiguity means, of course, that it is the perfect term to use - practically tailor-made. In God-speak, sitting between two contradictory wrongs makes a right. The word "Trinity" is really nothing but "Tri-Unity", with the "Tri" added to specify the second "wrong" of the ambiguity more precisely, namely tritheism (rather than an arbitrary number of gods).
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
"Union" has a stronger sense of two or more becoming or being one body or at the very least belonging to one body ... not simply by association or absorption (unity) but by an incorporation preserving the distinctness within (eg., marriage).
Your critique of "unity" here is false, see above. The individual choices may be simple, but their ambiguity makes the word complex. However, the way you describe "union" shows why it should not be used. While the procreative union of marriage can of course serve as a likeness of the Trinity, it is only through revelation itself that we can assign it the sacramental significance of "one flesh". And we all know that in this life neither literally (during sex) nor spiritually (in the ups and downs of life together) do we truly and fully become "as one". By projecting our imperfect unions onto the Trinity, we hence become tritheist: we imagine a Divine ménage ŕ trois, just somehow "more loving", we cannot get over our human experience that to be a person means being separated. This derives from our embodiment, which God as Spirit does not share. The Trinity is not just like three humans in perfect synch. "Union" becomes even less acceptable when we think of the unions, i.e., worker organisations. The word for us often indicates merely a general "common purpose" and loose social arrangements to bring them about. With this as picture for the Trinity, we are entering into the sort of Tritheism that is similar to the Greek pantheon...
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
There remains a problem though. The non-Orthodox DO tend to start from an abstract monotheistic notion and try to build the Trinity into that. We tend to start from the trinitarian EXPERIENCE and see how monotheism is modified ontologically by that encounter.
Please give an example of "Trinitarian experience", and explain in what way the Orthodox "start" from this whereas the non-Orthodox don't.
To start from a monotheistic notion is a scriptural, theological and historical necessity. For our elder brothers in the faith, the Jews, the chosen people, have sung the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) from time immemorial:
quote:
Shema:
Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.
That is the Living God, the God of Israel. Nothing else will do. Anybody who cannot sing this wholeheartedly is not a wild branch grafted onto the Jewish olive tree. Christianity reveals futher that the Lord is One, precisely as the Unity in Love of three Divine Persons. Without keeping this sequence in mind, the immensity of calling Christ God, who is the One Lord, is reduced to one of Jupiter's regular visits to earth.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That is the Living God, the God of Israel. Nothing else will do. Anybody who cannot sing this wholeheartedly is not a wild branch grafted onto the Jewish olive tree. Christianity reveals futher that the Lord is One, precisely as the Unity in Love of three Divine Persons. Without keeping this sequence in mind, the immensity of calling Christ God, who is the One Lord, is reduced to one of Jupiter's regular visits to earth.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Without keeping this sequence in mind, the immensity of calling Christ God, who is the One Lord, is reduced to one of Jupiter's regular visits to earth.
This is a nice way to put it. I keep getting the impression that the Orthodox view of the Incarnation is like that. Hopefully this is a wrong impression.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
St. Athanasius: On the Incarnation
Just click on the chapter titles. You're gonna love it, if you haven't already read it!
M
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The non-Orthodox DO tend to start from an abstract monotheistic notion and try to build the Trinity into that. We tend to start from the trinitarian EXPERIENCE and see how monotheism is modified ontologically by that encounter.
Father, I've found your posts edifying and informative ... until this one.
Are you really saying that, for the most part, experience of the Trinity, union with God, is limited to the Orthodox, whilst the rest of us spend our lives contemplating an abstract notion? You seem to be implying that (again, for the most part) the Orthodox are the only participants in the heavenly banquet; other Christians are standing outside, looking longingly through the windows, and debating the qualities and quantities of food on the dishes. Or have I misread you?
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
You have misread me. I am absolutely not making such an exclusivist claim. Notwithstanding Ingob's articulate defence of the Latin mode of theologising concerning the Trinity and its unexceptional conclusions in many respects it fails entirely to satisfy the Orthodox mind. As every born again Christian knows the union we have with Christ in the Spirit bringing us to the Father is the primary datum of faith .... not an axiomatic abstracted "God" into which we try and find a place for Jesus and the Spirit. Before the Incarnation for the Jews it wasn't even like that. The prophetic Word was uttered and the Spirit fell upon the prophets. God was even likened to a patient Father (Hosea). Experience first. Always.
[ 29. November 2006, 23:37: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
They are drawing a line around the Church and we are definitely supposed to be on the outside.
"They"? Why does Andreas rate a "They"? Is he a king?
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
By projecting our imperfect unions onto the Trinity, we hence become tritheist: we imagine a Divine ménage ŕ trois, just somehow "more loving", we cannot get over our human experience that to be a person means being separated.
I've found this a very interesting thread, and think IngoB's defence of the use of unity is a good one. Nonetheless, I am beginning to think that it is an argument about words, and that the attempts, at verious points in the history of the church, to impose one terminology rather than the other, is fruitless.
So at this point, I disagree with IngoB. I find it totally possible to extrapolate from our imperfect unions into a perfect one.
And, as per my (sadly ignored, probably because verbose) previous post, western christians relate to God in exactly the way described by our orthodox friends, and "your average envangelical" will preserve the reality of the persons, and our experience of them, at the risk of tri-theism.
It is IMO only at the academic level, that I see some truth in Andreas' concern.
Is there any possiblity that a root cause is, that in arguing over these terms, one side is really thinking in Latin and the other in Greek?
Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on
:
quote:
Is there any possiblity that a root cause is, that in arguing over these terms, one side is really thinking in Latin and the other in Greek?
'Twas ever thus - ho hum
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
As every born again Christian knows the union we have with Christ in the Spirit bringing us to the Father is the primary datum of faith .... not an axiomatic abstracted "God" into which we try and find a place for Jesus and the Spirit.
A very curious statement... Are you not precisely pre-supposing knowledge of the Trinity in the way you express this experience? Wouldn't it have been something like this:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Before the Incarnation for the Jews it wasn't even like that. The prophetic Word was uttered and the Spirit fell upon the prophets.
otherwise? That you have an experience of the Divine is one thing, that it is "Trinitarian" quite another. The very words you use reek of theological formula: "the union <...> with Christ in the Spirit bringing us to the Father". And on the level of practicalities, that we worship Christ, rather than venerating Him like one of the Saints, requires knowledge that He is God.
There is no such thing as a "Trinitarian experience" prior to knowing about the Trinity. Once one knows about the Trinity, one can explain the experience of the Divine in Trinitarian terms - as you did. Once one knows about the Trinity, and in particular that Christ is God, one can structure worship to become an explicit acknowledgement of the Trinity, and hence colour the experience.
But a "bottom-up" approach from experience to theology does not exist in the case of the Trinity. Rather, it is a "top-down" process from revelation to experience on one hand, and theology on the other. If it were not so, we would have to fault the Jews and indeed all non-Christians for stubbornly ignoring their own clear and ubiquitous experiences.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I find it totally possible to extrapolate from our imperfect unions into a perfect one.
Well, perhaps a perfect human one. If I quarrel with my wife, I can imagine quarreling less, and in the perfect case, not at all. But how close is this human perfection to what is the case in God? Can a Person who is omniscient and omnipotent quarrel in the first place? There is a subtle difference between "X has no Y (but could have)." and "X cannot in any way be related to Y."
And if we two happen to think exactly the same about something, our common thought does not fuse us into one entity - for you think the thought in your body, whereas I think it in mine, and the bodies are not the same even if the thought is. God has no body. Now, in what way can the Divine Persons be in perfect "mental" union of their Spirit life without becoming instantly indistinguishable? I find these sorts of extrapolations difficult, to be honest...
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is no such thing as a "Trinitarian experience" prior to knowing about the Trinity. Once one knows about the Trinity, one can explain the experience of the Divine in Trinitarian terms - as you did. Once one knows about the Trinity, and in particular that Christ is God, one can structure worship to become an explicit acknowledgement of the Trinity, and hence colour the experience.
I'm not sure I entirely agree. It is true that the Trinity is a revealed datum of faith, and not something that can be arrived at apart from revelation. So if one means by "Trinitarian experience" some sort of natural intuition of the Trinitarian nature of God, then I think Ingo is right. Further, I think he is correct in that we today never have a (to use Rahner's terms) "pre-thematic" experience of the Trinity out of which we arrive at the doctrine. Christian experience is always already shaped by Trinitarian worship and doctrine. But it does seem to me that the doctrine of the Trinity as doctrine is, historically speaking, subsequent to the experience of salvation through Christ and the Spirit.
So I guess I'm trying to split the difference between Fr. Gregory and Ingo: the doctrine of the Trinity it is a kind of "regulative grammar" that both grows out of and simultaneously shapes and interprets Christian experience, in much the same way that in language the articulation of its grammar is both an after-the-fact derivation of the experience of actually speaking the language, and something that guides our speaking and makes it meaningful.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's a pity there was no further clarification.
Sorry that I wasn't working according to your timetable.
For one thing, Christ's being homoousious with the Father and Spirit involves him being a divine person. Christ's being homoousious with the BVM does not involve him being a human person.
Also, the use of ousia and hypostasis as synonyms by the council of Nicea seems to me to imply a groping toward the idea of a nature that is itself subsisting, and not simply made up of the entire set of subsisting beings within it. Later Greek theology, rightly I think, distinguished between ousia and hypostasis, but the impulse to identify them reflects a salutary impulse to distinguish the concrete unity of the divine nature from the abstract unity of the nature shared by human beings. In Latin theology this difference is marked by the words substantia and natura: so, Father, Son and Spirit are one nature and one substance, but my wife, my daughter, and I are one nature, but not one substance. I don't happen to know if such distinctions can be made in Greek.
But all this theology is simply a groping toward the mystery.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
quote:
Theology is simply a groping toward the mystery
says FCB.
Do I hear an Amen?
And as for one side thinking in Latin and one side thinking in Greek, I_am_not_Job, you have a good point there too. Sometimes the "equivalent" terms in each language seem to take on lives of their own, don't they?
Me, I think in English, can't help it. It's my native langwich. I'll never get rid of this American accent, but there you are.
We have the councils to "define dogma". Our job is learning it and believing it.
M
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Whoops, that was anteater's point, that the languages could be part of the problem. Sorry, anteater!
We're a regular Tower of Babel, sometimes, though, aren't we.
My late, great spiritual father, Fr. Antony of blessed memory whom I'm always quoting, used to say to me:
"Shut up and pray."
I think I'll do that very thing!
M
[ 30. November 2006, 13:46: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
They are drawing a line around the Church and we are definitely supposed to be on the outside.
"They"? Why does Andreas rate a "They"? Is he a king?
Andreas and Myrrh.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
the use of ousia and hypostasis as synonyms by the council of Nicea seems to me to imply a groping toward the idea of a nature that is itself subsisting, and not simply made up of the entire set of subsisting beings within it.
I'm not much concerned by most of what this thread is about - a 'revealed datum of truth' is for me a fundamentally flawed concept - but this idea of a nature that is itself subsisting, this seems genuinely useful for thinking about God.
It also I think shows up the artificiality of the Essence/Energies distinction in Orthodoxy. If the expression of God in creating is in fact who God is, the Essence would not in fact be unknowable, it would be a redundant and therefore meaningless concept.
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
We have the councils to "define dogma". Our job is learning it and believing it.
Bad idea, LM. Those councils had no more information about who God is than we do, and I think in a very real way considerably less. We happen to be living in an age when we have information on an internet scale at our finger tips. However wise and holy those Church Fathers may or may not have been, they were really no more than guessing when it came to God.
Assuming councils know best seems like going to a lecture from the universe, covering your ears, and going 'la la can't hear you' to everything the universe and everyone in it has to say.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
quote:
Those councils had no more information about who God is than we do
Of course, Dave. It's just that, for the Orthodox anyhow, it's better to accept the authority of the councils. It's an authority thing.
M
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
We happen to be living in an age when we have information on an internet scale at our finger tips.
I'm not sure that more information is the same thing as more knowledge, and it know its not the same thing as more wisdom and insight.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Bad idea, LM. Those councils had no more information about who God is than we do, and I think in a very real way considerably less. We happen to be living in an age when we have information on an internet scale at our finger tips. However wise and holy those Church Fathers may or may not have been, they were really no more than guessing when it came to God.
In a very real way? You weren't a C of E Bishop in the 1980s were you?
What FCB said. Wisdom and holiness are rather more essential to knowledge of God than being able to dial up a blog about whether a new series of Buffy the Vampire Slayer will ever be made.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I'm not sure that more information is the same thing as more knowledge, and it know its not the same thing as more wisdom and insight.
Wisdom and insight can only illuminate the knowledge available to them. I agree that information doesn't necessarily equate to knowledge, but you can't have knowledge without information.
However much wisdom and insight was available to the early church councils, conclusions had to be based on a tiny subset of the knowledge that we take for granted, about what the universe is and how it works. We're no further forward with the why, but the potential for better imagining the who behind it does seem significantly greater in the light of scientific developments.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Wisdom and holiness are rather more essential to knowledge of God than being able to dial up a blog about whether a new series of Buffy the Vampire Slayer will ever be made.
Not being a bishop or anything, I thought Buffy's contribution to theological debate, at least at teenage street level and I suspect beyond, was not insignificant. Even if not appreciated by some of the PTBs in the C of E.
But I was thinking more of the ability of anyone who is interested to read the church fathers and the deliberations of the councils, evaluating the logic for themselves instead of relying on the received wisdom of a theologically conservative establishment. I'd have thought this brought a rather broader-based body of critical thought to bear on their conclusions than in earlier times, providing at least the potential for new insights.
Wisdom and holiness probably look different depending where we're coming from. For me, I don't think I can imagine either being closed to the possibility of change when the time is right.
[ 30. November 2006, 20:37: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
But it does seem to me that the doctrine of the Trinity as doctrine is, historically speaking, subsequent to the experience of salvation through Christ and the Spirit.
Excellent point - for those living in the apostolic age, Father Gregory's description is directly valid.
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
So I guess I'm trying to split the difference between Fr. Gregory and Ingo: the doctrine of the Trinity it is a kind of "regulative grammar" that both grows out of and simultaneously shapes and interprets Christian experience, in much the same way that in language the articulation of its grammar is both an after-the-fact derivation of the experience of actually speaking the language, and something that guides our speaking and makes it meaningful.
I agree with that, as long as we keep in mind that this "regulative grammar" arose at a very specific time in history, unlike that for natural language (as far as we know). And while this "regulative grammar" has similar purpose for shaping our thought, its development is not random but directed, driven by a "science" (theology), not by fashion.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But I was thinking more of the ability of anyone who is interested to read the church fathers and the deliberations of the councils, evaluating the logic for themselves instead of relying on the received wisdom of a theologically conservative establishment. I'd have thought this brought a rather broader-based body of critical thought to bear on their conclusions than in earlier times, providing at least the potential for new insights.
I would rather say that it is equivalent to the ready public availability of books on calculus these days. That does not instantly increase the number of people able to do calculus, much less does it yield significant new insights. The latter is a rare occurence, a "Ramanujan" event. There may be a better chance now for people with a solid mathematical foundation from a "conservative establishment" (called "school") to pick up calculus without a teacher. But there's also a much better chance for a person without such a foundation to misunderstand the calculus text and mislead others with their silly interpretations. Luckily, few people without the solid foundation are actually interested enough in calculus to go down that path. But, to return from the analogy, patristics are unfortunately not quite as intrinsically protected by the need of prior study as calculus is...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Notwithstanding Ingob's articulate defence of the Latin mode of theologising concerning the Trinity and its unexceptional conclusions in many respects it fails entirely to satisfy the Orthodox mind.
I'm not convinced that that's a bad thing. A mode of theologising about the Trinity that satisfied everybody (or anybody?) entirely would almost certainly be heretical.
At least on this side of the grave, and probably on the other also.
Dafyd
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
patristics are unfortunately not quite as intrinsically protected by the need of prior study as calculus is...
While this might in some sense be true, I'd have thought the comparison rather understates the qualitative differences in foundational logic between patristics and calculus.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I really, really, can't see why knowing more about calculus, or having the Internet can make the slightest difference to our knowledge of God.
If God exists, and if God wants us to know about God, then knowledge of God can only come from God's self-revelation to us. All human science and philosophy is irrelevant to knowledge of God. If God does not exist, or if God does not want to reveal God to us, then we cannont know anything about God. In which case all human science and philosophy is irrelevant to knowledge of God.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
While this might in some sense be true, I'd have thought the comparison rather understates the qualitative differences in foundational logic between patristics and calculus.
They are about as different as it gets concerning the necessary skill and knowledge base, of course. My point is simply that both actually require a skill and knowledge base, if they are to be interpreted correctly. But for written words one is much more likely than for mathematical formulae to underestimate this need.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If God exists, and if God wants us to know about God, then knowledge of God can only come from God's self-revelation to us. All human science and philosophy is irrelevant to knowledge of God.
First, this statement is simply false, since metaphysics can indeed come to true conclusions about God, although only in a vague and spiritually unsatisfying fashion. Second, disregarding that, the statement could be true if "human science and philosophy" is supposed to mean only "modern natural science and modern speculative philosophy". However, if this is supposed to exclude any human thought about God other than a direct feeling of His presence, then this statement is simply experientalist rubbish.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, this statement is simply false, since metaphysics can indeed come to true conclusions about God
Only when its given revelation to work on. It can't discover God for itself.
quote:
Second, disregarding that, the statement could be true if "human science and philosophy" is supposed to mean only "modern natural science and modern speculative philosophy". However, if this is supposed to exclude any human thought about God other than a direct feeling of His presence, then this statement is simply experientalist rubbish.
I didn't mean that we can't think rational thoughts about God, just that we can't learn true facts about God outwith revelation - nopt even whether God exists or not. The universe created by God looks the same as a hypothetical universe not created by God might have looked.
This is still true even if "natural theology" works. If we can discover God in creation then that is a result of God choosing to create a universe through which he can be found. And so it is just as much a self-revelation of God (of a very different kind) as is the Incarnation, or the words of the Prophets, or the Old Testament theophanies, or Holy Scripture.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
I'm never quite sure what natural theology is. But other things being equal, I think the idea of 'theology consistent with nature' is a reasonable starting point for thinking about God.
The difficulty I have with traditional Christianity is that it precisely doesn't do that. It starts from a set of 'revealed truths'. This seems to require an assumption that God as creator is detached enough from what is being created to have to 'do' something, to 'decide' to reveal stuff, in order for creatures like us to see something and conclude 'maybe God is like that'.
It makes more sense to me to think of creation as simply an expression of the creator's nature. It's not something the creator does, but inherently something that cannot not reveal who the creator is.
Attaching meaning to this 'revelation', however, like anything within creation, is something we (or others like us) do. I don't see it can be what a credible creator could impose or 'transmit' - the limitations of spacetime that define what we know cannot apply to the creator. So I don't see communication of the kind assumed by traditional Christianity as something a creator of the universe could do.
What does seem possible, likely even, is that 'revelation' of a personal nature, the kind of interaction that underpins human relationships, is built into the fabric of the universe. It's not something that can be captured as a static message for all time, any more than I can create a piece of software to know a friend. And we still have to attach meaning to it, as I do for example to associate the sound of the friend's voice with communication from him when we're surrounded by voices in the pub.
But if the universe is an ongoing expression of the nature of God, and 'getting to know God' were seen as a natural extension of our ongoing experience of the universe, the knowing of God as a personal subjective reality would I think look no less reasonable than the reality of knowing a friend. No need for a trinitarian thought at all.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
This is still true even if "natural theology" works. If we can discover God in creation then that is a result of God choosing to create a universe through which he can be found. And so it is just as much a self-revelation of God (of a very different kind) as is the Incarnation, or the words of the Prophets, or the Old Testament theophanies, or Holy Scripture.
Well, yes. The universe is a "natural revelation" of God. But on one hand I agree with Dave in doubting that God actually can create without thereby revealing Himself. On the other hand your statements above are misleading. They sound like an outright denial of for example the power of metaphysics to find God, rather that like a qualified affirmation (metaphysics can find God, but only because God has revealed Himself in "physics").
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
The universe created by God looks the same as a hypothetical universe not created by God might have looked.
Obviously, your claim can't be proved, but I don't see things that way.
Put it another way: Is there anything about the universe which leads one to suspect that more than physical forces are at work? I think there is, particularly where the intellectual and spiritual life of humankind is concerned. It is not at all likely, IMO, that a universe with no God, would produce what we see, especially as any link to survival advantage is non-existent.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Is there anything about the universe which leads one to suspect that more than physical forces are at work? I think there is, particularly where the intellectual and spiritual life of humankind is concerned.
Well, maybe, but if its there it was created by God, as was our ability to observe, understand, or draw conclusions from it. So its revelation.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but I want to make a reply to what FCB said:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Kirke:
it does certainly seem to portray the belief in three at least somewhat separate entities.
Of course it does. To deny this would be modalism. I don't think most Christians who claim to be trinitarian would deny this. But the "simile of human-kind 'one-ness'" ends up with the opposite problem: tritheism. It seems to presume that there is a genus called "divinity" in which there can be more than one member.
Of course there is a genus. This is why we Orthodox call God ypertheos, supra-God, and uperousios, supra-essential. This word both affirms our speaking of one divine nature or essence in the terms of one genus, and goes beyond this understanding. But the fact remains that essence and nature have been used inter-changeably for God by the Eastern Saints.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
I'd like to thank anteater for directing us to this thread, in which Andreas has painstakingly explained something into which he has gone into some depth on threads in the past, to be met with equal degrees of lack of understanding, including from me, (which, I admit, is how I responded to this thread initially when I first read it a couple of weeks ago, and in a subsequent private conversation with Andreas).
First off, I think that PaulTH is right in that Andreas has done an exceptional job of communicating very complex ideas in a language that is not his primary tongue, and the ridicule was perhaps a little unfair.
Secondly, I think that the accusation of fighting strawmen wasn't accurate although I can sympathise with it as I agreed with it upon first reading it. However, today's exercises have opened my eyes to a manner of understanding the Trinity about which I had never previously even contemplated.
I would strongly recommend to anybody trying to grasp what Andreas is saying here to read the treatises of St Gregory Nyssen, On the Holy Spirit and On the Holy Trinity. For folk like me, who are accustomed to reading about theological writings rather than going to the actual sources, it is a difficult read, and for me required re-reading of sentences and paragraphs, and taking a break in ebtween to reflect, but it was well worth it in the end. What gave me context was that immediately prior to reading those treatises, I read the chapter The Holy Trinity in this book. It really helped me.
Needless to say, I'm rather dumbstruck at just how different the teaching of my upbringing has been from what the Fathers actually said, and I'm now left wondering just how much of my current understanding is at variance with Orthodox teaching. I suppose it goes to show that we duff English converts to Orthodoxy would often do well to keep our traps shut for a few years while we learn a thing or two.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Of course there is a genus. This is why we Orthodox call God ypertheos, supra-God, and uperousios, supra-essential.
Hmmm. . . just saw this.
I presume that the existence of a genus called "divinity" is precisely what is being denied by the prefix "hyper."
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Shema yisroel adonai elohenu adonai echad.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I suppose it goes to show that we duff English converts to Orthodoxy would often do well to keep our traps shut for a few years while we learn a thing or two.
I just realised how this could read. This is a self-cricism, just in case there was any doubt.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Shema yisroel adonai elohenu adonai echad.
It is not enough that we quote from the scriptures. Unless we share the same understanding as to what the scriptures mean, quotations are meaningless.
There is a work by Athanasios the Great... A dialogue between an Orthodox and a heretic. In Migne's edition it is called "de sancta trinitate".
Heretic: Are you a Christian?
Orthodox: Yes, I am.
Heretic: What is Christianity?
Orthodox: It was necessary to tell you that I am a Christian, but telling you what Christianity is is dangerous, unless I know who asks that question, in case I find myself giving what is holy to the dogs, or pearls to the swine. And if you ask me whether I am a faithful or a Catechumen, I will readily tell you. However, if one asks me what a faithful is, I will not say, in case the one that asks me that question is a Jew.
Heretic: But I, the one that asks that question, I am telling you that I am a Christian.
Orthodox: It was not enough for you that I told you I'm Christian; it's not enough for me that you say you are a Christian.
............
Heretic: Are you confessing one divinity and three hypostases?
Orthodox: It is one thing to speak of divinity and another to speak of hypostasis. Not that they are teo things that differ from each other, but because they have different meanings. Divinity means one thing and hypostasis means another. Hypostasis means "being" but divinity means "what kind of being".
Heretic: What do you mean?
Orthodox: Just like Peter and Paul and Timothy are three hypostases and one humanity.
Heretic: Aren't then there three Gods?
Orthodox: No way.
Heretic: If hypostases are like Peter and Paul and Timothy, then there are three Gods, because they are three humans.
Orthodox:According to the divine scriptures they are not three humans either. "In Jesus Christ, there is neither Jew not Greek, neither male nor female, neither free nor slave. But all that are in Christ we are one."
Heretic: Aren't they three, Peter and Paul and Timothy?
Orthodox: Yes, they are three, but not three humans.
........
Heretic: But I say those that are three three.
Orthodox: I say three when there is a schism among them. If they are of the same mind and of the same opinion I speak of one new man...
I would like to stress three things:
A) The fact that our understanding of the words is what matters and not the fact that we may be seen confessing the same things.
B) The importance of our initiation into Christianity. Those people and the cultures that initiated us into Christianity shape our understanding of what Christianity is.
C) That our view of God depends on our personal fight within and the way we live our lives and our ethics. And so does our view of the world.
[ 21. April 2007, 16:42: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I presume that the existence of a genus called "divinity" is precisely what is being denied by the prefix "hyper."
There is a negation and an affirmation in the same phrase. The affirmation has to do with the fact that God exists. The negation has to do with the fact that God does not exist in the same sense that creation exists. So, there is a genus called divinity, but there is no such genus, in the sense that it is not a genus like the ones that refer to created beings.
[ 21. April 2007, 16:47: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Heretic: Are you confessing one divinity and three hypostases?
Orthodox: It is one thing to speak of divinity and another to speak of hypostasis. Not that they are teo things that differ from each other, but because they have different meanings. Divinity means one thing and hypostasis means another. Hypostasis means "being" but divinity means "what kind of being".
Heretic: What do you mean?
Orthodox: Just like Peter and Paul and Timothy are three hypostases and one humanity.
Heretic: Aren't then there three Gods?
Orthodox: No way.
Heretic: If hypostases are like Peter and Paul and Timothy, then there are three Gods, because they are three humans.
Orthodox:According to the divine scriptures they are not three humans either. "In Jesus Christ, there is neither Jew not Greek, neither male nor female, neither free nor slave. But all that are in Christ we are one."
Heretic: Aren't they three, Peter and Paul and Timothy?
Orthodox: Yes, they are three, but not three humans.
Yes!
This is the point with which I, too, struggled, until I read on a little further in St Gregory about how it is well-established linguistic practice (in some cases), but logically nonsense, to refer numerically to hypostases using the term of the ousia/nature, as though nature and hypostasis were the same thing.
Andreas and Michael are hypostases. Those hypostases are two. Our nature is human. That nature is is one.
The problem (the desire to call us "two humans") is purely a linguistic one of referring to the hypostasis (Andreas/Michael) under the same name as the nature (human). When you sit and think about it, it makes no sense to do this but it is just how we use language because of our concepts of numerable and innumerable quantities. St Gregory uses gold as an example. Three nuggets are all of gold. Their nature is "gold" but the hypostasis of each is "nugget". No matter how many nuggets there are, the number of the nature (gold) remains one. They are three nuggets, each of which fully has the nature of "gold". They are not three "golds".
Therefore, I don't see a problem with understanding the nature "divine/God" as a genus. That nature (divine) is one. The hypostases (Father, Son, & Holy Spirit) are three, and are therefore not numerically one. I used to consider them to be so, and that's where the accusation of unitarianism comes in. In fact, when I first read what Andreas was saying, I, too, agreed with the accusations of tritheism but that only makes sense if we use common linguistic practice of referring to the hypostasis as though it were the same as the nature, which is isn't.
If I have understood correctly, the accusation of tritheism (and this is where the above analogies cease to work) also fails on the count that the divine nature subsists in the Father, hence the credal statement, I believe in one God the Father Almighty.... The Son and the Holy Spirit also are of the same divine nature by virtue of their being eternally begotten of the Father (in the case of the Son) and eternally proceeding from the Father (in the case of the Holy Spirit).
(What was also an eye-opener for me is that this is why the double-procesion theology is the problem that it is).
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
Incidentally, does naybody know which of the writings of St Basil the Great I can read about this? I presume it's in one or more chapters of Of the Holy Spirit, but there's a fair amount there to wade through.
[ 21. April 2007, 20:31: Message edited by: Saint Bertelin ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Surely the issue is, though, that the Persons of the Trinity are united in a bit more than simply being of the same substance.
e.g. Ricardus, Andreas and St Bertelin may share one humanity - and it might even be reasonable (though unconventional) consequently to describe us as "one human" - but we're distinguished by having different wills, occupying different points in space, and so forth. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit aren't.
So "Father, Son and Holy Spirit make one God in the same way that Andreas, Ricardus and St Bertelin make one human" may be correct, but it's not an adequate description of the Trinity.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Surely the issue is, though, that the Persons of the Trinity are united in a bit more than simply being of the same substance.
e.g. Ricardus, Andreas and St Bertelin may share one humanity - and it might even be reasonable (though unconventional) consequently to describe us as "one human" - but we're distinguished by having different wills, occupying different points in space, and so forth. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit aren't.
So "Father, Son and Holy Spirit make one God in the same way that Andreas, Ricardus and St Bertelin make one human" may be correct, but it's not an adequate description of the Trinity.
I agree with your point here but am not 100% comfortable with the expression of it.
I agree that, while the "three-ness" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all having one nature is directly analogous to the "three-ness" of Ricardus, Andreas, and Michael all having one nature, it is an analogy that works only in clarification of the unitarianism vs. tritheism misunderstanding, but fails as an explanation of how the Trinity functions because the hypostases of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are not the same hypostases as Ricardus, Andreas, and Michael (I don't mind my real name being used, BTW), and their modes of being and functioning both as separate entities and in relation to one another are different from ours. For a start, the human nature does not reside in any one being that happens that have that human nature. I mentioned this in the last non-italicised paragraph of my last-but-one post above.
The way that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "exist" with the same will, their actions having the same purpose, &c. is not analogous to anything in creation that I can think of. The main example that comes to mind is the Creation narrative, in which the Father, by sending forth his Spirit, speaks the Word, and creation happens. The three hypostases exist in perfect harmony with each other.
The only thing in what you said above that doesn't sit very comfortably with me (and I suspect that it may just be because of choice of words rather than any difference of belief) is:
quote:
So "Father, Son and Holy Spirit make one God in the same way that Andreas, Ricardus and St Bertelin make one human" may be correct...
I wouldn't say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit make one God, or that Ricardus, Andreas, and Michael make one human, but rather that, in either case, their nature is one (whether that be God or human). It isn't a whole that comprises three Persons but rather is the nature that each of them fully possesses.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
If I have understood correctly, the accusation of tritheism (and this is where the above analogies cease to work) also fails on the count that the divine nature subsists in the Father, hence the credal statement, I believe in one God the Father Almighty.... The Son and the Holy Spirit also are of the same divine nature by virtue of their being eternally begotten of the Father (in the case of the Son) and eternally proceeding from the Father (in the case of the Holy Spirit).
I continue to struggle to understand this. Does it mean that "one God" actually refers to the Father - with the Son and Holy Spirit included only by virtue of their being of the same divine nature? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
If I have understood correctly, the accusation of tritheism (and this is where the above analogies cease to work) also fails on the count that the divine nature subsists in the Father, hence the credal statement, I believe in one God the Father Almighty.... The Son and the Holy Spirit also are of the same divine nature by virtue of their being eternally begotten of the Father (in the case of the Son) and eternally proceeding from the Father (in the case of the Holy Spirit).
I continue to struggle to understand this. Does it mean that "one God" actually refers to the Father - with the Son and Holy Spirit included only by virtue of their being of the same divine nature?
Please bear in mind that this understanding of the oneness and the threeness of God is something that I have only recently come to understand myself, and I still need to explore the monarchy of the Father in more depth, but while I would answer to the best of my ability, I'm not sure I understand your question because I don't understand the distinction you draw between being God and having the divine nature. Please would you clarify, if possible? Thanks.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I'm not sure I understand your question because I don't understand the distinction you draw between being God and having the divine nature. Please would you clarify, if possible? Thanks.
No distinction. Having the divine nature and being God are different ways of expressing the same thing, assuming that the divine nature is indivisible in more than the sense of being a genus.
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
... the divine nature subsists in the Father, hence the credal statement, I believe in one God the Father Almighty....
You can "parse" or read the Nicene Creed in at least two ways:
1) "I believe in one God the Father almighty"
2) "I believe in one God:
- the Father almighty...
- Jesus Christ his only Son
- the Holy Spirit"
I once heard an Orthodox sermon begin: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: one God." This seems to fit the second model.
I couldn't find clues in the Latin or Greek texts; of course the original MSSs wouldn't have had punctuation. When we sing the Creed at Mass, the priest begins "Credo in unum Deum", there is a tiny pause, and then we continue: "Patrem omnipotentem"; again this seems to support the second reading.
A learned (RC) priest I asked about this said that the second reading was that of the Western Church, the first of "the Greeks".
What is your understanding?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
I once heard an Orthodox sermon begin: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: one God." This seems to fit the second model.
I heard a (non-Orthodox) sermon yesterday that began: "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
If the three can be one God, it would seem that naming any of them would be enough to signal that God.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
... the divine nature subsists in the Father, hence the credal statement, I believe in one God the Father Almighty....
You can "parse" or read the Nicene Creed in at least two ways:
1) "I believe in one God the Father almighty"
2) "I believe in one God:
- the Father almighty...
- Jesus Christ his only Son
- the Holy Spirit"
I once heard an Orthodox sermon begin: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: one God." This seems to fit the second model.
All that this says is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the same nature: God. That's what St Gregory says and what I said in my post above. It isn't exclusive, in my reading at least, of the first model above, which is not saying that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God, but is merely saying that that God - that divine nature - subsists in the Father, and then goes to show how the Son and the Spirit, respectively, also have that nature, by virtue of the being eternally begotten and eternally proceeding, respectively. (That may actually be an answer to your question as well, Freddy).
quote:
I couldn't find clues in the Latin or Greek texts; of course the original MSSs wouldn't have had punctuation. When we sing the Creed at Mass, the priest begins "Credo in unum Deum", there is a tiny pause, and then we continue: "Patrem omnipotentem"; again this seems to support the second reading.
I think that this is possibly one of those chicken & egg situations with regard to Legem credendi statuit lex orandi (The rule of prayer establishes the rule of belief). The Western Rites traditionally have the priest alone intone "I believe in one God" with the congregation joining in full from "the Father Almighty". The Byzantine rite, however, has everybody singing from the start, but the Creed begins with a very emphatic, sometimes elongated "I believe", sometimes followed by a short pause, and then normal chant resumes for "in one God the Father Almighty". The question is, are these practices the result of a difference of focus or the cause of it? Is this simply reflective of what has been stated earlier that the western understanding has geenrally started with one-ness and tried to fit three-ness into that while the eastern understanding has done the opposite, thereby just confirming what we already know? Or in the case that in the Western rites, is it indicative of nothing at all? I mean, in the Byzantine Rite, the Creed is liturgically introduced with:
quote:
Let us love one another, that with one mind we may confess:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: consubstantial, undivided Trinity!
The doors! The doors! In wisdom let us attend!
In the Western Rites, there is no introduction - no call to attention. Could it be that it is simply for this reason (as in the case of the Gloria), that the priest intones the first few words, thereby unwittingly creating the impression of an intended difference in focus of that line? I'm just speculating here, of course, but the questions are worth asking.
ETA that it is indeed my understanding that there wouldn't have been punctuation in the original texts produced by the Councils, which is why we must return to the writings of the Fathers of the Councils and their disciples to glean their intended meaning, and that's why I want to know where I can read St Basil's writings on the matter. Anyone?
[ 23. April 2007, 10:38: Message edited by: Saint Bertelin ]
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
Based on the principle that legem credendi statuit lex orandi, I've just been looking at some of the Eucharistic canons, and they seem to express the same idea, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three hypostases that all have the same nature that we call God, (even though we recognise that we can never understand that nature, for it is beyond comprehension and properly, beyond names), but that that nature subsists in the Father, for it is in addressing the Father that we address the source and summit of the divinity of the Trinity. All parentheses are my own.
From the Anaphora of St John Chrysostom:
quote:
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
And with thy spirit.
Let us lift up our hearts.
We lift them up unto the Lord.
Let us give thanks unto the Lord.
It is meet and right so to worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: consubstantial, undivided Trinity!
It is meet and right to hymn Thee, to bless Thee, to praise Thee, to worship Thee in every place of Thy dominion,(The Father) for Thou art God inexpressible, incomprehensible, invisible, unattainable, ever-existing, and eternally the same(the divine nature: God, subsisting in Him), Thou and Thine Only-Begotten Son and Thy Holy Spirit...(The possession of that nature by the other two hypostases)
From St Basil (after the dialogue):
quote:
O thou who art, Master, Lord God, Father Almighty adorable, it is truly meet and right, and befitting the magnificence of thy holiness that we should praise thee, hymn thee, bless thee, worship thee, give thanks unto thee and glorify thee, the only truly existing God, and offer unto thee with a broken heart and the spirit of humility this our rational worship, for thou art He that hath bestowed upon us the knowledge of thy truth. And who is sufficient to speak of thy mighty acts, to make all thy praises to be heard, or to declare all thy wonders at every time? 0 Master of all, Lord of heaven and earth, and of all creation both visible and invisible, who sittest upon the throne of glory, and lookest upon the depths, (The Father)who art without beginning, invisible, incomprehensible, uncircumscript, immutable, (the divine nature in the Father) the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our great God and Saviour, our hope, who is the image of thy goodness, the seal of equal type, in Himself showing forth thee, the Father, Living Word, true God, the Wisdom before the ages, the Life, Sanctification, Power, the true Light, through whom the Holy Spirit was revealed, the Spirit of truth, the Gift of adoption, the Pledge of an inheritance to come, the First-fruits of eternal good things, the life-creating Power, the Fountain of sanctification, (the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit)[/i] by whom enabled, every rational and intelligent creature doth worship thee, and send up to thee everlasting doxology, for all things are thy servants.
And with a different structure but reflecting the same thing, the Preface from the Canon in the Mass of St John the Divine (Lorrha/Stowe):
quote:
It is very meet, right, and for our salvation, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto Thee, Holy Lord, Almighty Father, Everlasting God; Who, with Thine Only-Begotten Son and the Holy Ghost, art One Immortal God (monarchy of the Father). God, Incorruptible and Immutable. God, Unsearchable and Faithful. (The Divine nature) ... Thou art not one in singularity of person, but One Trinity of One Substance. (God not numerically one, but three Persons with one nature)...
[ 23. April 2007, 12:07: Message edited by: Saint Bertelin ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
We cannot parse the Nicean Creed in ways not intended by Nicea... If we were to do this, then it would no longer be the Nicean Creed we are saying, but another Creed that happens to have the same words with the Nicean when put in writing.
This is why I insist that the Creeds are to be understood only within their proper context. Since the Nicean Fathers wrote many books where they explained they Creed they composed, we do not speculate on their intentions, we know their intentions.
From the texts I have read they meant God the Father when they wrote that "we believe in one God".
The same can be shown by the way the Creed was written:
in one God AND in one Lord and in the Holy Spirit
If they intended to say one God: Father Son and Spirit they would say "in one God the Father AND the Son AND the Spirit" ie they would not repeat "in" (and IN one Lord and IN the Holy Spirit the Lord).
They also explained that the term "God" in "Father, Son, Holy Spirit, one God" means one divine nature. But the impression I get from the Shipmates is that they DO NOT mean "I believe the divine nature to be one" but that there is "something" that is both the Father the Son and the Spirit that "one God", and they explain that by using the term "essence" in a mysterious (at least to the Greek know-how on what essence means) way, as if "essence" is something deeper which the three divine persons all "own".
Besides, it would not make much sense for us to say in the creed "I believe in one divine nature, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"...
One last thing: It is interesting to note that some ancient fathers used the term "atom" when the term "person" was not in use. Nowadays in Greek the term "atom" besides the meaning it has in physics means the individual. And as far as the term person is concerned, it means our face, and, by implication, our individuality and NOT the ancient theatrical masks.
[ 23. April 2007, 13:30: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
all have the same nature that we call God, (even though we recognise that we can never understand that nature, for it is beyond comprehension and properly, beyond names), but that that nature subsists in the Father,
That is very close to the way I see it.
But I think that this indescribable and incomprehensible nature is what is called "the Father." The divine is describable and comprehensible only in Jesus Christ.
This is why Jesus says in John:
quote:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
John 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”...9 He who has seen Me has seen the Father;
Jesus seems to be saying that the Father is invisible and inaccessible. Even incomprehensible.
This sounds like what you are saying about God's nature.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
But the impression I get from the Shipmates is that they DO NOT mean "I believe the divine nature to be one"
Not that they deny the divine nature being one, but that they mean something MORE to it...
And by the way, when the Church has said that there is one divine will, and that the Father and the Son and the Spirit have one will, they ALSO said that all humans have one will. They used the word "will" as a term that denotes "to will", i.e. the way to will... Just like they said that all humans have one essence, they also said that all men have one will, the human will, SAME WAY they said the three divine persons have one essence and one will and one operation.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And by the way, when the Church has said that there is one divine will, and that the Father and the Son and the Spirit have one will, they ALSO said that all humans have one will.
Does this imply that, just as humans disagree and have conflicts of will, the same can be said of the godhead?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Freddy, in your question you say "humans" and then "Godhead". For the question to have made sense, you should have either said "humans" and "divine persons" or "human nature" and "Godhead"...
I assume you mean one of those options... The answer is what Saint Athanasios said... Those that are born from above are of one mind... they are New (the same word used for the New Covenant) Man. So, if this can be achieved by us men (that they all be one like we are one) this shows that we should not speak of schisms in the case of the divine persons. They live in each other.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
P.S. When we speak of natures and their respective wills, the church fathers and saints meant to will, not what to will...
I will for this post to get posted... This is not the one will all humans have... Like seeing... There is one "to see" but what each of us sees is different... Like sight is natural so is the will. Human sight is natural, but since human nature subsists in many human persons we have that one sight (the human sight) but we also get to see different things because we occupy different parts of space and we live in different eras and so on.
My point was that the Church's "one will" was spoken in relation to man's "one will" and it's not "something" all three divine persons possess WHILE for us humans it is not so... My point was that it is so for us humans as well.
[ 23. April 2007, 14:13: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on
:
'It is fundamental to all pro-Nicene theologies that God is one power, glory, majesty, rule, Godhead essence, and nature. In summaries of pro-Nicene theology found across the Mediterranean, and in countless asides in the course of exposition and polemical argument, the assertion that God is a unity in these respects is universal'.
Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, p.279. His footnote gives numerous citations to show this.
The pro-Nicenes believed strongly in the divine simplicity, at the same time as believing that within (poor choice of word) that simplicity are three distinct persons.
It is always a both/and, not an either/or. We believe in one God AND in three persons. When we encounter God the Father we encounter God fully. When we encounter God the Son we encounter God fully. When we encounter God the Spirit we encounter God fully.
I think that this thread demonstrates how dangerous it is to categorise people's theology based on their use of words - to say that 'unity' equals 'unitarianism' would condemn most fourth century theologians thought of as orthodox, from East or West (at least as far as Ayres uses the word 'unity'). What counts is always the underlying concepts (as far as one can have concepts of such a mystery). The history of the church is littered with problems caused by language (including ousia, hypostasis and physis). For the record, 'nature' (physis) doesn't always mean 'essence' (ousia) for the early church theologians. Cyril of Alexandria uses it in both ways - sometimes 'nature' is used as a synonym for 'essence', sometimes for 'subsistence' (hypostasis). This caused its own problems at the time. You always have to look to the context.
To assert that much of Western Christianity is unitarian seems to be a nonsense. I speak as an Anglican. Look at the creeds, look at the hymns. Look at the prayers. If sweeping assertions are going to be made, please provide concrete evidence.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
we should not speak of schisms in the case of the divine persons. They live in each other.
I assume, then, that their attention, thought processes, judgments, desires, and actions are all identical. Unlike humans'.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jrrt01:
'It is fundamental to all pro-Nicene theologies that God is one power, glory, majesty, rule, Godhead essence, and nature. In summaries of pro-Nicene theology found across the Mediterranean, and in countless asides in the course of exposition and polemical argument, the assertion that God is a unity in these respects is universal'.
Nobody disputes that there is one divine power, glory, majesty, rule, Godhead, essence, and nature. The question is what we mean by that. By the way, allow me to note two things:
First, you write that God is.... power, glory, majesty, rule, Godhead, essence and nature... Huh? Surely power is different from nature... If that quote meant to say that there is one divine power, glory etc... OK, but God is one power, glory etc?? What kind of theology is this?
Secondly, you speak of the divine simplicity. Again, as far as I know, and this is the faith I confess, the divine simplicity the way the Church fathers and saints taught it refers to the divine nature, and it has nothing to do with the fellowship of the three divine persons. To say the three persons have a simple nature is different than saying they exist within a simplicity...
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
all have the same nature that we call God, (even though we recognise that we can never understand that nature, for it is beyond comprehension and properly, beyond names), but that that nature subsists in the Father,
That is very close to the way I see it.
But I think that this indescribable and incomprehensible nature is what is called "the Father." The divine is describable and comprehensible only in Jesus Christ.
This is why Jesus says in John:
quote:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
John 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 14:7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”...9 He who has seen Me has seen the Father;
Jesus seems to be saying that the Father is invisible and inaccessible. Even incomprehensible.
This sounds like what you are saying about God's nature.
I see what you're saying but I have to disagree. if the Father is the divine essence, rather than the person in whom the divine essence subsists, then He is not a hypostasis, and we do not have a Holy Trinity.
I can see the rebuttal being that nowhere in the Scriptural quotations is there made an explicit discitinction between the hypostasis and the essence but that was simply the case of language at the time. When "person" first came to be used of the persons of the Trinity, it was novel, and smacked of modalism before it was properly explained, because the word had simply meant "mask", and, as I understand it, was used of characters in say, a play. To talk of one essence in three persons sounded like one nature in three forms of expression, rather than the correct understanding of three entities. This is because there was no sense of "person" being an independent being. This was new but words needed to be adopted to communicate the ideas and that is what happened. The fact that writings that we have from before that happened (such as the quotations from Holy Scripture above) do not explicitly make this distinction cannot be taken to mean that it does not in truth exist. We need to read the Scriptures in their proper context, and not from our context of nearly 1700 years of clear linguistic expression of the distinction between essence and person.
Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on
:
quote:
Nobody disputes that there is one divine power, glory, majesty, rule, Godhead, essence, and nature. The question is what we mean by that. By the way, allow me to note two things:
First, you write that God is.... power, glory, majesty, rule, Godhead, essence and nature... Huh? Surely power is different from nature... If that quote meant to say that there is one divine power, glory etc... OK, but God is one power, glory etc?? What kind of theology is this?
Secondly, you speak of the divine simplicity. Again, as far as I know, and this is the faith I confess, the divine simplicity the way the Church fathers and saints taught it refers to the divine nature, and it has nothing to do with the fellowship of the three divine persons. To say the three persons have a simple nature is different than saying they exist within a simplicity...
On your first point, perhaps Ayres was being a bit slack with language. But that actually demonstrates my point more clearly. it is not enough to say 'unity or union' because people (including fathers of the church) don't use language that precisely.
I've just checked one of the references Ayres gives. Basil, within a couple of paragraphs, can refer quite happily both to unity and union (On the Holy Spirit ch18).
Again, what is your evidence for widespread Unitarianism?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
if the Father is the divine essence, rather than the person in whom the divine essence subsists, then He is not a hypostasis, and we do not have a Holy Trinity.
Not a Trinity of hypostases, but you agree that "hypostasis" was an introduced concept. What is wrong with Augustine's psychological model - which I think is more in keeping with Jesus' statements above?
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
We need to read the Scriptures in their proper context, and not from our context of nearly 1700 years of clear linguistic expression of the distinction between essence and person.
That's just what I'm saying. Why base our thinking on an interpretation that "was novel, and smacked of modalism before it was properly explained"?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jrrt01:
[QB]I've just checked one of the references Ayres gives. Basil, within a couple of paragraphs, can refer quite happily both to unity and union (On the Holy Spirit ch18).
I did a quick check from an English translation of the ancient text. Basil the Great in that chapter uses the term "union" once. He did so with regards to the divine persons. He also uses many times the word unity. That word he uses with regards to the divine nature. And this is what I have been saying all along... One divine nature. A Unity as far as the Nature is concerned. But a Union as far as the three divine persons are concerned.
By the way, interesting to note that in that chapter Saint Basil said:
quote:
There is one God and Father, one Only-begotten, and one Holy Ghost.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jrrt01:
I've just checked one of the references Ayres gives. Basil, within a couple of paragraphs, can refer quite happily both to unity and union (On the Holy Spirit ch18).
I did a quick check from an English translation of the ancient text. Basil the Great in that chapter uses the term "union" once. He did so with regards to the divine persons. He also uses twice the word unity. That word he uses with regards to the divine nature*. And this is what I have been saying all along... One divine nature. A Unity as far as the Nature is concerned. But a Union as far as the three divine persons are concerned.
By the way, interesting to note that in that chapter Saint Basil said:
quote:
There is one God and Father, one Only-begotten, and one Holy Ghost.
*"For the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; since such as is the latter, such is the former, and such as is the former, such is the latter; and herein is the Unity. So that according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the community of Nature, one. "
[ 23. April 2007, 15:30: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
if the Father is the divine essence, rather than the person in whom the divine essence subsists, then He is not a hypostasis, and we do not have a Holy Trinity.
Not a Trinity of hypostases, but you agree that "hypostasis" was an introduced concept.
No, I don't.
Hypostasis is what makes the Trinity a trinity. The particular terminology may not have been used from earliest times but the Fathers developed a linguistic mode of communicating the concept when it became necessary. I never claimed that the concept was introduced.
quote:
What is wrong with Augustine's psychological model - which I think is more in keeping with Jesus' statements above?
Please would you explain what that is? I'm not familiar with it (at least not by name or attribution to Augustine). Thanks.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
We need to read the Scriptures in their proper context, and not from our context of nearly 1700 years of clear linguistic expression of the distinction between essence and person.
That's just what I'm saying. Why base our thinking on an interpretation that "was novel, and smacked of modalism before it was properly explained"?
I didn't say the interpretation was novel. I said the terminology was. At the risk of trivialising, another example is the use of the word "pants" to mean "trousers". In circles I usually move in, "pants" refers to underwear. It is only since having been involved in discussions online did I come across Americans using the word "pants" to refer to trousers (usually in the context of discussions about whether women should wear pants in church, which I'm sure you can understand was the cause of some degree of confusion and mirth). For me, this terminology was novel, as the word had meant something different to me rpeviously. However, just because I hadn't been accustomed to the word being used in this way, I'm not about to claim that trousers didn't exist beforehand.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume, then, that their attention, thought processes, judgments, desires, and actions are all identical. Unlike humans'.
I am trying to understand what you are talking about... I am trying to relate those words, attention, thought process, judgments, desires, and actions, to my personal experience of God and to what the fathers of the church said about God... You might be talking about what the fathers called "gnome" (sorry, but the Greek text does not render properly)... We decide on which course of action to follow after thinking and judging between different scenarios... But this was not what Jesus Christ did in his human nature, according to the fathers, let alone the divine persons in their divinity!
But I'm not sure if that's what you are talking about... If this is what you mean, then my reply is that that meaning of these words does not apply to the divine persons.
By the way, the Scriptures do distinguish between the hypostases and natures. Terminology might be different (although, I think the word nature is used in the scriptures the way we are using it in this thread, I think it's something in James, I don't remember) but the distinction is real.
The Angel of the Lord or Lord of Glory etc. (who, from ancient times was identified with Jesus before the Incarnation) is to be distinguished from God the Father... The distinction between the persons exists in the scriptures... just like the fact that the Angel of the Lord in uncreated, just like God the Father, exists in the scriptures. At least, this has been the understanding of the ancient Church.
[ 23. April 2007, 16:02: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
if the Father is the divine essence, rather than the person in whom the divine essence subsists, then He is not a hypostasis, and we do not have a Holy Trinity.
Not a Trinity of hypostases, but you agree that "hypostasis" was an introduced concept.
No, I don't.
Hypostasis is what makes the Trinity a trinity. The particular terminology may not have been used from earliest times but the Fathers developed a linguistic mode of communicating the concept when it became necessary. I never claimed that the concept was introduced.
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment about the term being "novel." So you are saying that the idea existed, and is present in the Gospels, but was only given a name later. Is that right?
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
What is wrong with Augustine's psychological model - which I think is more in keeping with Jesus' statements above?
Please would you explain what that is? I'm not familiar with it (at least not by name or attribution to Augustine). Thanks.
It is the idea that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are like the soul, body, and operation of a single individual. Augustine describes it in a number of places. Here is a quote from Book VI: On the Trinity:
quote:
For what are so different as soul and body? Yet we can say the soul was with a man, that is, in a man; although the soul is not the body, and man is both soul and body together. So that what follows in the Scripture, "And the Word was God," may be understood thus: The Word, which is not the Father, was God together with the Father.
The Athanasian Creed uses similar terminology
quote:
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
This seems more in keeping with Jesus' statements about the Father being "in" Him, and the Holy Spirit going out from Him (or Them).
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume, then, that their attention, thought processes, judgments, desires, and actions are all identical. Unlike humans'.
I am trying to understand what you are talking about...
Nothing complicated. Only that if there is an absolute unity of cognition and volition then we truly are talking about One.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
if the Father is the divine essence, rather than the person in whom the divine essence subsists, then He is not a hypostasis, and we do not have a Holy Trinity.
Not a Trinity of hypostases, but you agree that "hypostasis" was an introduced concept.
No, I don't.
Hypostasis is what makes the Trinity a trinity. The particular terminology may not have been used from earliest times but the Fathers developed a linguistic mode of communicating the concept when it became necessary. I never claimed that the concept was introduced.
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment about the term being "novel." So you are saying that the idea existed, and is present in the Gospels, but was only given a name later. Is that right?
That's how I've understood it. Why would the Fathers introduce a new concept about the Trinity? Surely they would just have been expressing what had been the mind of the Church beforehand, otherwise they wouldn't have had to codify it because nobody would have seen Arianism as a problem.
As I understand it, it was the case with many doctrines that, before they were defined, many would have been unable to articulate what their beliefs on the matter were if they were to be asked, simply because it was just taken for granted and never had to be thought about. It's the same when I have the occasional conversation about Christianity with my Wiccan friend (of which we had a few after he came to my Baptism last year and had all sorts of questions). I remember one occasion when he asked me why we Christians believe that Christ was born on the 25th of December, and would it not be better to celebrate Jesus' birthday on a more realistic date (and gave the example of sheep in fields in the snow, &c.) I explained that we don't claim to know when Jesus was born, and that Christmass isn't a celebration of his birthday but rather of the Incarnation, of God becoming man. This was all new to him because his understanding had been that God was (in his words) 'out there, somewhere', and that Jesus was his son, by which, after some discussion, it came to light that he understood "offspring", and not the sense in which I was using "Son of God". He had never had any reason to question his ideas about Christian beliefs before because nothing he ever heard from Christians had challenged it until he and I actually sat down and had a conversation about it.
I know that this example isn't directly analogous but the point I'm making is that it is possible to for a concept to exist in people's minds without them necessarily having a way to accurately articulate it, never having had the need to do so until that concept is challenged. I understand the definitions of the Councils as the prayerfully considered, Spirit-led responses to such challenges in the face of heresy.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
What is wrong with Augustine's psychological model - which I think is more in keeping with Jesus' statements above?
Please would you explain what that is? I'm not familiar with it (at least not by name or attribution to Augustine). Thanks.
It is the idea that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are like the soul, body, and operation of a single individual. Augustine describes it in a number of places. Here is a quote from Book VI: On the Trinity:
Thanks, Freddy. I'll read the Catholic Encyclopaedia in a while but my initial reaction to the idea based on the summary of it you gave is that, while the analogy seems to work at first glance because the soul, body, and operation (hypostases) are all united in the single person (nature), it fails because no single one of them can claim to be that human person. Rather, they are merely constituent parts of a whole. That is not the case with the Trinity. The Father is not a part of some deeper reality called God, likewise the Son and the Holy Spirit. Rather, each of the three Persons is God by nature - fully.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
[Cross-post: agreement with Freddy:]
The point is that Freddy and I can disagree on whether or not to do something. The Persons of the Godhead can't, which makes them united in a way that Freddy and I aren't.
[ 23. April 2007, 18:08: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
As I understand it, it was the case with many doctrines that, before they were defined, many would have been unable to articulate what their beliefs on the matter were if they were to be asked, simply because it was just taken for granted and never had to be thought about.
That makes sense to me. I agree that this has often been the case.
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
while the analogy seems to work at first glance because the soul, body, and operation (hypostases) are all united in the single person (nature), it fails because no single one of them can claim to be that human person. Rather, they are merely constituent parts of a whole.
But, wait, I do claim to be one person, even though it is only my conscious, tangible self that is claiming this. My soul is beyond my awareness, and my effect on others is beyond (sort of) my control.
In the gospels, neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit claim anything. Jesus does virtually all the talking.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
while the analogy seems to work at first glance because the soul, body, and operation (hypostases) are all united in the single person (nature), it fails because no single one of them can claim to be that human person. Rather, they are merely constituent parts of a whole.
But, wait, I do claim to be one person, even though it is only my conscious, tangible self that is claiming this. My soul is beyond my awareness, and my effect on others is beyond (sort of) my control.
In the gospels, neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit claim anything. Jesus does virtually all the talking.
Yes, you're right. My wording was sloppy. I ought to have said that no one of them can properly be referred to as being that human person.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
The three divine persons neither agree with each other nor disagree...
They live in each other according to their nature, not because some kind of necessity but because of their free will.
To will is common and identical, just like it happens with us men. Those who will are three however, and not one, just like people are many and not one.
My problem is that we are discussing about these things as if they were not dependent to our private and personal life... As if we can make meaningful discussions about God no matter what our standing in front of God is... It's not an issue of "talking"... but of inner fights and personal direct experience.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I ought to have said that no one of them can properly be referred to as being that human person.
Are you sure? I talk about myself, and others talk about me, as if what you see is really me.
When Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and My God" was he speaking improperly? While Jesus acknowledged both the Father and the Holy Spirit, He often spoke as if He was it.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
My problem is that we are discussing about these things as if they were not dependent to our private and personal life... As if we can make meaningful discussions about God no matter what our standing in front of God is...
I do agree that only those enlightened by God - who love Him and are obedient to Him - can grasp these things. Because apart from this they are not real.
Is this what you are saying?
My understanding, though, is that none of us can claim enlightenment. We can only rehearse our conjectures and cite evidence that we think is valid.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I ought to have said that no one of them can properly be referred to as being that human person.
Are you sure? I talk about myself, and others talk about me, as if what you see is really me.
This isn't a discussion about common parlance, though. Do others really talk about "Freddy" referring simply to your body, or to your soul, or to your operation as being fully you? In day to day language, are they even thinking about such matters when they're referring to you or addressing you? I doubt it. People may look at photographs of me and say, 'That's Michael.' They may look at my corpse in my coffin when I'm dead and gone and say, 'That's Michael.' In so doing, I doubt their intention would be to make some sort of philosphical statement about what actually constitutes a human person and whether it is proper to refer to a body as though it were a person, and it would be wrong to draw conclsions about the nature of the human being from such use of language.
quote:
When Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and My God" was he speaking improperly? While Jesus acknowledged both the Father and the Holy Spirit, He often spoke as if He was it.
That's precisely the point I'm making in the last paragraph of this post about why the analogy fails. Jesus could say that because, the Son, as a hypostasis fully having the divine nature, can properly be referred to as God. He is not merely a constituent part of God in the way that a body is a constituent part of a human being.
[ 23. April 2007, 19:43: Message edited by: Saint Bertelin ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
When Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and My God" was he speaking improperly? While Jesus acknowledged both the Father and the Holy Spirit, He often spoke as if He was it.
That's precisely the point I'm making in the last paragraph of this post about why the analogy fails. Jesus could say that because, the Son, as a hypostasis fully having the divine nature, can properly be referred to as God. He is not merely a constituent part of God in the way that a body is a constituent part of a human being.
I think we are talking about more than "body". I mean the whole natural person, including the conscious mind. Materialists do think that this is the whole person. The person that you see and interact with contains and assumes the person's invisible inner soul as well as that person's effect on the world.
Aside from which, I think that you are coming from the hypostatic model of the trinity when you say that each person of the trinity must be individually God. Do the gospels say that?
I don't think that the gospels mention that each person of the trinity is equally or individually God. I think they say things like "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" and "I and My Father are one."
It is Nicea that broke the persons, or hypostases, out so that each must be God individually. This creates an impossible paradox that cannot be explained. Why not accept an explanation that avoids this paradox and is more consistent with the Bible?
With Augustine's model you have the elements that we normally think of as constituting a single individual - one of which is internal and invisible, one that is external and visible, and the third of which is the result of the interaction of the other two.
I always wonder why this model was not the dominant one from the start, but I guess that it is because Jesus addresses the Father as if He were another person. And yet theologians have no trouble believing that there is a perfect unity between Father and Son. Curious. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Freddy, Jesus revealed God to the holy men before the Incarnation, and he does so after the Incarnation. In the Old Covenant we have the Angel of the Lord, the Lord of Glory etc, who is distinct from the Father, but who bears the name YAHWE. Is that Anegl created or uncreated? In Nicea, the opinion of Arius that he was created and that the church should change her mind and no longer teach that Jesus is uncreated, was rejected by the council. No novel views were introduced. The faith of the church as expressed by those who had actual experience of God was affirmed.
You speak of paradox. I see no paradox. But then again, I am not saying that the trinity is a paradox...
Anyway, enough said. I will only affirm my faith in the Trinity (which, in Greek, simply means three). It makes me feel strange to see the faith that once shook the foundations of the earth to be almost forgotten. Nevertheless I do not lose faith in God nor trust in man. Let those who deepen their view continue. Let all, no matter what it is they are doing, contribute something good for the generations to come.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In the Old Covenant we have the Angel of the Lord, the Lord of Glory etc, who is distinct from the Father, but who bears the name YAHWE. Is that Anegl created or uncreated?
Sorry, perhaps you could clarify a few matters here.
Where does it say that YHWH is distinct from the Father? (Western theology does not normally refer to the Logos as an angel.)
Consider, when God spoke to Moses and said 'I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other Gods beside me,' was that the Logos revealed, or not?
When YHWH reveals himself to Moses he says 'I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' Is the one who appeared to Moses the same as the one who was worshipped by Abraham?
(Incidentally, does Augustine anywhere deny that it is the Logos that appears in the theophanies of the New Testament? I associate that denial particularly with pseudo-Dionysian theology, which I gather is not regarded with much opprobrium by the Eastern Orthodox.)
Dafyd
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Freddy, Jesus revealed God to the holy men before the Incarnation, and he does so after the Incarnation. In the Old Covenant we have the Angel of the Lord, the Lord of Glory etc, who is distinct from the Father, but who bears the name YAHWE. Is that Anegl created or uncreated?
That angel is just an angel that the Lord filled with His Spirit so that the Lord spoke through the angel - just as if it were God Himself, or YAWEH, speaking. This is why these beings are alternately called "angel" and "the Lord". So it is the same God all the way through. But the "Father" was never seen by anyone, because He can't be seen.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You speak of paradox. I see no paradox. But then again, I am not saying that the trinity is a paradox...
This isn't a paradox?:
quote:
15. Ita deus Pater: deus Filius: deus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
15. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.
16. Et tamen non tres dii: sed unus est Deus.
16. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.
17. Ita dominus Pater: dominus Filius: dominus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord.
18. Et tamen non tres domini: sed unus [est] Dominus.
18. And yet not three Lords: but one Lord.
19. Quia sicut singulatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri, Christiana veritate compellimur:
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
20. Ita tres deos, aut [tres] dominos dicere, catholica religione prohibemur.
20. So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.
Maybe contradiction is a better word.
You don't see the problem here?
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
When Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and My God" was he speaking improperly? While Jesus acknowledged both the Father and the Holy Spirit, He often spoke as if He was it.
That's precisely the point I'm making in the last paragraph of this post about why the analogy fails. Jesus could say that because, the Son, as a hypostasis fully having the divine nature, can properly be referred to as God. He is not merely a constituent part of God in the way that a body is a constituent part of a human being.
I think we are talking about more than "body". I mean the whole natural person, including the conscious mind. Materialists do think that this is the whole person. The person that you see and interact with contains and assumes the person's invisible inner soul as well as that person's effect on the world.
Aside from which, I think that you are coming from the hypostatic model of the trinity when you say that each person of the trinity must be individually God. Do the gospels say that?
The Church teaches that. I don't understand the Gospels of the Church separately from the Church, for that would be folly.
quote:
I don't think that the gospels mention that each person of the trinity is equally or individually God. I think they say things like "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" and "I and My Father are one."
It is Nicea that broke the persons, or hypostases, out so that each must be God individually. This creates an impossible paradox that cannot be explained. Why not accept an explanation that avoids this paradox and is more consistent with the Bible?
How can the Bible be understood apart from the Church of whose Sacred Tradition it is part?
quote:
With Augustine's model you have the elements that we normally think of as constituting a single individual - one of which is internal and invisible, one that is external and visible, and the third of which is the result of the interaction of the other two.
I always wonder why this model was not the dominant one from the start, but I guess that it is because Jesus addresses the Father as if He were another person. And yet theologians have no trouble believing that there is a perfect unity between Father and Son. Curious.
You do know, don't you, that Augustine is only grudgingly referred to as Saint Augustine? We cannot deny what has been declared, that he is indeed a Saint of the Church, but there are many who will not refer to him as any other that Blessed Augustine.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
The Church teaches that. I don't understand the Gospels of the Church separately from the Church, for that would be folly.
Of course. Orthodoxy is really very interesting in that.
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
How can the Bible be understood apart from the Church of whose Sacred Tradition it is part?
I see. So it's not about looking for the clearest and most consistent understanding of the Bible?
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
You do know, don't you, that Augustine is only grudgingly referred to as Saint Augustine?
Yes, I was aware of that.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
The Church teaches that. I don't understand the Gospels of the Church separately from the Church, for that would be folly.
Of course. Orthodoxy is really very interesting in that.
I see.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
How can the Bible be understood apart from the Church of whose Sacred Tradition it is part?
I see. So it's not about looking for the clearest and most consistent understanding of the Bible?
It's precisely about that! For me, an understanding of the Bible cannot be clear when it is not consistent with the rest of the understanding of the Church and the other parts of it's Holy Tradition as led by the Holy Spirit, including the Fathers and the worship of the Church, which is why I quoted those passages from those anaphoras earlier in the thread.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
You do know, don't you, that Augustine is only grudgingly referred to as Saint Augustine?
Yes, I was aware of that.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear Dafyd
The early apologists and martyrs identified Jesus with the one that is called the Angel of the Lord etc. It seems that even Jesus Himself says that Moses was writing about him and that Paul also identifies Jesus with the Lord of Glory. The fathers of the first and the second ecumenical council also identified Jesus with that Angel. If you read their works, and the works of the heretics like Arius and Aunomius, you will see that they took it for granted that it was Jesus the one that appeared (bodiless of course) to the Patriarchs and the Prophets of the Old Covenant. In Orthodoxy, that line was followed even up to the ninth ecumenical council, in the fourteenth century.
Augustine, on the other hand, in the first books of his de trinitate, books that had not been translated in Greek till the fall of Byzantine Empire (I think), says that the entire trinity was revealed to the patriarchs and Prophets by means of created beings that stopped existing when the revelation was over.
This is very different from the Orthodox understanding of theosis... which is God the Son revealing in Himself God the Father (whoever has seen me has also seen the Father).
Dear Freddy
Arius also argued that that Angel who said that His Name was YAHWE, was a created being. This is were the Orthodox fathers differed. While the Father (like the Son) cannot be seen by anyone because He is bodiless, we may say that the Patriarchs and the Prophets and the Saints and the Apostles "saw" God, in a way that transcends creation, when they where glorified. The vision the Orthodox tradition is talking about is what the Scriptures called "glorification" and God's "Glory".
To sum up Orthodox tradition on the matter:
The One that said to Moses He Is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, is Jesus before the Incarnation.
You can read for example Justin the Martyr when he discusses these things with Trypho the Jew. The same line of argument Justin uses there was used throughout the Byzantine history by the Eastern (and ancient Western, like Ambrose) theologians...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm chapter 56 and forth, for example
[ 24. April 2007, 04:26: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on
:
Andreas1984, I am still trying to understand why you think much of Western Christianity is unitarian. You appear to make statements expecting us to disagree with them. You talk of the unity of the divine nature/essence, and a union of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As far as I can tell, this is identical with the formal doctrine (ie spelled out in liturgy and official statements) of the Anglican church. Usually this is expressed differently (one substance/essence, three distinct persons) but surely the underlying concept is identical.
You note that the creed and Basil both write of God the Father, but not God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But other orthodox saints of the same era use such language for Christ and the Holy Spirit. For example:
quote:
But if, although the Father is called ‘One God’, the Son is nevertheless God, it is very plain that though the Father is called ‘Very God’, the Son is very God likewise.
Chrysostom, Commentating on Galatians 3.20.
Or again:
quote:
Yea, for it is far beyond all thought to hear that God the Unspeakable, the Unutterable, the Incomprehensible, and He that is equal to the Father, hath passed through a virgin’s womb, and hath vouchsafed to be born of a woman, and to have Abraham and David for forefathers.
Chrysostom, On Matthew 2.
Yet obviously Chrysostom did not believe in two Gods (or three Gods), but one God (as On Philippians 7 shows).
So it appears to be perfectly orthodox to talk of there being just one God, and yet to talk of God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, to talk of God as unity or one (with respect to substance/essence) and as union/communion/three with respect to person. This is what anglicanism holds to.
How then are we unitarians? I am bewildered.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Arius also argued that that Angel who said that His Name was YAHWE, was a created being. This is were the Orthodox fathers differed. While the Father (like the Son) cannot be seen by anyone because He is bodiless, we may say that the Patriarchs and the Prophets and the Saints and the Apostles "saw" God, in a way that transcends creation, when they where glorified.
Well I hate to agree with Arius about anything. But it is not so much that the Angel of Jehovah was a created being named YAHWEH as that God Himself, who is YAHWEH, revealed Himself through angels before the Incarnation. Here is the teachings of my church:
quote:
Mention is made several times in the Word of 'the angel of Jehovah', and in every case when used in the good sense it represents and means some essential quality with the Lord and from the Lord. Which one it represents and means however becomes clear from the train of thought. They were indeed angels who were sent to men and women, and who also spoke through the prophets. Yet what they spoke did not originate in those angels but was something imparted through them. In fact their state at the time was such that they knew no other than that they were Jehovah, that is, the Lord. But as soon as they had finished speaking they returned to their previous state and spoke as they normally did from themselves.
[2] This was the case with the angels who uttered the Word of the Lord. This is the reason why angels were sometimes called Jehovah.
[3] So that man may be spoken to by means of articulated sounds heard in the natural world, the Lord employed angels as His ministers by filling them with the Divine and by rendering unconscious all that is their own, so that for the time being they knew no other than that they themselves were Jehovah. In this way the Divine of Jehovah which belongs in highest things comes down into the lowest constituting the natural world in which man sees and hears. Arcana Coelestia 1925
The issue was how God Himself, who communicates interiorly with humanity, could communicate with a humanity that was distancing itself from Him.
The solution was that He would "come down" and show Himself. This is why this was predicted immediately after the description of the Fall in Genesis.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
To sum up Orthodox tradition on the matter:
The One that said to Moses He Is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, is Jesus before the Incarnation.
Essentially this is how I see it too. Jesus was Jehovah, or YAHWEH. But what I mean by this is that Jesus is the one God of heaven and earth - God as we can know and understand Him. This is why John says:
quote:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
John 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
That is, God the Father is invisible and unknowable. Jesus came to "declare Him." So in Jesus dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
While Jesus did say that He was Jehovah - and in fact they executed Him because of this claim - He didn't explain clearly how this was the case. The teaching of my church about this is this:
quote:
If when the Lord was in the world they had been told that He was the Jehovah mentioned so many times in the Old Testament they would not have accepted it because they would not have believed it. And there is the further reason that as regards the Human the Lord did not become Jehovah until He had in every respect united the Divine Essence to the Human Essence, and the Human Essence to the Divine Essence. These became fully united after the final temptation, which was that of the Cross; and it was for this reason that after the Resurrection the disciples consistently called Him Lord, and Thomas said,
My Lord and my God. John 20:28.
And as the Lord was the Jehovah mentioned so many times in the Old Testament, therefore He also told the disciples,
"You call Me Master and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If therefore I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one anothers' feet." John 13:13, 14, 16.
These words mean that He was Jehovah God. Arcana Coelestia 2921
So Jesus was not only the YAHWEH of the Old Testament but was the Father made visible, a role that in the Old Testament was performed, imperfectly and inadequately, by angels.
I don't think that this is so different from Orthodox teaching, except that it erases the distinction between YAHWEH and the Father.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear jrrt01
You say that anglicans hold to a unity of substance/essence. This is a very pious phrase, proclaimed from antiquity by the fathers and the saints and the confessors and the faithful. It's not the phrase I dispute, it's the meaning we ascribe to that phrase that I want to explore.
I say there is a unity of substance/essence in the three divine persons, but I also say there is a unity of substance/essence in the six+ billion human persons... Is this the sense anglicanism confesses one substance/essence and is this the reason for calling God one? Or is there something more to it?
Is the unity of essence interchangeable with the phrase unity of nature, or not? This is the question I posed, and I think that people in this thread said they do not think that God is one like I say man to be one...
I would be more than happy to be mistaken, but the feeling I get is that people mean something different to what the ancients believed in... Take Saint Bertelin for example, and the difference he sees in what the fathers taught and what he had been taught as an anglican... Maybe he is more qualified to speak about Western Christianity, since he was Anglican for many years.
Dear Freddy
I understand what your church teaches, but the saints (I skimmed through John the Chrysostom's on the trinity, cause jrrt01 pointed us to that Saint) taught differently and they explained why what you are saying is not the faith of their church. I don't think I should repeat their arguments, but you can read more on their reasons for rejecting that view in the works they have written...
By the way, the Athanasian Creed is off my radars... If you want to discuss about whether paradoxes exist, you can use the Creed of Nicea as confessed in the second ecumenical council, or the works of the fathers whose authority I accept.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
you can read more on their reasons for rejecting that view in the works they have written...
Thanks. That's very helpful.
This does, however, illustrate the idea that Western Christianity is unitarian. Orthodoxy does seem to go much farther than the Western churches in being willing to see YAHWEH and the Father as different entities.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By the way, the Athanasian Creed is off my radars... If you want to discuss about whether paradoxes exist, you can use the Creed of Nicea as confessed in the second ecumenical council, or the works of the fathers whose authority I accept.
You learn something every day. I didn't know that this creed was not accepted by the Eastern church.
So do you agree or disagree with these two statements from it?
quote:
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
If you agree with them, wouldn't you also agree that they represent a paradox?
[ 24. April 2007, 16:17: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear Freddy
If, by the term "God" we mean "divine nature" then I see no contradiction or paradox. In fact, many fathers have spoken about it that way: "there is one God, i.e. one divine nature". So, it depends on what you mean... If you mean "the father is a divine being*, the son is a divine being, the spirit is a divine being, but we can't say there are three divine beings, but there is one divine being", then yes, there is a contradiction here. Not a paradox. Just irrationality presenting itself as "mystery".
*I'm using the word "being" here in the everyday use... not in the patristic use where all men have one being, i.e. one way to be.
Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on
:
quote:
I say there is a unity of substance/essence in the three divine persons, but I also say there is a unity of substance/essence in the six+ billion human persons... Is this the sense anglicanism confesses one substance/essence and is this the reason for calling God one? Or is there something more to it?
Is the unity of essence interchangeable with the phrase unity of nature, or not? This is the question I posed, and I think that people in this thread said they do not think that God is one like I say man to be one...
Thankyou for your reply. It is my understanding that, yes, we do understand substance/essence (ousia) in precisely this way. There is the divine nature/essence (beyond our comprehension), and there is human nature/essence. The word took our nature/essence, so becoming consubstanstial with us just as the word was eternally consubstantial with the Father.
I haven't checked, but I doubt very much whether you'll find any Anglican official documents (including our liturgies) which say or suggest anything else.
Is this the only reason we declare God to be one (that the substance is the same?) No, of course not. Just as in Orthodoxy, we believe this to be the tradition of the Church, and faithful to scripture. There is one God. Yet there are three distinct persons.
Of course individual anglicans may stray into modalism in their conception, just as individual Orthodox may stray into polytheism in their conception. But Anglicanism stays firmly within the limits set by tradition about what may be said about the Trinity.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Thank you, father, for your reply! We are in agreement. I do confess though that what you said seems to me different from what others said in different threads in the past...
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I say there is a unity of substance/essence in the three divine persons, but I also say there is a unity of substance/essence in the six+ billion human persons... Is this the sense anglicanism confesses one substance/essence and is this the reason for calling God one? Or is there something more to it?
Is the unity of essence interchangeable with the phrase unity of nature, or not? This is the question I posed, and I think that people in this thread said they do not think that God is one like I say man to be one...
I would be more than happy to be mistaken, but the feeling I get is that people mean something different to what the ancients believed in... Take Saint Bertelin for example, and the difference he sees in what the fathers taught and what he had been taught as an anglican... Maybe he is more qualified to speak about Western Christianity, since he was Anglican for many years.
Just assuming for the sake of argument that you are right, how much difference do you think this makes?
I would guess that the average Westerner believes something like this:
- The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have the same characteristics.
- The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are more closely united than individual men. (e.g. "The Holy Spirit says X" and "God says X" amount to the same thing in practical terms whereas "Ricardus says Y" and "humanity as a whole says Y" do not.)
- The Father, the Son and the Spirit are nonetheless distinct Persons.
- The Father, the Son and the Spirit are "consubstantial".
Now, I would be very, very surprised if Western theologians were unaware of what the Fathers meant by "consubstantial" - it's their job to know, after all - but it is true that the average Man in the Pew is less accustomed to thinking in terms of "substances". Thus I wouldn't be surprised to find that a fair number of people think (4) is equivalent to (2) rather than (1), but I don't see that it changes their beliefs or makes them Unitarian, only that they're expressing their beliefs sloppily.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear Ricardus
I have to climb even further on my personal Sinai for me to make a reply to what you are saying.
Give me some time to pray, and let's see what we will find.
This is what I want to comment on:
quote:
The point is that Freddy and I can disagree on whether or not to do something. The Persons of the Godhead can't, which makes them united in a way that Freddy and I aren't.
which, to my mind, is connected with this:
quote:
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are more closely united than individual men.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Ricardus and Andreas, I am interested in those questions also.
It seems to me that Andreas' answer in the past is that this is not even a possible question, because the hypostases can neither agree or disagree - these words do not come close to describing what happens with them. Or something like that...
This just seems like a dodge to me. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
If the divine persons can disagree then this is a problem. On the other hand, if they exist in perpetual divine agreement - so that the internal processes of one cannot differ in any way from those of the other - then they are simply one - and, in my opinion, cannot be said to be distinct from each other.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Freddy, I'm not dodging... Let me explain...
I was reading Maximos the Confessor. He spoke about what you wrote as a side issue in his discussion concerning the two wills of Christ, and from what I understood what you said would be appalling to Maximus and alien to the faith of the Church. Here.
But unless I develop my vision further and I see for myself what he was talking about, it wont be of any use for me to repeat what he said and wrote... As soon as I learn from my own experience what he meant, then I will be ready to discuss it with you.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I guess that the three divine persons do not choose to do good over doing right... Since they are good and since they know all things they just want what is good and operate in the way they operate... It's not an issue of thinking and deliberating and choosing between two conflicting options (to do good or bad). But, like I said, I have to do more than just think about it... So, gimme some time!
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Andreas, that's fine with me. It's in line with what you have said before - that these kinds of processes cannot really be attributed to God.
But either way, if there is absolute unity and congruence, how is there differentiation? And if there is differentiation, how are there not multiple gods?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
There is no absolute unity. There is absolute union. There's a difference between unity and union. Distinct persons can enter a union with each other, and in that sense we can say they are united with each other, but we do not call that a unity. In this sense, the Trinity is not a unity. You said that this is polytheism... Well, I'm reading Maximos works on the wills... People in his time said all kinds of different things for what terms like "will" mean. I mean, there are many Greek words that can be imprecisely translated in English as "will", but Maximos was adamant that those words are to be distinguished and that we should find the true meaning of those words and, because they have to do with theology, it is very important that we understand the nuances, because our salvation depends on our dogmas.
In a like manner, I say that we should be very careful when we use the term polytheism. It had a very specific meaning when used by the Church fathers and saints and confessors, and using the term with a different meaning can lead us to all sort of problematic views of God...
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
So, there is a genus called divinity, but there is no such genus, in the sense that it is not a genus like the ones that refer to created beings.
I can cetainly live with this formulation, though I would wonder how helpful it is, with regar dto how the term is heard, to speak of "genus" in the case of God.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Why? I mean, I guess you don't have a problem when someone speaks of God being good or all-knowing or when one says that God exists... Why is there a problem with that? I think it is useful because it helps us avoid unitarianism.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But either way, if there is absolute unity and congruence, how is there differentiation? And if there is differentiation, how are there not multiple gods?
My own understanding of the first question is that it is simply the case that it is so. It doesn't require further explanation. If there are three different hypostases, then they are, of necessity, distinct. What makes the Trinity different from any three of us is precisely that unity and congruence, as it were. Regarding the second question, we're going back to the question of hypostases, nature, and the trap of blurring the boundaries between the two.
With regards to the so-called "Athanasian" creed, it, like the Apostles' creed and various other local creeds, was just that: a local creed. It never had oecumenical status and was never accepted by the consensus of the Church. That doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything wrong with it*, but just puts its status into context.
*although its attribution to St Athanasius is questionable, at best, as it first appeared some considerable time after his repose, and contains theology that isn't in evidence (to my knowledge) in his other writings - unless, of course, that creeds double-procession theology is a later insertion).
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Why? I mean, I guess you don't have a problem when someone speaks of God being good or all-knowing or when one says that God exists... Why is there a problem with that? I think it is useful because it helps us avoid unitarianism.
True, but it can lead to tri-theism.
After all, I presume you don't think that Father, Son and Spirit are all members of the same class in the way that the ancients thought that Zeus, Apollo and Aphrodite were.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
The ancient Christians taught explicitly that the trinitarian confession purges both Hellenism and Judaism, keeping from each what is pious; from Hellenism the distinction into persons and from Judaism the unity of the nature. So, only with regards to the nature we can look upon Judaism and see what that means. As far as the distinctiveness of the persons is concerned, we can look upon Hellenism and see what that means. Hellenism purged from the notion that there are various divine natures is Christianity, and Judaism purged from the notion that there is only one divine person, is Christianity.
I think that what you say does not take into account that the trinity is supposed to preserve the distinction of the persons the Gentiles professed. Am I misunderstanding something?
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Am I misunderstanding something?
Perhaps you are misunderstanding that "person" is applied to God and humans analogously, not univocally. But I can't be sure.
Also, I don't think there is an equipoise in Christian theology between the faith of Israel and Greek mythology. The first is based on divine revelation, the second is not. I would be interested in seeing texts from the Fathers that say that Greek polytheism is helpful to Christians seeking to understand the mystery of the Trinity.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I guess we should make some research about the use of the term person with regards to God and with regards to man. I have read definitions from the ancient fathers to the fathers of the hesychast controversy... They all give one definition to the term and they apply that both to God and rational beings. They don't seem to use it with different meanings in mind. Yes, of course, human person enter into debates and fights etc, but this does not have to do with the definition of the term person...
As for Judaism, I think we should not confuse between God's revelation to the holy people of Israel and Judaism itself. After all, the fathers use the Hebrew Scriptures to explain why Judaism is mistaken in not accepting a distinction in persons... They say for example that to Moses a person distinct from God the Father was revealed, and, therefore, when Judaism does not accept that, they are erring... Judaism most surely is not based on Revelation, although the Hebrew Scriptures do contain words about the Revelation that happened to the likes of Moses.
"of each heresy remains [i.e. we keep] what is useful" Saint Cyril wrote, concerning the distinction of persons that we took from polytheism and the one nature we took from judaism (de sancta trinitate, chapter 6)
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But either way, if there is absolute unity and congruence, how is there differentiation? And if there is differentiation, how are there not multiple gods?
My own understanding of the first question is that it is simply the case that it is so. It doesn't require further explanation. If there are three different hypostases, then they are, of necessity, distinct. What makes the Trinity different from any three of us is precisely that unity and congruence, as it were.
OK. I guess that's an explanation.
So the difference between distinction in God and distinction in humanity is that distinction in God doesn't involve any kind of distinction?
[ 25. April 2007, 13:59: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Judaism most surely is not based on Revelation, although the Hebrew Scriptures do contain words about the Revelation that happened to the likes of Moses.
While Jews may not fully understand the revelation given them, I think it is wrong to say that Judaism is not based on revelation.
As to Cyril. . . well, even Homer nods.
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Judaism most surely is not based on Revelation, although the Hebrew Scriptures do contain words about the Revelation that happened to the likes of Moses.
While Jews may not fully understand the revelation given them, I think it is wrong to say that Judaism is not based on revelation.
As to Cyril. . . well, even Homer nods.
That definitely is an ultra-supercessionist view saying that Judaism not based on relevation. Even the Talmud, which from the Christian point-of-view is not revelation and contains some startling bits of nonsense mixed in with pearls of wisdom, certainly takes the Law of Moses as its starting point.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Judaism most surely is not based on Revelation, although the Hebrew Scriptures do contain words about the Revelation that happened to the likes of Moses.
While Jews may not fully understand the revelation given them, I think it is wrong to say that Judaism is not based on revelation.
As to Cyril. . . well, even Homer nods.
And I am sure that Christians don't fully understand the revelation given to them/us.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
That definitely is an ultra-supercessionist view saying that Judaism not based on relevation.
Jesus also regarded the law of Moses as revelation, calling it the word of God:
quote:
Mark 7.7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men — the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
So Jesus regarded Judaism as based on revelation. Furthermore He here rejects the parts that aren't based on revelation.
The message to Christianity, I think, is clear. It should be based on revelation, not "the tradition of men".
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
"of each heresy remains [i.e. we keep] what is useful" Saint Cyril wrote, concerning the distinction of persons that we took from polytheism and the one nature we took from judaism (de sancta trinitate, chapter 6)
"The distinction of persons that we took from polytheism"? How does that work?
Is it that we took the idea of polytheism and incorporated it into Christianity by leaving the distinction of persons, but doing so in such a way as to maintain a perfect union among them - whereas the ancient gods of polytheism disagreed and even fought?
[ 25. April 2007, 16:46: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
As for Judaism, I think we should not confuse between God's revelation to the holy people of Israel and Judaism itself.
Whoops. Sorry, andreas, I missed this sentence.
I see you do regard the Old Testament Scriptures as revelation.
So your meaning is really that the Talmud, and other traditions on which Jewish practice is based, are not revealed. Is that right?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Guys it's not what I think of the Jews... It's the historical church stance that Judaism as separate from Christianity is a heresy, because they do not accept the distinction of the three divine persons which was taught and confessed by the Patriarchs and Prophets and Holy Men of the Old Covenant and by the Son of God and the Apostles and the Holy Men of the New Covenant.
Their "heresy" is seen as one among the other heresies that have to do with a mistaken view of the trinity. The ancients stressed that Christianity is similar to Hellenism in the distinction of the persons and to Judaism in the unity of the nature, but also opposing Hellenism on polytheism (i.e. the multiplicity of natures) and Judaism on believing that there is one divine person alone.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But either way, if there is absolute unity and congruence, how is there differentiation? And if there is differentiation, how are there not multiple gods?
My own understanding of the first question is that it is simply the case that it is so. It doesn't require further explanation. If there are three different hypostases, then they are, of necessity, distinct.
I like that.
I think it's a mistake to suggest that a thing can only be itself by virtue of being different from something else. e.g. Even on the human level I don't think you'd want to identify yourself as "not-Ricardus + not-Freddy + not-Andreas etc..." (even though it may be true).
There's a theory in linguistics called "structuralism" which claims that a word like (for example) "cap" only has meaning by not being a helmet, a bowler-hat, a balaclava, etc., but AIUI it's distinctly out of fashion.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Ricurdus, according to the ancient Church the three divine persons do have unique characteristics (idioms) that distinguish them from each other. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father alone and the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The way they exist is unique to each of them.
[ 25. April 2007, 18:08: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
On the other hand, if they exist in perpetual divine agreement [snip] then they are simply one - and, in my opinion, cannot be said to be distinct from each other.
Dear Freddy
The ancient fathers and confessors said that the three divine persons have one will and that this gives testimony that God is one. They were very adamant about this. Today, I see some Shipmates making the same claim but the meaning of the word 'will' is different. You see, the ancient fathers explained that when we say that the three divine persons have one will, we don't mean that they will the same thing, but that their way of willing is the same. In other words, will means "to will". It's that "to will" that's one, just like it's the "to be" that's one, the way of being, that is the one essence or nature of the three persons.
I'm thinking about the difference between the Orthodox Saints' stressing they only mean "to will" and not "what to will" when they say there is one will in God just like there is one will in mankind. I think I now understand why they stressed that nuance of the term will. Thanks to Maximos the Confessor, I now see that it's because the identity of "what to will" does not mean anything with regards to nature that the fathers said that "to will" is what is identical in the three divine persons and this is a proclamation of their oneness.
You see, persons of different natures can will the same thing but this does not make them one with regards to nature. Both the Saints and God will the same thing. Both people in Heaven and God will will the same thing. Both angels and Saints will the salvation of all. But this does not mean that they are all one in nature. According to the ancients, only the way we will can show whether oneness exists or not. Because God wills in a different way than the Saints. God's will is sovereign and omnipotent and almighty. Man's will is not. So, to will the same thing is not a characteristic of oneness and this is why the Saints (opposing some heretics) stressed that the three divine persons have one will, like all men have one will, i.e. one way to will, and this shows their oneness, oneness in nature.
Do you think that things are clearer now?
I'm sorry if I sound difficult to read, but I have in mind many centuries of controversies within the church and many ecumenical councils and many pains the Saints went through to proclaim their faith, and I guess that's hard to follow. After all, not everybody is expected to know lots of things on the debates and controversies of antiquity.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You see, the ancient fathers explained that when we say that the three divine persons have one will, we don't mean that they will the same thing, but that their way of willing is the same.
Thank you, andreas. That is perfectly clear. They are of one mind, as it were, even if they will different things.
How do you keep this distinct from polytheism?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I didn't say they will different things. I said that willing the same thing is not a sign of oneness.
I think that we should do some more research about what polytheism means. Because all the fathers I have read say that polytheism is to believe that there are different divine natures and not that there is one divine nature in more than one divine persons. You seem to be thinking that polytheism has a different meaning...
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But either way, if there is absolute unity and congruence, how is there differentiation? And if there is differentiation, how are there not multiple gods?
My own understanding of the first question is that it is simply the case that it is so. It doesn't require further explanation. If there are three different hypostases, then they are, of necessity, distinct. What makes the Trinity different from any three of us is precisely that unity and congruence, as it were.
OK. I guess that's an explanation.
So the difference between distinction in God and distinction in humanity is that distinction in God doesn't involve any kind of distinction?
I've read and re-read this and I still don't understand how you've got that from what I said.
I didn't say that there was no distinction. In fact, I've spent most of my participation in this thread saying the exact opposite to that. If there are three Persons, how can there possibly not be distinction? They are distinct and separate, and there is nothing in that that implies tritheism or any other form of polytheism because their nature, their essence, their substance, or whichever word you prefer, is one and the same.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I didn't say they will different things. I said that willing the same thing is not a sign of oneness.
OK. So they do will the same thing?
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I think that we should do some more research about what polytheism means. Because all the fathers I have read say that polytheism is to believe that there are different divine natures and not that there is one divine nature in more than one divine persons. You seem to be thinking that polytheism has a different meaning...
According to that definition wouldn't the gods on Olympus have one divine nature? Aren't they the classic example of polytheism?
According to
wikipedia: quote:
Polytheism refers to the honouring of 'many deities', each of whom is experienced and acknowledged as an independent, individual personality, not as an aspect or archetype of something else.
So the hypostases of the trinity are not "aspects" of the one God, but neither are they individual personalities.
An interesting point in the wiki article:
quote:
Hard polytheists believe that gods are distinct and separate beings. Hard polytheists may believe in a unifying principle such as the One of the Platonists.
Soft polytheists regard their multiplicity of Gods as being manifestations of either common entities, or representing different aspects or facets of a single personal God, the latter also sometimes known as "inclusive monotheists", as are many modern neopagan groups.
I don't think that your description of the trinity fits into either of these camps.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I am not trying to understand what is polytheism by looking at the current use of the word, but by looking at the way the ancient confessors and fathers understood the term...
I agree with you that today we might call polytheism the existence of more than one divine persons. This does not mean that our use of the word is historically and theologically accurate.
So, it would be better if we reflected on what the Saints wrote on polytheism and not what modern people understand that term to mean.
Man is an impressive creature. Not only partakes in the world of the senses, but also in the spiritual dimensions of creation. Man is called to be a co-creator with God.
In the paragraph above, I spoke of man being one and not many, not because there is only one human person, but because there is one human nature. I can do the same for God.
The question is how I can communicate to you that that unity in nature is in fact monotheism and not polytheism... I guess that I have to shed further light into my own understanding and then try to engage with you on the oneness of nature and monotheism.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I've read and re-read this and I still don't understand how you've got that from what I said.
I got this from your statement:
quote:
What makes the Trinity different from any three of us is precisely that unity and congruence, as it were.
My thought is that a perfect unity and congruence means "no distinction."
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I didn't say that there was no distinction. In fact, I've spent most of my participation in this thread saying the exact opposite to that. If there are three Persons, how can there possibly not be distinction? They are distinct and separate, and there is nothing in that that implies tritheism or any other form of polytheism because their nature, their essence, their substance, or whichever word you prefer, is one and the same.
Both you and andreas are saying over and over that the nature is the same but the persons are distinct - and yet that this is neither unity or tritheism. Your philosophy appears to be so deeply ingrained that this makes sense to you and does not appear to be a contradiction. You say repeatedly that we don't understand - as if we have not studied theology. So far you have not said anything that makes me think that I don't understand.
I understand that you really believe what you are saying. I'm just saying that it doesn't hold together, as far as I can see. I could be wrong.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I am not trying to understand what is polytheism by looking at the current use of the word, but by looking at the way the ancient confessors and fathers understood the term...
I understand that you care what the ancient confessors and father thought. But they are no more authoritative to me than Swedenborg is to you. I don't think that it matters how they understood the term - what matters is the actual truth. I have read some of them in the past, and am interested to read them now so that I can understand where you are coming from.
Yet when I quote Augustine or Athanasius I hear that they don't really count.
I would prefer that you reference sources that are more widely accepted, such as the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I agree with you that today we might call polytheism the existence of more than one divine persons. This does not mean that our use of the word is historically and theologically accurate.
The point, I think, is whether there is actually a multiplicity of gods in the mind of the worshiper.
I contend that the thought of more than one divine person makes that happen. I understand that they can be seen in a way that is, in fact, one God and not many. But you seem very clearly to see the Father as the one God, and the others - YAHWEH or the Son, and the Holy Spirit - as distinct from Him. You seem to be unaware of the problems and contradictions of this view. Correct me if I am wrong.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear Freddy
You spoke of the gods ancient Greeks believed in. It is a mistake to focus on the 12 gods that lived in Olympus. They were part of the Greek pantheon, but they were not all that was in Greek religion. There are the Titans, whose nature is so much different from the human-like 12 Gods of Olympus, and the Fates -women that controlled fate, whom even Zeus was not powerful enough to influence- and Pan and semi-divine beings and lesser gods...
This is polytheism. They willed in different ways, operated in different ways, their power was of different way; their nature was different. This is not the case with the three divine persons.
By the way, I did not say that Athanasios is not a valid source. I said that the creed that is falsely attributed to him is not a valid source. There is a difference between the two.
It all boils down to revelation. When the holy men interacted with someone that was not God the Father, someone distinct from God the Father, who had the same nature with God the Father, they realized that to say God is one person is a mistake.
Of course, the fathers used the bible to make their points. I'm not going to re-peat their lengthy arguments here although I could point you to patristic books from different eras written by different people that all say the same thing...
To put it simply... You say that more than one person is polytheism. They would have said that this is contrary to the... Scriptures! This is an interesting discussion, the way the Scriptures define polytheism, but it can be lengthy.
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I've read and re-read this and I still don't understand how you've got that from what I said.
I got this from your statement:
quote:
What makes the Trinity different from any three of us is precisely that unity and congruence, as it were.
My thought is that a perfect unity and congruence means "no distinction."
I see. Thank you. That's my own fault. I was using your original terms in order for clarity's sake and seem to have achieved the opposite because it seems that I understood from "unity and congruence" somehing different from what you intended by it. I'm sorry. I was using the terms to refer to the unity of purpose and will of the Persons, their operation in harmony. Harmony is perhaps here a good word for what I'm trying to say, because harmony cannot exist if there is no distinction between the voices.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I didn't say that there was no distinction. In fact, I've spent most of my participation in this thread saying the exact opposite to that. If there are three Persons, how can there possibly not be distinction? They are distinct and separate, and there is nothing in that that implies tritheism or any other form of polytheism because their nature, their essence, their substance, or whichever word you prefer, is one and the same.
Both you and andreas are saying over and over that the nature is the same but the persons are distinct - and yet that this is neither unity or tritheism. Your philosophy appears to be so deeply ingrained that this makes sense to you and does not appear to be a contradiction.
Is it deeply ingrained, though? This is all new to me. Part of what I'm doing here, in addition to sharing what little I have recently come to learn about the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity and trying to dispel the image created near the beginning of this thread that Andreas's understanding is way out, is trying to work out my own understanding by putting it in context of a discussion. So far it really is helping. And no, I don't see a contradiction. If anything, it makes more sense than my previous understanding, which is all that I had ever previously been exposed to.
quote:
You say repeatedly that we don't understand - as if we have not studied theology.
If you would link to where I said this, I'd be very grateful. If anything, what I have pointed out on this thread is my own lack of understanding, and what a breath of fresh air it is to finally get some insight into what the Fathers meant when they formulated the Creed under the Spirit's guidance. I pointed out that my criticism in my first post on this thread was a self-criticism, and I asked where I could find out more. The only time my back arched and I let that show through was when you began to ask for biblical justifications for things, as though that were the sole authority, and implying that what we say is somehow less biblical than an understanding that seems (to me at least, not having studied in depth) to be at variance with the Church's understanding. I'm referring to this post. I am sorry for my reaction, and if it is this to which you are referring, then I understand. If this isn't what you meant, then I don't see what else you could mean but if something that I have said inadvertently implies a criticism of somebody else, then I apologise.
quote:
I understand that you really believe what you are saying. I'm just saying that it doesn't hold together, as far as I can see. I could be wrong.
I don't know how else to express it, though. I have tried to relate how I have come to understand the three Persons in one God. To me, it makes perfect sense, yet to you, it appears as tritheism. That's fair enough. When you explain how it appears to you to be tritheism, it sounds as though you're expressing the Persons as consituent parts of a whole and, in my understanding, that doesn't hold together.
It seems that, at this point, you and I have got as far as we can at present. As I said, this ios still new to me and I'm going to have to take the time to read and explore more deeply, reading the Fathers and what I can find about the First and Second Synods, amidst my other spiritual journeying. Thanks for being so willing to engage with me, though. I'll continue to read the thread and I'm sure that I'll learn more from the conversation.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Both you and andreas are saying over and over that the nature is the same but the persons are distinct - and yet that this is neither unity or tritheism.
My suspicion is that, assuming that Andreas is quoting correctly, the fathers that Andreas is quoting were thinking of neo-Platonism. They weren't thinking of polytheism as such. The attempt is to head off Arianism by the back route.
There are two main concerns for these fathers. The first is that they want to refute Arius. The second is that they want to avoid any appearance of modalism or sabellianism (since that had already been condemned).
All the fathers that Andreas is quoting come from the Alexandrene school of theology. (Arianism being an Alexandrene heresy.) Modalism is an Antiochene heresy. The Western understanding of the Trinity has Antiochene roots.
Andreas of course has a problem in explaining how the Jews worshipped the Logos that revealed himself to Moses, how the Jews were not to have any God beside or before the Logos that revealed himself to Moses, and yet how the Jews worshipped the Father.
Western theology obviously doesn't have that problem. I have to say that it is a good principle, if err we must, to err on the side of continuity with Judaism.
Dafyd
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
My suspicion is that, assuming that Andreas is quoting correctly, the fathers that Andreas is quoting were thinking of neo-Platonism. They weren't thinking of polytheism as such. The attempt is to head off Arianism by the back route.
There are two main concerns for these fathers. The first is that they want to refute Arius. The second is that they want to avoid any appearance of modalism or sabellianism (since that had already been condemned).
Thank you Dafyd, that is very helpful.
I have assumed that these fathers were aiming primarily at avoiding Arianism, and was unsure about which of the other heresies seemed to them to be the greatest dangers. I have noticed that the sources that andreas quotes do seem focused on refuting the mistaken idea of modalism.
I have been puzzled at their apparent lack of concern about polytheism - a concern that the Athanasian creed appears to address. I have no thought, of course, that there is any intentional polytheism in their thinking - only that they seem to back into it in their attempts to avoid other heresies.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
All the fathers that Andreas is quoting come from the Alexandrene school of theology. (Arianism being an Alexandrene heresy.) Modalism is an Antiochene heresy. The Western understanding of the Trinity has Antiochene roots.
I hadn't realized that. Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Andreas of course has a problem in explaining how the Jews worshipped the Logos that revealed himself to Moses, how the Jews were not to have any God beside or before the Logos that revealed himself to Moses, and yet how the Jews worshipped the Father.
I see that. How is it possible not to see these all as the same God?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear Dafyd
I spoke of Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria because their theology was proclaaimed in the first and in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth ecumenical councils respectively. However, the Kappadocean fathers were also mentioned. So, it's not just an a characteristic of Alexandrian thought. Not only the Kappadoceans, but also Emperor (and theologian) Justinian and Gregory the Palamas and Symeon the New Theologians, they all said the same thing. Not only them, but all the Orthodox Saints I have ever read, including Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose of Milan said the same thing. As far as I know, no other explanation on what the trinity means has ever been put forth by the Orthodox fathers...
Starting from Justin the Martyr, no, starting from Paul, the Lord of Glory has been identified with Jesus. He is the one who uttered the Shema in the Old Testament; not the Father. It is He the One that reveals in Himself the Father, because He is the image of the Father and the radiance of His hypostasis.
You say the Jews worshipped God the Father. We speak of God as the Father, because He is the Father of the Son. If one does not accept the Son, then one does not accept the Father as well. So, they do not worship the hypostasis of the Father, although, because of our monarchy we can refer their worship to the Father. their vision of God remains unclear, although people like Moses and Abraham did have a clear view of God. After all, the Pentateuch speaks of Jesus. When the Lord said that this is the case, he was not referring to the three verses in Leviticus that speak of the anointed one!
Dear Freddy
Read my reply to Dafyd. Moreover, it was not about them fighting Arianism, but them fighting Judaism. After all, some fathers lived before Arius was born!
You say something like this:
A) There is one God.
B) Three divine persons are three Gods.
C) Therefore there are no three divine persons or else we would be tritheists.
Your mistake is in your understanding of what the word "God" means. You speak of the Shema. But the Shema, if I remember correctly, was said by Jesus before the Incarnation, and not by the Father! Therefore "God" in the Shema does not mean "one divine person" or else the divinity of the Father would be denied!
[ 26. April 2007, 11:32: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I was using your original terms in order for clarity's sake and seem to have achieved the opposite because it seems that I understood from "unity and congruence" somehing different from what you intended by it. I'm sorry. I was using the terms to refer to the unity of purpose and will of the Persons, their operation in harmony. Harmony is perhaps here a good word for what I'm trying to say, because harmony cannot exist if there is no distinction between the voices.
OK. I guess that's a better comparison. I'm surprised, though, that you don't see polytheism as a genuine danger in this thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
Is it deeply ingrained, though? This is all new to me.
I hadn't realized that. I'd be interested to know how it ocmpares with what you previously thought.
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
The only time my back arched and I let that show through was when you began to ask for biblical justifications for things, as though that were the sole authority, and implying that what we say is somehow less biblical than an understanding that seems (to me at least, not having studied in depth) to be at variance with the Church's understanding.
Sorry about that. I do think that what you say is not biblical - and I'm surprised that neither you or andreas seem interested in making efforts to show that it is biblical. I appreciate, though, that the ancient fathers seem to you to be legitimate authorities.
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
To me, it makes perfect sense, yet to you, it appears as tritheism. That's fair enough. When you explain how it appears to you to be tritheism, it sounds as though you're expressing the Persons as consituent parts of a whole and, in my understanding, that doesn't hold together.
That expresses it well. I understand that you don't intend tritheism, and I certainly don't intend modalism. It helps to understand that Orthodoxy is sensitized to modalism just as I am sensitive to polytheism.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Sorry about that. I do think that what you say is not biblical - and I'm surprised that neither you or andreas seem interested in making efforts to show that it is biblical.
Two reasons for that. Firstly, because your denomination is a tiny minority among Western Christians. I am concerned about mainline Western Christians and they seem to be interested in keeping the same trinitarian faith with the ancient Church. Sorry about that.
Secondly, because I find it very tiresome to re-run the ancient debate. There are tomes and books upon books where all the scriptural passages are examined and explained under the light of what I am saying. Perhaps it would be worth pursuing in this thread, but, like I said, my main focus is not you Freddy (although you are a great Shipmate and it's always a pleasure discussing things with you).
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It all boils down to revelation. When the holy men interacted with someone that was not God the Father, someone distinct from God the Father, who had the same nature with God the Father, they realized that to say God is one person is a mistake.!
Andreas, do you really mean this? I would be amazed if you could quote any kind of source that expresses this idea. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Of course, the fathers used the bible to make their points.
To put it simply... You say that more than one person is polytheism. They would have said that this is contrary to the... Scriptures!
I assume that you mean by this the fact that God has various names in Scripture and appears in various ways, such as by means of the Angel of the Lord. Or do you mean somethng else?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
OK, I will use some things that Justin the Martyr said. I will use his words because Arius had not been born when Justin spoke those things against Judaism.
quote:
Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean...
Note that the term "the Maker of heaven and earth" was attributed by the first ecumenical council to the Father... not because the Son is not Creator as well, but because it was a custom for the Father to be called Maker so that He can be distinguished from the Son in discussions, as the above passage shows.
Justin repeats that claim, that the Patriarchs and the Prophets did not interact with God the Father but with God the Son and that the two are distinct, throughout his discussion with Trypho the Jew. One can only read the Old Testament and see that when the Son is revealed, He speaks about God the Father as one distinct from Him.
Keep in mind that Justin lived beforeArius and even before Origen, that prominent Alexandrian theologian.
[ 26. April 2007, 11:55: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I was using your original terms in order for clarity's sake and seem to have achieved the opposite because it seems that I understood from "unity and congruence" somehing different from what you intended by it. I'm sorry. I was using the terms to refer to the unity of purpose and will of the Persons, their operation in harmony. Harmony is perhaps here a good word for what I'm trying to say, because harmony cannot exist if there is no distinction between the voices.
OK. I guess that's a better comparison. I'm surprised, though, that you don't see polytheism as a genuine danger in this thinking.
Thanks for your reply, Freddy. I'll take another stab at it because I think we may have a working analogy here.
I do certainly see the danger of perceiving polytheism in this. Indeed, when I first read the earlier part of the thread, I was agreeing with those who said that what Andreas was expressing was tritheism. However, I think that the danger is severely diminished when one takes the analogy further. The harmony created by the three distinct parts is not their essence. Their essence is "voice", but properly speaking, they are not three voices: they are soprano, alto, and tenor, each fully possesing the nature of "voice". They are three distinct entities, each of which has the nature/essence of "voice", and it is this, and not their harmony, that makes them "one voice".
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
Is it deeply ingrained, though? This is all new to me.
I hadn't realized that. I'd be interested to know how it ocmpares with what you previously thought.
It was I who resurrected the thread a week ago with this post. Before that, it had lain dormant since December.
It's a little difficult to describe accurately how I understood this. There was certainly much haziness. Here's my attempt, though. I had this concept of the divine nature being some mysterious, deeper reality of which the three Persons of the Trinity were somehow part. It was almost as though the divine nature was a being/entity in itself but I wouldn't have articulated it like that. I suppose I just accepted that each of the Persons was fully God while still being part of this "divine nature", and tried not to think too much about how this could be possible, calling it a "mystery". Looking back, I think that my understanding of the word "substance" is what lay at the heart of this. Nature or essence would probably have caused less of a problem for me, with hindsight.
Anyway, I first began to be uncomfortable with this when I came across the idea of modalism about a year ago in my Orthodox reading, and realised that my understanding definitely verged in that direction. I suppose I just never gave it much more thought than that, until recently.
Because of this, my main problem with the double procession was that it wasn't Orthodox, and I'll confess that I came up with a very strange theory about why it was wrong, because in my hazy understanding of the Trinity, it really didn't matter too much whether the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone, or from both the Father and the Son. Indeed, I was a proponent of the idea that it was purely a linguistic misunderstanding based on confusion between the two Greek verbs for different senses of to proceed, and the Latin procedere which could easily be used either way, citing the fact that Byzantine Catholics do not recite the filioque.
Now the problem of the double-procession has finally fallen into place for me. If the characteristic (for want of a better term) of being eternal source is possessed by the Son as well as the Father (which is the only way the Holy Spirit can eternally proceed from the Son as well), then this characteristic must be of the nature and not the hypostasis, and must, therefore be shared by the Holy Spirit as well (Who also fully possesses this nature). Yet Christian theology does not know of a fourth Person proceeding from the Holy Spirit, who would then have another proceeding from Him, and so forth. The only other explanation is that the Holy Spirit does not share the same nature as the Father and the Son, which I don't think that anybody claims. All of this is only a problem, of course, if you have the distinct view of nature and hypostasis that I now accept, with the divine nature being, essentially, a genus, although one that is ineffable, unknowable, beyond human comprehension and even beyond the concept of "beyond", residing in the Father, from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally have their being, and, therefore, the same nature, which is why I reject the double-procession.
Before conversing with Andreas about this, I had never been exposed to the idea that the divine nature as analogous to the human nature, or indeed any other nature. St Gregory has deepened my understanding and now I would like to read more. I have had some Fathers recommended to me. I consider it all a part of my growth.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
To me, it makes perfect sense, yet to you, it appears as tritheism. That's fair enough. When you explain how it appears to you to be tritheism, it sounds as though you're expressing the Persons as consituent parts of a whole and, in my understanding, that doesn't hold together.
That expresses it well. I understand that you don't intend tritheism, and I certainly don't intend modalism. It helps to understand that Orthodoxy is sensitized to modalism just as I am sensitive to polytheism.
Yes. I, too, am grateful to Dafyd for sharing that bit of the background. Thank you, as well, Freddy, for being so patient with me.
Again, I can't recommend enough to anybody wanting to begin to grasp some of the differences between "East" and "West" to read this. What The Book Depository doesn't reveal is that the book is subtitled What every Roman Catholic should know about the Orthodox Church. While it is written with the goal in mind of explaining what the differences are between these two particular confessions, as a former Anglican who has never been a Catholic, I found it helpful in the extreme in putting into context some of the differences that my past views have with where I am now.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Firstly, because your denomination is a tiny minority among Western Christians. I am concerned about mainline Western Christians and they seem to be interested in keeping the same trinitarian faith with the ancient Church. Sorry about that.
Andreas, this thread is a response to your statement that the west is unitarian. The size of my own denomination has nothing to do with it.
Given the trinitarian language of the Bible, the tension here is between your assertion that the Western church tends towards unitarianism, and the converse assertion that the Eastern church tends towards tritheism.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Freddy, mainline Christians believe that the ancient Church was trinitarian and that this faith is true. So, for them, if they found out that the ancient understanding was different from theirs, they can change their understanding to fit the ancient faith. Things are different to you, because you are not bound by the faith of the ancient church, since you think as authoritative the writings of Swedenborg and the scriptures. This is why I didn't spend much time showing my point from the scriptures, but I spoke of the ancient fathers instead.
Now, there is no tritheism in the Orthodox Church because no three divine natures are confessed. This was enough for the ancients to reject tritheism. But the problem is that this is not enough for you, because you think that tritheism is faith in three distinct persons. I replied that in your framework yes you can say that we are tritheists, but I also said that your framework is flawed because tritheism is not faith in three distinct divine persons but faith in three distinct divine natures.
And it's not an East vs West thing, because Western Fathers like Hilary and Ambrose and Justin and Irineus said the same things as well.
It's an Orthodox vs non-Orthodox thing (if it is a thing at all... After all, fr. jrrt01 says that the faith of the Anglican Church is the same with the faith I confessed in this thread...)
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
OK, I will use some things that Justin the Martyr said. I will use his words because Arius had not been born when Justin spoke those things against Judaism.
quote:
Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean...
I am impressed. You are right. So Orthodoxy really does teach this.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Note that the term "the Maker of heaven and earth" was attributed by the first ecumenical council to the Father... not because the Son is not Creator as well, but because it was a custom for the Father to be called Maker so that He can be distinguished from the Son in discussions, as the above passage shows.
Meaning that they were aware that this is a problem. The terminology implies that the Father was the primary Creator, and that the contribution of the Logos was secondary.
Wouldn't it have been easier to call them one and ascribe the distinction to figurative language?
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Justin repeats that claim, that the Patriarchs and the Prophets did not interact with God the Father but with God the Son and that the two are distinct, throughout his discussion with Trypho the Jew.
I actually agree with this. No one can interact with the Father, as Jesus says. All interaction was with the Son, or with what took the place of the Son before the Incarnation.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
One can only read the Old Testament and see that when the Son is revealed, He speaks about God the Father as one distinct from Him.
I'm wondering what kind of references you are thinking of here. Do you mean the prophecies of the coming Messiah? He is usually, but not always, spoken of as one who may be distinguished from Jehovah. Certainly whenever "the Lord" speaks in Scripture He claims to be God Himself.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I am impressed. You are right. So Orthodoxy really does teach this.
It's not just Orthodoxy... We are talking about the people that were murdered by the Romans for their faith in Jesus. This is the faith they were murdered for...
quote:
Meaning that they were aware that this is a problem. The terminology implies that the Father was the primary Creator, and that the contribution of the Logos was secondary.
No! It's just a way of discussing things without having to use the term "God the Father" every time for God. It's easier to attribute creation to God first, and then say that the Logos is the Creator, than start the other way around. After all, all that the Logos is He is because of the Father.
quote:
Wouldn't it have been easier to call them one and ascribe the distinction to figurative language?
They did not do this because this was not the faith of the Prophets in the Old testament nor the faith of the Apostles in the New Testament.
quote:
or with what took the place of the Son before the Incarnation.
Nothing took the place of the Son before the Incarnation because the Son Himself existed before the Incarnation. He was in the beginning and He was with God in the beginning.
quote:
I'm wondering what kind of references you are thinking of here. Do you mean the prophecies of the coming Messiah?/QUOTE]
No, I'm thinking the references to God "talking" with the holy men in the Old Testament. That God was God the Son and not God the Father. For more info have a look at the extensive works of the ancient fathers on the Christian faith and the Old Testament.
[quote]Certainly whenever "the Lord" speaks in Scripture He claims to be God Himself.
This is where we disagree... He claims to be God the Son, not God the Father. Yes, He is divine, exactly like the Father, but He is revealed to be distinct from Him.
[ 26. April 2007, 13:20: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Freddy, mainline Christians believe that the ancient Church was trinitarian and that this faith is true. So, for them, if they found out that the ancient understanding was different from theirs, they can change their understanding to fit the ancient faith. Things are different to you, because you are not bound by the faith of the ancient church, since you think as authoritative the writings of Swedenborg and the scriptures. This is why I didn't spend much time showing my point from the scriptures, but I spoke of the ancient fathers instead.
Yes, I can see that this is the way that you look at it. But the thing that we all have in common is the Scriptures, and these take precedence - at least in non-Orthodox Christianity - over the theology of the ancient fathers.
My point is that I think that you would be better off using the Scriptures more.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's an Orthodox vs non-Orthodox thing (if it is a thing at all... After all, fr. jrrt01 says that the faith of the Anglican Church is the same with the faith I confessed in this thread...)
I didn't realize that you had been satisfied that the non-Orthodox churches are not unitarian after all.
So it looks like this thread has accomplished something. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I didn't realize that you had been satisfied that the non-Orthodox churches are not unitarian after all.
I have been satisfied with the kind father's reply. Whether he speaks for others I do not know.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Certainly whenever "the Lord" speaks in Scripture He claims to be God Himself.
This is where we disagree... He claims to be God the Son, not God the Father. Yes, He is divine, exactly like the Father, but He is revealed to be distinct from Him.
I hear you. I'm trying to think of an example of this, so that I can understand what you mean. The Old Testament God, when speaking of Himself, uses a limited number of terms.
I guess you must mean "Angel of the Lord" and "YAHWEH". Is that right?
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
If the characteristic (for want of a better term) of being eternal source is possessed by the Son as well as the Father (which is the only way the Holy Spirit can eternally proceed from the Son as well), then this characteristic must be of the nature and not the hypostasis, and must, therefore be shared by the Holy Spirit as well (Who also fully possesses this nature).
Why? Could the characteristic not be one of both the Father and the Son hypostates but not the Holy Spirit?
Or are you arguing that the distinction between person and nature is such that a characteristic cannot be shared by two hypostases yet not the third, because something shared by two divine hypostases would be a characteristic of divine nature and the situation described would represent two divinities i.e. polytheism? If so, I think I follow vaguely but I'm stretching.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
GreyFace
Yes, there are only a few "axioms" for Orthodoxy, and this is one of them, that a characteristic in the divine persons is either shared by all, or it exists only in one of them. This knowledge comes through the direct vision of God, where we understand in a way beyond understanding that the three divine persons share all characteristics save for the cause for their existence. The "idiom" of the Father is that he is of no cause, the "idiom" of the Son is that he is generated by the Father, the "idiom" of the Holy Spirit is that he proceeds from the Father. What proceeds and is generated mean we do not know, but we do know there is a difference between the two.
Of course, this can be shown in the Scriptures and it can also be shown that if this was breached then trinitarianism would fail, but that's a more complicated discussion than the one we are having at the moment.
Freddy
Yes, it goes like this:
We see someone called Angel of God in the Scriptures interacting with the Patriarchs. he is called an Angel NOT BECAUSE He shares in the angelic nature, but because He cats as a messenger from God the Father. That person, as the stories unfold, reveals that He is Lord and God. He is both Lord (because He is the Son) and the Angel of the Lord, that is of the Father.
The words used in scriptures are used with different meanings in different occasions. So, the term angel sometimes refers to angels, but other times refers to God the Son, and other times to people etc.
The important thing from an Orthodox perspective is that "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob" is Jesus before the Incarnation and it is Him Whom the Jews rejected when he came in human flesh.
[ 26. April 2007, 13:46: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
SB, thank you for your good description of your thought process. I think that it is very interesting. I particularly liked this part, which Grey Face just commented on:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
Now the problem of the double-procession has finally fallen into place for me. If the characteristic (for want of a better term) of being eternal source is possessed by the Son as well as the Father (which is the only way the Holy Spirit can eternally proceed from the Son as well), then this characteristic must be of the nature and not the hypostasis, and must, therefore be shared by the Holy Spirit as well (Who also fully possesses this nature). Yet Christian theology does not know of a fourth Person proceeding from the Holy Spirit, who would then have another proceeding from Him, and so forth. The only other explanation is that the Holy Spirit does not share the same nature as the Father and the Son, which I don't think that anybody claims. All of this is only a problem, of course, if you have the distinct view of nature and hypostasis that I now accept, with the divine nature being, essentially, a genus, although one that is ineffable, unknowable, beyond human comprehension and even beyond the concept of "beyond", residing in the Father, from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally have their being, and, therefore, the same nature, which is why I reject the double-procession.
I am fascinated at the way that this extracted you from the theological problems you had seen.
The view of nature and hypostasis that you describe does have a logic to it. I have always thought, though, that it is a somewhat tortured way of reconciling a literalistic view of the Scripture with the need to refute Arius.
The main difficulty I have with the particular issue of the double procession, although this is really off the topic, is reconciling it with Jesus' statements about how the Holy Spirit proceeds.
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
Before conversing with Andreas about this, I had never been exposed to the idea that the divine nature as analogous to the human nature, or indeed any other nature.
I had never heard it before either. I am frankly amazed that it makes sense to anyone. But once it is accepted I can easily see how it is a foundation for the explanations of the trinity that we have been discussing here.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The words used in scriptures are used with different meanings in different occasions. So, the term angel sometimes refers to angels, but other times refers to God the Son, and other times to people etc.
I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The important thing from an Orthodox perspective is that "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob" is Jesus before the Incarnation and it is Him Whom the Jews rejected when he came in human flesh.
I agree. I think that it is interesting that you agree with the need to have this One be the same One who came into the world as Jesus Christ. Most people assume that Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Father. But you are right that logically He has to be the Son.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The view of nature and hypostasis that you describe does have a logic to it. I have always thought, though, that it is a somewhat tortured way of reconciling a literalistic view of the Scripture with the need to refute Arius.
Keep in mind though that for the ancient Christians it was the natural explanation of what Jesus did and said and what the scriptures speak of. It was the Apostolic teaching and the faith of the Church. For the millionth time I repeat that IT WAS NOT A WAY OF RECONCILING SCRIPTURES WHILE REFUTING ARIUS BECAUSE THIS FAITH WAS EXPRESSED AND CONFESSED LONG BEFORE ARIUS.
quote:
The main difficulty I have with the particular issue of the double procession, although this is really off the topic, is reconciling it with Jesus' statements about how the Holy Spirit proceeds.
What statements? Jesus made only one recorded statement about that, and he says clearly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree. I think that it is interesting that you agree with the need to have this One be the same One who came into the world as Jesus Christ. Most people assume that Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Father. But you are right that logically He has to be the Son.
I am not the one that has to be credited with identifying Jesus and YAHWE. This was the underlying basis for the first and the second ecumenical councils. It was accepted by both the Orthodox fathers of those councils AND the heretics. They all took it for granted. They just disagreed on whether that Angel of the Lord was created or uncreated.
Father Romanides explains that this underlying and foundational basis for the correct understanding of the ecumenical councils was somehow "lost" when Augustinian theology prevailed in the West (because Augustine was not aware of what the fathers were really discussing about...) But I don't know.
Anyway, I have found it in the fathers BEFORE the first council, i.e. the first Christians and martyrs, I found it in the fathers of the first and the second council, I found it in the fathers of the ninth council (hesychastic controversy)... It's everywhere I look. Even Emperor Justinian, if memory serves me right, professed that faith.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
For the millionth time I repeat that IT WAS NOT A WAY OF RECONCILING SCRIPTURES WHILE REFUTING ARIUS BECAUSE THIS FAITH WAS EXPRESSED AND CONFESSED LONG BEFORE ARIUS.
Yes, it was, but so were many alternative ideas. These disagreements came to a head over time, and ultimately led to the need to conclusively refute Arius and other heretics. I didn't mean to say that they dreamed this up to refute Arius. It was one among many understandings in the primitive church - which had no single clearly defined christology. It rose to prominence in the course of the long efforts to combat heretical ideas in the church.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
The main difficulty I have with the particular issue of the double procession, although this is really off the topic, is reconciling it with Jesus' statements about how the Holy Spirit proceeds.
What statements? Jesus made only one recorded statement about that, and he says clearly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
There are quite a few statements. Jesus does say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father in these statements:
quote:
Luke 11:13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"
John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever.
But I'm thinking of other statements, where Jesus is described as the one who controls the Holy Spirit:
quote:
Matthew 3:11 John said, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
John 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on [them,] and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.”
I don't think that it is hard to see a tension between these statements. Not that I want to get into this issue. But Saint Bertelin said that this was significant to him. My point was just the need to reconcile these passages.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Just to add, I realize that the John 15 passage is the only one that uses the specific word "proceed." I'm thinking, though, that this needs to be reconciled with statements such as the others I listed. Hence the controversy.
[ 26. April 2007, 16:00: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I doubt it was one among many understandings inside ancient church... I think it was THE Apostolic teaching and it was confessed unanimously. Do you have any evidence that other understandings co-existed inside the ancient church? Because I have read no other explanation in the writings of the ancients on the issue...
As for the tension, I don't see what the other verses have to do with how the Holy Spirit is caused to exist... After all, the Holy Spirit sent the Son inside the Virgin's womb, but we don't say that the Son is begotten of the Spirit! "begotten" and "proceed" have to do with the cause for their existence and not with Christ's human birth or the Spirit's being sent to men...
Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on
:
I was just catching up on the thread. GreyFace, it seems that Andreas has got there first. I would have said essentially the same thing but less succinctly, I think. (Still learning, and all).
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
There are quite a few statements. Jesus does say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father in these statements:
quote:
Luke 11:13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"
John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever.
But I'm thinking of other statements, where Jesus is described as the one who controls the Holy Spirit:
quote:
Matthew 3:11 John said, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
John 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on [them,] and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.”
I don't think that it is hard to see a tension between these statements. Not that I want to get into this issue. But Saint Bertelin said that this was significant to him. My point was just the need to reconcile these passages.
I'm not sure I'd agree on this point. There is only a tension if there is a blurring of the difference between the eternal existence of the Persons and their actions in spatial, temporal creation. The Scriptural quotations that you provide refer to the latter. They show the Three Persons of the Trinity operating with unity of purpose in Creation but they do not refer to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father outside of the created realm, i.e. the Holy Spirit's mode of eternal being.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I doubt it was one among many understandings inside ancient church... I think it was THE Apostolic teaching and it was confessed unanimously. Do you have any evidence that other understandings co-existed inside the ancient church? Because I have read no other explanation in the writings of the ancients on the issue...
I would think that the multiplicity of views would be evident just from the number of heresies that had early church origins:
quote:
Adoptionism- God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
Albigenses- Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
Apollinarianism- Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
Docetism- Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
Donatism- Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.
Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
Monarchianism - God is one person.
Monophysitism- Jesus had only one nature: divine.
Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross
Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws.
Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods.
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
While the main proponents of these ideas may have been later individuals, they indicate to me a lack of clarity in the christology of the early church. The Apostles Creed is far from clear about these things, and does not even name the trinity.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
As for the tension, I don't see what the other verses have to do with how the Holy Spirit is caused to exist... After all, the Holy Spirit sent the Son inside the Virgin's womb, but we don't say that the Son is begotten of the Spirit! "begotten" and "proceed" have to do with the cause for their existence and not with Christ's human birth or the Spirit's being sent to men...
The Holy Spirit did not send the Son. The wording is "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit," (Matthew 1) and "“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1).
But I see your point about "proceeds" meaning that the ultimate origin is in the Father, even if it is governed by the Son. This helps me understand Saint Bertelin's point as well.
According to my theology, the Father is simply the Divine Love, the invisible interior divine that is beyond all human understanding. This is the origin of all things, and so it makes sense that this is what begets the Son, and is also the origin of the Holy Spirit. The Son is the Divine Truth as it interacts with and is made accessible to humanity - so it is both the Logos, the means of creation, and what was Incarnated. The Holy Spirit is the divine activity with humanity - whose origin is the Divine Love but comes to us only by means of the Son, the Divine Truth. Needless to say, the filioque is not an issue with us.
In any case, I guess that what you are saying about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, though sent by the Son, lines up with my own theology.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
No multiplicity of views in the Apostolic Kerygma. The Apostles taught one faith. The fact that some corrupted that faith and preached their own ways and tried to use reason to solve the theological problems of their times is irrelevant. After all, I am here to belong to the Apostolic Church, and not to the Church of some guy that says he is a Christian but teaches a different God than the One preached by the Apostles...
They came from us but they were not like us, comes to mind...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
I do agree that the apostles taught one faith. I also agree that this original view was corrupted over time.
I don't agree, though, that what you are saying here agrees with the apostolic faith that was originally taught by Jesus and the apostles.
I think that they would have been horrified to learn that Son was a distinct divine hypostasis begotten from eternity. To them He was simply God.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Then why does Paul says in so many places "God and Jesus"? If they are one person, then he wouldn't have said "and". Why does John say "the Word was [in the beginning] with God"? How can He be with God if He is that God?
Your approach is very problematic. Even from a historical point of view... We have Irineus a disciple of Polycarp a disciple of Apostle John speaking clearly about three in whom we believe? And even before Irineus, from the little we have available in writing, we can see that the Christian faith was faith in three persons.
We can discuss Scriptures, but I don't think this will get us anywhere.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
By the way, I notice that you use the "I and the Father are one" verse. I think it's important to distinguish between the English language and the Greek language, because in English adjectives like "one" have one form for all the masculine, the feminine and the neutral, while in Greek the difference is shown by the ending of the word. In that verse, the neutral form of the word one is used, and not the masculine form. And the form of the verb "to be" used is in plural (first person plural) like that famous verse from Genesis "let us create man"...
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In that verse, the neutral form of the word one is used, and not the masculine form.
As is the case for all love songs where a man and a woman are one (again, the neutral form of the word "one").
What do other Shipmates think about the trinitarian understanding I expressed in this thread?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Then why does Paul says in so many places "God and Jesus"? If they are one person, then he wouldn't have said "and". Why does John say "the Word was [in the beginning] with God"? How can He be with God if He is that God?
Repetition is a consistent feature of the Bible. So it says "the Word was [in the beginning] with God, and the Word was God." The style is to present two variations of a phrase, and to frequently present double titles or double names for one person. "My Lord and my God."
I do see your point, and this is obviously why the church went with this concept of the trinity.
My opinion is that the concept of one God takes precedence, and that the figurative language used should be understood from this priority.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear Freddy
We have been there before. It's not a repetition, because a different form of the word "God" is used in the Greek text. The fact that the English language does not distinguish between the two forms of the word "God" in "The word was with god and god was the word" is irrelevant. The Greek text says clearly "o logos in pros ton theon kai theos in o logos". It doesn't say "kai o theos in o logos"...
Plus, if the Word is the Father, there would be no need to say that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses. It would have said that the Lord appeared to Moses.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's not a repetition, because a different form of the word "God" is used in the Greek text.
In biblical repetitions the form usually does vary. The repetitions aren't pointless. They express deeper meanings, which are perceived in heaven, and which we can understand as well. Phrases such as "God and the Lamb" or "our Lord and His Christ" do not refer to two different beings but to the "Alpha and Omega" of one. So when the angels say:
quote:
Revelation 11:15“The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”
The "He" who will reign is just one.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Plus, if the Word is the Father, there would be no need to say that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses. It would have said that the Lord appeared to Moses.
Sometimes it says the Angel of the Lord appeared, other times that the Lord appeared, sometimes even that God appeared. It is said in different ways.
But the Father cannot appear, because Jesus says that no one has ever seen Him - meaning that the divine itself cannot be seen or grasped by anyone. He needs to accommodate Himself to us, which is the whole point of the Incarnation.
Most people, I think, understand this point when they say, for example, that God Himself can be neither male or female, because the divine in itself is beyond all such descriptions. We call this "the Father" just as a way of speaking about Him, but the reality is that we cannot conceive of the divine itself. We can conceive of the Son, which why Jesus said "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
A few finishing notes before I give some room for others to express themselves.
Alfa and Omega refers to Christ. It is His name in the Revelation and that's why peacocks were used as symbols for Jesus in antiquity (peacock=TAO in ancient Greek=an acronym for Alfa & Omega)
When phrases like "God and the Lamb" are spoken, they do show the distinction. God the Father is one, God the Son is another.
He who has seen me has seen the Father, because Jesus' divinity is also invisible and incomprehensible like the Father's.
Another "axiom" of Orthodoxy is that the divine nature is beyond comprehension and beyond words, and this applies to the divinity of all three divine persons. Not just the Father. But the Son and the Spirit are incomprehensible and ineffable too.
I guess we will agree to disagree, Freddy.
Now, what do OTHERS think?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Alfa and Omega refers to Christ. It is His name in the Revelation and that's why peacocks were used as symbols for Jesus in antiquity (peacock=TAO in ancient Greek=an acronym for Alfa & Omega)
Very nice. I agree. I didn't know that about the peacocks. That's great.
But why is that His name? Isn't it because He is the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End? Doesn't this imply that there is no other?
quote:
Isaiah 44:6 “ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.
Who is "the LORD the King of Israel"? Is He the Father? And who is "his Redeemer, the LORD of Hosts"? The Son? And which one of these is the First and Last?
To me it is easier to see that they are all the same, and that there is no other, as is so often repeated in Scripture:
quote:
Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
Deuteronomy 4:39 Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.
1 Kings 8:60 that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other.
Isaiah 44:6 “ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me.
Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “ I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isaiah 45:21 There is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me. Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me,
Joel 2:27 Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel: I am the LORD your God And there is no other. My people shall never be put to shame.
Mark 12:32 There is one God, and there is no other but He.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Corinthians 8:4 There is no other God but one.
Why would He harp so frequently on there being no other if there really was a distinction between hypostases that was signaled by these different names?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
When the Son says he is the Alpha and the Omega, we understand that He is not speaking in terms of persons, but in terms of natures. His nature is the true divinity, and since the Father is of the same nature, He is true God as well.
He says that after Him there is no other. You think the term person is implied. No other person. My understanding is that the term nature is implied. No other divine nature exists but Jesus' divinity.
Note that we do not reason the trinity from the scriptures. We get the trinity from our experience of God as He is revealed to us and we can show that this understanding exists in the bible as well, since the writers also experienced God that way. It's in the bible because this is our experience; we don't reason our faith out of texts.
That said, I am really out of here ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
When the Son says he is the Alpha and the Omega, we understand that He is not speaking in terms of persons, but in terms of natures. His nature is the true divinity, and since the Father is of the same nature, He is true God as well.
He says that after Him there is no other. You think the term person is implied. No other person. My understanding is that the term nature is implied. No other divine nature exists but Jesus' divinity.
Then we can take our pick. I understand that this distinguishing nature and person solves this problem for you. To me distingushing the figurative language of Scripture from what that language means solves it.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Note that we do not reason the trinity from the scriptures. We get the trinity from our experience of God as He is revealed to us and we can show that this understanding exists in the bible as well, since the writers also experienced God that way. It's in the bible because this is our experience; we don't reason our faith out of texts.
I see that this is your point of view. Mine is that we have no knowledge of God except from revelation. How can you get the trinity from your experience of God? The idea comes, I think, from what Jesus said about Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I spoke of Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria because their theology was proclaaimed in the first and in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth ecumenical councils respectively. However, the Kappadocean fathers were also mentioned. So, it's not just an a characteristic of Alexandrian thought.
I believe that in the broad sense the Cappadocean fathers were also Alexandrene.
quote:
Starting from Justin the Martyr, no, starting from Paul, the Lord of Glory has been identified with Jesus. He is the one who uttered the Shema in the Old Testament; not the Father. It is He the One that reveals in Himself the Father, because He is the image of the Father and the radiance of His hypostasis.
None of the above is in question. Is that clear?
quote:
You say the Jews worshipped God the Father. We speak of God as the Father, because He is the Father of the Son. If one does not accept the Son, then one does not accept the Father as well. So, they do not worship the hypostasis of the Father, although, because of our monarchy we can refer their worship to the Father. their vision of God remains unclear, although people like Moses and Abraham did have a clear view of God.
The Jews certainly worship God. God, as used in the New Testament, means the same as it means in the Old. If the fathers say otherwise, then they are wrong, as Chrysostom was wrong to say that God was the enemy of the Jews and that therefore he too was the enemy of the Jews.
Whatever is the Christian claim that there is only one God, it must be understood in a sense that does not contradict the Jewish claim. The Christian belief in the Trinity supplements but does not annul the Jewish confession.
The fathers may have had to argue against Judaism, but our task now is to reassert our continuity with Judaism.
quote:
But the Shema, if I remember correctly, was said by Jesus before the Incarnation, and not by the Father! Therefore "God" in the Shema does not mean "one divine person" or else the divinity of the Father would be denied!
Western Christians do not take 'God' there to mean 'one divine person'. But they certainly take it to mean that there is no other existent that of the same nature.
If we take 'God' in the Shema to mean anything other than 'a divine existent' then we make a nonsense of it. It would be as if a man denied that he was committing bigamy because both his wives shared the same nature of woman.
A problem here: in Greek one can use 'anthropos' to mean either an individual existent, or the nature in a platonic way. In English, it is not acceptable. (Thus English translations of Plato have to resort to periphrasis.) The formula 'I believe in one God' cannot mean 'I believe that there is only one kind of God'. In English, we would have to say 'I believe in three Gods' if we believe in only one nature but three substances.
I am not sure about the nature of Hebrew, but I think it is closer to English.
Dafyd
[ 26. April 2007, 23:39: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea comes, I think, from what Jesus said about Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Pardon me for saying that, but this is what the great heresiarchs did in antiquity.
The Orthodox fathers and saints and confessors and martyrs had personal experience of what they were talking about. They knew from intimate face-to-face experience the Trinity and they tried to guide others towards that experience. in doing so, they explained the scriptures in a reasonable way. On the other hand, the heresiarchs tried to give answers, but they lacked personal experience because their "protocol" was mistaken and they lacked the ethical character of the fathers. So, they used the words contained in the scriptures to "prove" their points.
For the Saints, revelation was something they could verify in their own lives. For the heresiarchs, revelation was the words contained in the scriptures and they explained those words so that they can fit their understanding.
The difference being between knowledge that comes from experience and knowledge that comes from rational processing of the scriptures.
So, it's one thing to start from the vision of the distinction between the three persons and explain scriptures under that light, and another to try and reach at conclusions from scriptures alone. We have seen that while the fathers have been pretty consistent with each other, the heretics said all kinds of different and contradicting things concerning the faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
]I believe that in the broad sense the Cappadocean fathers were also Alexandrene.
You said the difference in the attitudes expressed in this thread on the trinity have to do with the difference between Alexandrian and Antiochean theology. I replied that ALL the fathers I have read, no matter when they lived, or where they lived, or what language they spoke, they gave one and the same explanation of what the trinity is. I think you should give a few examples of what you mean by that "Antiochean" with regards to trinitarian theology. Who are those "Antiochean" theologians who expressed themselves in different ways about the trinity than the ways I expressed myself in this thread?
quote:
The Jews certainly worship God. God, as used in the New Testament, means the same as it means in the Old.
God who? Surely not the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, because that was Jesus Christ. They didn't understand God to be the Father either, cause the Father is the Father so long a Son exists, and they did not accept a Son. In Jesus' times those that rejected Him believed in the divine in an unclear way... Not in as clear a way as their forefathers and prophets did. God in the New and in the Old testament is one, but this does not mean that Judaism follows the Old Testament... After all, it is written that if they listened to Moses they would accept Him because Moses was talking about Him!
quote:
Whatever is the Christian claim that there is only one God, it must be understood in a sense that does not contradict the Jewish claim.
Of course we MUST CONTRADICT AND REJECT the Jewish claim. They claim that God is one person, we don't.
quote:
The Christian belief in the Trinity supplements but does not annul the Jewish confession.
The Christian belief in the Trinity equates the faith in the Trinity of the Patriarchs and the Prophets and the Just men and women of the Old Testament, but this faith is not the faith of Judaism...
quote:
If we take 'God' in the Shema to mean anything other than 'a divine existent' then we make a nonsense of it.
Then Christian faith is bullocks and the Jews have got it right all along... On the contrary, the Shema is spoken by the second person of the Trinity, by the second "divine existent" if you like, and it can only be understood as referring to the one divine nature.
quote:
A problem here: in Greek one can use 'anthropos' to mean either an individual existent, or the nature in a platonic way. In English, it is not acceptable.
First of all, the Greek SPEAKING fathers have rejected and condemned Platonism. That said, this argument, that one can use "God" to mean only a divine existent was used by the Arians. And they spoke Greek. This is why the fathers replied that they don't have a clue what the term means. Pretty much like what happened in the monothelite controversy. It's not a language issue. It's a theological issue. Greek speaking people said that will means "to will" ie the way of willing and Greek speaking people said that will means "what one wills". Greek speaking people said that one God means the one divine nature, and Greek speaking people said that God means the one divine individual. This is why e.g. Gregory said that if your use of language leads you to a theology that is different than the Church's you should change your language, and that custom in the use of language cannot be used as an excuse in theology.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea comes, I think, from what Jesus said about Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Pardon me for saying that, but this is what the great heresiarchs did in antiquity.
The Orthodox fathers and saints and confessors and martyrs had personal experience of what they were talking about. They knew from intimate face-to-face experience the Trinity and they tried to guide others towards that experience.
Andreas, are you saying that godly individuals from ancient times, even before Christ, who had personal experience with God always knew that He was a trinity?
While I think that there are passages in the Old Testament that can be seen that way, if you choose, I think that you are wrong about this.
I do agree that once a person is persuaded of an idea, no matter how heretical, he is inclined to interpret Scripture in a way that favors that heresy. This is what we always have to guard against by carefully reading and comparing the Scriptures.
But I think that the church is founded on God's revelation in Scripture, which testifies to His Incarnation. It is true that people need to also be enlightened by God in order to understand these Scriptures.
I think that it is wrong, though, to give priority to the personal experience of God that the Orthodox fathers and saints and confessors and martyrs may have had. In saying this you are really just admitting their writings to the canon, and saying that they have equal weight. Which is fine if you want to do that.
Christianity has always, I think, given priority to the Scriptures.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But I think that the church is founded on God's revelation in Scripture,
I don't. I think the church is founded on God's revelation that takes place in each one of us' personal Pentecost. What the scriptures called glorification is God's Revelation to man. The scriptures attest to that revelation; they are not that revelation. That revelation is beyond reason, beyond language, beyond words and cannot be expressed in words, nor be understood with reason.
quote:
I think that it is wrong, though, to give priority to the personal experience of God that the Orthodox fathers and saints and confessors and martyrs may have had. In saying this you are really just admitting their writings to the canon, and saying that they have equal weight.[/QB]
My own limited but personal experience agrees with theirs. So, for me, there can be no other way.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But I think that the church is founded on God's revelation in Scripture,
I don't. I think the church is founded on God's revelation that takes place in each one of us' personal Pentecost. What the scriptures called glorification is God's Revelation to man. The scriptures attest to that revelation; they are not that revelation. That revelation is beyond reason, beyond language, beyond words and cannot be expressed in words, nor be understood with reason.
I agree with you as far as the church in any particular individual goes. No book, no one else's experience, can reach into your soul. Only God can do that, and He does it on an individual basis.
But the source of legitimacy for the church as a whole is the common acceptance of beliefs, understandings, principles, and, if you will, humanity's storyline, that is recorded in some tangible, stable form. This is the Bible, insofar as it is universally accepted by Christian denominations as the inspired word of God. Of course not everyone accepts it that way, but it is nevertheless Christianity's core document. There are many other documents as well, but they have always been seen as peripheral to, and supportive of, the testimony of Scripture.
It's true, though, that this is only the basis of the church as a social and historical entity. The real church in the individual is based on the individual's connection with God - which hopefully also includes their faith in the Scriptures.
[ 27. April 2007, 17:12: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dude, stop being words-centric. Human words cannot and will never be able to speak of God's Revelation.
It's not an issue of me not accepting fully the wholeness of Scriptures. I accept the Scriptures but I see them saying exactly what I have been saying in this thread. The fact is that we can't reason our way out from the scriptures to Truth, because this was not what they were intended to achieve in the first place and because reason cannot give us any information of Revelation because Revelation surpasses reason.
Orthodox theology is not an issue of rational debates and philosophical arguments. It has to do with the faith once delivered to the Apostles but this faith is NOT a credal statement and cannot be put in human words.
People get integrated to the Church by being initiated. During our initiation those people that initiate us do matter. Since they guide us towards the same experience they get, they can guide us to Truth but they are also capable of guiding us elsewhere, depending on the extent on which they experience Truth.
We cannot agree with each other because of the way we see words and documents and revelation.
The source of legitimacy for the church as a whole is her holiness. The church is legitimate to the extent that she experiences God. Not documents, but holiness. And holiness has to do with the direct and unmediated experience of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to whom belongs all Glory.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dude, stop being words-centric. Human words cannot and will never be able to speak of God's Revelation.
Yet here you are writing away - somehow expecting to convey meaning, and hopefully agreement, by using words. Wouldn't it just be better to let God do His work?
You seem to me to be writing, as we all are, in the hope of communicating about these important issues, questions and truths. You also seem to be willing to put a great deal of time into the effort. So why are you dismissive of the value of the written Word?
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's not an issue of me not accepting fully the wholeness of Scriptures. I accept the Scriptures but I see them saying exactly what I have been saying in this thread.
I'm sure you do, and you have every right to do this. You may be right about all of this. I'm just saying that the evidence, to me, has to be Scriptural.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You seem to me to be writing, as we all are, in the hope of communicating about these important issues, questions and truths.
I'm communicating ABOUT these issues, ABOUT the way man can get a face-to-face meeting with God, I am NOT communicating the meeting ITSELF. It is the meeting, when God reveals Himself, rather, when we directly experience God, that cannot be put in words. Guiding people towards revelation is not the same as speaking of the revelation itself.
Do you see what I am saying? Scriptures are to be read in a like manner. They are guidelines towards revelation, they are not revelation itself.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Andreas, I agree completely. The Scriptures are not the meeting with God. That's a personal thing.
But if you want to communicate about that - especially if there is any question about the right thing to believe - this is what the Scriptures are for.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
How on earth does a sign saying "40 km to Athens" say anything about Athens itself? The Scriptures and everything else said and written by the saints are road signs towards Revelation. You don't get an understanding of revelation by listening to the road signs. You move your way towards it, but you do not learn something about it.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
That's right. But without the road signs, or without a map, you'll never find it.
The trick is finding reliable maps and signs.
I agree, though, that it is wrong to confuse the map, or the sign, with the thing itself.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dafyd wrote: quote:
Whatever is the Christian claim that there is only one God, it must be understood in a sense that does not contradict the Jewish claim.
Of course we MUST CONTRADICT AND REJECT the Jewish claim. They claim that God is one person, we don't.
No. The Jews are correct in what they claim. They are wrong only in what they deny.
quote:
quote:
The Christian belief in the Trinity supplements but does not annul the Jewish confession.
The Christian belief in the Trinity equates the faith in the Trinity of the Patriarchs and the Prophets and the Just men and women of the Old Testament, but this faith is not the faith of Judaism...[/QB]
The faith of Christianity is part of the faith of Judaism. We are all grafted in to the cultivated olive. But the Jews are already part of that olive. God has not broken the covenant with the Jewish people.
We through faith in Jesus become part of the faith that the Jews have already.
quote:
quote:
If we take 'God' in the Shema to mean anything other than 'a divine existent' then we make a nonsense of it.
Then Christian faith is bullocks and the Jews have got it right all along... On the contrary, the Shema is spoken by the second person of the Trinity, by the second "divine existent" if you like, and it can only be understood as referring to the one divine nature.
What is the point of telling the Israelites that there is only one kind of god?
quote:
Greek speaking people said that one God means the one divine nature, and Greek speaking people said that God means the one divine individual.
Clearly not, because if that was what they said then they weren't speaking Greek, they were speaking English.
'God' in English does not ever mean the divine nature. And if a Greek speaker says so, then the Greek speaker cannot speak English. Likewise, if an English speaker says that 'theos' cannot mean 'the divine nature' then the English speaker cannot speak Greek.
If you wish to translate the faith you express into English you must be translate it as 'there is one kind of God, and three Gods.' Unless I misunderstand you completely.
The English phrase 'there are three Gods', translated into Greek would be ambiguous: it could either mean three divine natures or it could mean three individuals. Incidentally do the Greek fathers ever use the Greek translation of the phrase to assert the existence of the three individuals?
Also, you spend much of your time asserting what we do not deny and denying what we do not assert. It might help if you tried to find out where your understanding of our position is wrong. Perhaps you could state what you think our position is.
Dafyd
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
How on earth does a sign saying "40 km to Athens" say anything about Athens itself? The Scriptures and everything else said and written by the saints are road signs towards Revelation.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That's right. But without the road signs, or without a map, you'll never find it... I agree, though, that it is wrong to confuse the map, or the sign, with the thing itself.
It might help to have a definition of 'Revelation' here. Andreas, you seem to define it as something static "out there", whereas I understand it as something dynamic - a movement from one object to another. Consequently I see the Scriptures as the channel for revelation and so in a sense revelation is indeed to be found there. If I see a sign saying "40km to Athens", I have in my mind an idea of Athens already - pretty incomplete, I admit, but a picture nevertheless. I also have an idea of what "40km" means and am able to get a feel for how far away I am from testing my picture against reality. The road sign becomes a channel for revelation.
Similarly with the map. A map certainly isn't the territory, but it is channel for revealing the territory in my mind.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear Dafyd
I am not sure you are hearing what I said. You say that in English God means a divine individual. This is however what the Greek-speaking heretics (like Arius) said about Theos. They said that theos means a divine individual, and that therefore there can be no other God than God the Father. The Orthodox Saints replied that they are to receive the meaning of the word God from Truth and not from the way they use language. Since in Truth there exist three divine persons, and since their unity has to do with their nature being one, they said that God as used by the Scriptures in phrases like "Your Lord is one God" cannot mean the divine individual but the divine nature.
Personally I see no difference between these words in English and in Greek. The fact that after all the debate when the Church speaks of one God she means the one divine nature is irrelevant to how language can be used.
As to what the position I oppose is, it's something like what St. Bertelin said about what his own faith was:
quote:
I had this concept of the divine nature being some mysterious, deeper reality of which the three Persons of the Trinity were somehow part. It was almost as though the divine nature was a being/entity in itself but I wouldn't have articulated it like that.
What do you mean when you say God is one?
Dear NigelM
To me revelation has only one meaning: When God reveals Himself directly to an individual, one's personal Pentecost. Because Revelation, unlike Athens, has to do with the One that cannot be described, we can have no idea what Revelation is like until we experience it personally. After all, we say in the bible that God is good etc, but this goodness doesn't really say much about God, because His goodness as revealed in a face-to-face experience is radically different from anything we are familiar with and which we can call good.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
To me revelation has only one meaning: When God reveals Himself directly to an individual, one's personal Pentecost. Because Revelation, unlike Athens, has to do with the One that cannot be described, we can have no idea what Revelation is like until we experience it personally.
OK I see; I would qualify things a bit because - although I don't think you mean it this way(?) - it sounds as though Revelation is in itself a mediator between God and man. Obviously there are mediators, but unless I were to refer to Jesus as 'Revelation', in the same way that the labels 'Wisdom', 'Truth', 'Image' etc. are applied to him, I would prefer to use revelation (with a small 'r') to denote the conduit through which God communicates and makes himself known to creation. A channel, rather than an image. It's just a matter of definition, I guess.
And I've just used another red-flag word: "known"!
Nigel
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
I'm not sure I understand why the nature of revelation is the issue here.
I think that we agree that an individual's personal relationship with God is the real connection, and that other ways of "knowing" - such as information gained from other people, or from written sources - merely take the place of it as a means of developing it.
But why are we talking about this?
Is it because Western Christianity relies on Scripture, whereas Orthodoxy accepts it but relies more heavily on the traditions of the church? Or, andreas, are you saying that we should not rely on any written source of information, but should rely only on our own revelation from God?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dear NigelM
Father Romanides wrote:
quote:
Amongst men, there are those of the Old and New Testaments, including certain saints, who have had visions of God at various levels similar to that of angels and these men are the highest spiritual guides and authoritative teachers of those who are striving for union with God. Neither for Dionysius nor for Palamas is baptism and sacramental participation in the Body of Christ yet union, because union is equivalent to vision of God and deification. Neither among angels, nor among men, is there any lack of direct communion with God, even among those who have been baptized and have not yet reached union or divinization. The Dionysian celestial and ecclesiastical hierarchy is not a closed system, as Father Meyendorff thinks. The most amazing thing about it is the fact that perfection is an eternal process which never comes to an end, even for the highest orders, since there can be no expulsion of motion and change and history by the actualization of every potentiality as happens with Neo-Platonic and Latin beatific visions. Had Meyendorff paid attention to these principles of Greek Patristic thought, he would have hit upon a real vindication of the eternal dimensions of history and motion.
This reflects more what I was trying to say. Dynamic, never ending, accessible even by those who have not yet reached their union with God... Direct communion with God corresponds with what I think you called "conduit" but is not what I called Revelation. Revelation the way I see it corresponds with father Romanides' "union"...
Dear Freddy
What do you think of this way of seeing things:
quote:
For Palamas and Dionysius the need of symbols in one's knowledge of God is done away with only during the supra-rational union with and vision of God by deification. In such cases the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and saints who see the uncreated glory of God have an immediate knowledge of God similar to that of angels. However, those same prophets, apostles, and saints may be initiated into the meaning of their immediate vision of the glory of God by angels. But these angels never produce the vision of God, nor do they become symbolic substitutes for God as happens for Augustine and the Latin West. Now the experience of those men who are taken up into God's glory is expressed to their fellow men by means of symbolic words and imagery, and these symbols become the basis of our Biblical tradition and are called symbolic theology, or the theology of Divine Names, and are by no means to be confused with reducing historical events to symbols of eternal truths as happens with allegory. It must be clearly borne in mind that the prophets, apostles, and saints in seeing the uncreated light or glory of God did not see symbols, but were sometimes initiated into the meaning of their experience by angels and expressed the will of God to their fellow men by means of symbols familiar to the society in which they lived.
[snip]
Now the fact that the highest knowledge of God for Palamas and Dionysius is immediate vision of the uncreated glory of God even in this life, plus the fact that this vision and knowledge is above all categories of vision and knowledge because God remains a mystery even when unknowingly known, means that the Biblical symbols of the divine names can never become part of any credo ut intelligam method of theologizing, and that the very idea of Theologians or the Church getting a deeper understanding of revealed or dogmatic truth with the passage of time is nonsense, especially when these theologians not only have not seen the uncreated glory of God, but claim that those prophets, apostles, and saints who did see it saw either a creature or something imaginary.
[snip]
In order to substantiate this claim that the hesychasts may be having demonic visions, Akindynos appeals to the Fathers, who warn against visions which appear in shapes and forms and advise that the mind must be kept immaterial and formless. Palamas is quick to take advantage of this blunder to remind Akindynos that this would make his revelations to the prophets and apostles by means of real or imaginary symbols demonic. Nevertheless, Akindynos claims that at the baptism of Christ, St. John saw a dove which symbolized the Holy Spirit, but he did not see God. Palamas ridicules the idea that a dove could ever take the place of the Holy Spirit in St. John's vision and insists that there was no bird in the revelation. What St. John saw transcends human reason and is expressed by the dove symbol. Akindynos returns to the Thaboric experience and claims that the body of Christ was there the symbol of divinity which the apostles discerned by faith.
This is not a church traditions vs scriptures issue. It has to do with what the scriptural writers actually did when they wrote scriptures and the actual meaning of what they wrote...
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.15.en.notes_on_the_palamite_controversy.01.htm
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.15.en.notes_on_the_palamite_controversy.02.htm
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
This short story from fr. Florovsky's work on the Byzantine fathers reflects the ancient understanding of what tritheism means:
quote:
A more serious schism was that of the Tritheists, also known as the Cononites from their leader Conon, one of the early associates of Jacob — they were also known as the Philoponists from John Philoponus (d.c. 565). According to the extant sources the origin of Tritheism occurred in a most casual way. In a meeting with the Chalcedonians John Philoponus allegedly asked: "If you speak about two natures, why do you not also speak of two hypostases since nature and hypostasis are identical?" The Chalcedonian response was that they would indeed do so "if we considered nature and hypostasis identical, but as a point of fact we distinguish between the two." The Chalcedonian reportedly continued by proposing that John Philoponus, if he held nature and hypostasis to be identical, should therefore speak of three natures in the Godhead. His reply allegedly was: "Then, we will do so." When the astonished Chalcedonian exclaimed that to do so would be to teach Tritheism, John reportedly replied that "in the Trinity I count as many natures, essences, and Godheads as I do hypostases."
To the best of my knowledge, this is the only heresy that was accused of tritheism. It was because they divided the nature of the three divine persons and NOT because they counted them as three.
Isn't this different from what you people in this thread have been calling tritheism? Because as far as I can see, your view of what tritheism means differs from the ancient view... Which poses many problems as to what "one God" means...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Isn't this different from what you people in this thread have been calling tritheism? Because as far as I can see, your view of what tritheism means differs from the ancient view... Which poses many problems as to what "one God" means...
It doesn't seem different to me.
I'm actually stuck trying to understand where anyone got the idea of a distinction between nature and hypostasis. When was that distinction first proposed?
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm not sure I understand why the nature of revelation is the issue here.
Freddy, it goes beyond revelation for me; it's the issue whether revelation of anything divine can communicate God in any meaningful way. Without a viable connection between creator and creation, and also without a desire on behalf of the creator to facilitate understanding by creation in addition to knowing, all talk of trinity, union or unity is meaningless.
What do we mean when we talk about a personal experience of God? Is it his actions? His 'person'? Or is it a heightened awareness of our own status as made in God's image (i.e. not anything directly about God at all)? Just what is being communicated?
I'm happy with the idea that God communicates himself - there's a union going on here - to his creation. I'm also keen to uphold the idea that the creation can 'know' God and that this knowing (and understanding) can occur through (not necessarily 'in') Scripture. I think the map analogy holds to an extent here: I read a map that has no meaning in and of itself; meaning is placed there by the author who seeks to communicate meaning to me by way of signa.
To that extent, I was not sure what andreas meant when he said that "revelation is beyond reason, beyond language, beyond words and cannot be expressed in words, nor be understood with reason." I sense that the term 'revelation' is being used for an experience quite a way down the Christian's path (a sublime experience), whereas I understood it to refer to each and any increase in understanding and knowledge of God from day one. So, a person can talk meaningfully about God (in trinitarian terms, even) no matter where he or she is on the Christian path.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Freddy, I'm not sure you are following...
The Orthodox were astonished that a Monophysite would claim there are three divine natures. Because that would be Tritheism. You are astonished I claim three divine persons. This, to the ancient Church, is trinitarianism, NOT TRITHEISM.
As far as I can tell, the accusation of tritheism was applied a) by the heretics, like Arius, to the Orthodox for their faith in the trinity and b) by the Orthodox to that obscure sect for their saying there are three divine natures.
In this thread, and in other threads, when someone accused me for tritheism, they did not do that based on the ancient Christian understanding, but they did so for the same reasons the Arians and the Eunomians were calling the Orthodox tritheists! Or so it seems to me.
In a like manner, I am astonished by the way some (like Divine Outlaw Dwarf) speak of Christ as if he was a human individual... This is unbelievable within the Orthodox patristic tradition. Which leads me to think that there is something deeply disturbing and alarming within the Western Christian understanding of what Christianity is supposed to be teaching...
I got rather frustrated. I guess I shouldn't have. But I just wanted to express that frustration
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I'm happy with the idea that God communicates himself - there's a union going on here - to his creation. I'm also keen to uphold the idea that the creation can 'know' God and that this knowing (and understanding) can occur through (not necessarily 'in') Scripture.
That's the way I see it too.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
To that extent, I was not sure what andreas meant when he said that "revelation is beyond reason, beyond language, beyond words and cannot be expressed in words, nor be understood with reason."
Actually, this part of what andreas said makes perfect sense to me. He's just talking, I think, about revelation on a deeper level, a level that is not explicitly about words but about an interior state.
In the New Church this kind of revelation was what the most ancients, the people meant by Adam and Eve experienced in Eden. Although these people were pre-literate they experienced a profound communication and union with God. It depended on their deep love of Him and the purity of their hearts.
In this system the Fall was essentially the loss of that communication, as they succumbed to the inclination to credit the information of their senses (the serpent) over this interior wisdom from God. This eventually removed them from their paradisal state of peace and contentment.
The issue was then how to recover that lost peace, or how to return to the garden. Since they could no longer reliably receive that interior revelation from God, they needed an external source that would take its place.
This is what the Incarnation is about.
So the primary feature of the history of humanity is the steady increase of knowledge of all kinds. Knowledge, and specifically the revealed knowledge of religion, is the means to replace what was lost in ancient times. Over the course of history, people have become increasingly able to understand and use complex ideas to shape both their inner and outer world.
The idea is that people can regain that kind of interior understanding, or even interior revelation, by following the road map that God gives through a series of revelations that have been recorded and passed along. This is therefore how He works with us through the ages.
Of course it's all about learning to love God and the neighbor - which turns out to be a surprisingly difficult and complex process, needing to be supported by a depth of knowledge as yet lacking in human society. But we are on our way.
So I think that this deep communication is what andreas is referring to. I think that he is mistaken in his approach, because although this kind of inner revelation is a goal, the means to that goal is to follow the "road map" of written revelation. I think that without this as a guide we are unable to find our way and will become spiritually lost.
But still, I understand what he means and it does make sense to me.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Freddy, I'm not sure you are following...
The Orthodox were astonished that a Monophysite would claim there are three divine natures. Because that would be Tritheism. You are astonished I claim three divine persons. This, to the ancient Church, is trinitarianism, NOT TRITHEISM.
andreas you reiterate this is virtually every post. How could I possibly not be following it? It's not a hard concept to grasp.
My question is why the distinction between nature and hypostasis - which is absolutely foundational to this entire discussion - makes sense to you. Where did this idea come from? When was it first proposed?
It seems to me that everything that you have been saying stands or falls on this distinction - which I, frankly, do not buy.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In this thread, and in other threads, when someone accused me for tritheism, they did not do that based on the ancient Christian understanding, but they did so for the same reasons the Arians and the Eunomians were calling the Orthodox tritheists! Or so it seems to me.
Yes, good point.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My question is why the distinction between nature and hypostasis - which is absolutely foundational to this entire discussion - makes sense to you. Where did this idea come from? When was it first proposed?
Consider the metaphysics expressed in one way by Plato and in another very different way by Aristotle.
Suppose two things can be referred to by the same word, in such a way that reflects underlying reality. So two cows are both cows; two humans are both humans. In the Platonic/Aristotelian system this reflects reality (when it does so) because the two cows share the form of cowness, and the two humans share the form of humanness.
Now I assume that what Andreas is saying is that each of the divine persons shares the form of God, has the nature of God, but that there are three distinct individuals, three Gods - in the same way as if you have three humans in the room there is only one human nature or form of humanity in the room, but three different people.
According to my recent reading (Henry Chadwick's The Early Church) the first person to use the formula 'three persons in one substance' was Tertullian, who was writing in the West. There's no earlier expression of the formula.
Dafyd
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You say that in English God means a divine individual.
This is however what the Greek-speaking heretics (like Arius) said about Theos. They said that theos means a divine individual, and that therefore there can be no other God than God the Father. The Orthodox Saints replied that they are to receive the meaning of the word God from Truth and not from the way they use language.
Since in Truth there exist three divine persons, and since their unity has to do with their nature being one, they said that God as used by the Scriptures in phrases like "Your Lord is one God" cannot mean the divine individual but the divine nature.
Personally I see no difference between these words in English and in Greek. The fact that after all the debate when the Church speaks of one God she means the one divine nature is irrelevant to how language can be used.
[QUOTE][QB]
What do you mean when you say God is one?
I mean that there is no God beside God. I mean that it is not correct to worship any being other than God, and that it is correct to worship Jesus.
Furthermore, I affirm that God is not the kind of thing that there could be more than one of. We cannot count God.
I mean that all humanity and all created things have a common destiny in God.
I affirm that the act by which the Father eternally begets the Son must not be understood in any way in which there is any similarity with the act by which the Trinity creates that which is other than God. God might have not created any world and might have created a different creation, but it is not the case that the Father might not have begotten the Son. No person has any existence independent of the other two persons.
And when I say that there are three, I say that the Son is not same person as the Father but is eternally begotten, and that the Spirit is neither the Son nor the Father but eternally proceeds.
Our language cannot speak of God so that any but the saints in glory may understand. Nevertheless it may help us overcome our perpetual desire to contruct idols and thereby open us to God's grace and love.
Therefore I affirm two ways of speaking about God, which are both true so long as neither denies the other. It is spiritually fruitful to speak of or image God as three distinct persons, and it is fruitful to speak of God as memory, reason and love - so long as neither denies the truth of the other.
Dafyd
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You say that in English God means a divine individual. This is however what the Greek-speaking heretics (like Arius) said about Theos. They said that theos means a divine individual, and that therefore there can be no other God than God the Father. The Orthodox Saints replied that they are to receive the meaning of the word God from Truth and not from the way they use language.
It seems to me that, assuming you are correct, then Arius was right to say that theos can mean a divine individual but wrong to say that it cannot also mean the divine nature.
The last sentence is confused. Words do not get their meaning from truth, since any word can be used to state a falsehood. Or to be more precise, words get their reference from truth and their sense from language.
quote:
Personally I see no difference between these words in English and in Greek. The fact that after all the debate when the Church speaks of one God she means the one divine nature is irrelevant to how language can be used.
I apologise if I misunderstand you in what follows, and if my words come out as more argumentative than I intend. I seek only to understand and to explain.
If the word 'theos' means the divine nature, and the word 'God' does not, then there is a difference. If you cannot see it, that is because you don't speak English well enough. You have been told falsely that the two words are the same in all respects.
I think the actual difference is in the way the language works, not the actual word. English must mark a noun as somehow special, eg 'x-ity' or 'x-ness' to use it to mean 'the nature of xs'.
If the Church is using language when she speaks, the Church has to use language in the way in which language is used. If the Church does not do so, she doesn't speak at all.
You say that when the Church speaks of one God she means the one divine nature. Now when we speak of one humanity we mean the one human nature. But when we speak of one human we mean a single human person.
Do I understand the following clearly?
The Nicene Creed begins: I believe in one God, the Father. You say that in this sentence 'one God' does not mean 'only one God' but that it means that the Father is one God? Am I right?
Is it ever acceptable to say that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit together are three Gods?
If it is not acceptable, is this because 'theos' can only mean the divine nature and can never mean a divine individual?
Dafyd
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
According to my recent reading (Henry Chadwick's The Early Church) the first person to use the formula 'three persons in one substance' was Tertullian, who was writing in the West. There's no earlier expression of the formula.
Thank you, Dafyd. I see here that he also introduced the term "trinity" and that his dates are ca. 155–230.
I guess that this formula is universally accepted. Am I right about that? This puzzles me, because I think it is an unfortunate concept.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Dafyd
I still don't understand what you mean when you say "there is one God". What does the word "God" in that phrase means?
You are saying that for three divine persons the way I describe them we should have been using the term "three Gods", But you, within your framework, use the term "one God". Am I right in thinking that you do not mean the trinity the way I do?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If the Church is using language when she speaks, the Church has to use language in the way in which language is used. If the Church does not do so, she doesn't speak at all.
You say that when the Church speaks of one God she means the one divine nature. Now when we speak of one humanity we mean the one human nature. But when we speak of one human we mean a single human person.
This was extensively discussed by the fathers of the first and the second ecumenical council and the heretics. There are two options. Either edit the scriptures and change the sacred words so that they can speak of "three Gods", or change the erroneous human custom of speaking of "many humans". But because in the case of man no huge error with regards to salvation happens when you say "Andreas and Dafyd are two men", but it affects our salvation to say there are three Gods, we don't mind the former while we are strict on the latter.
Language, especially as far as God is concerned, does not predate religion. Therefore, religion is not to learn the meaning of the word God from the current use of language, but language is to be taught by true religion.
P.S. I don't agree with what you say on Plato and Aristotle... But I don't want to change the thread's focus from trinitarian Orthodoxy to ancient Greek philosophy.
Freddy... The use of the terminology is irrelevant. And I don't think that highly of Tertullian, because of the heresy he fell into later in life. However, you can go even before Tertullian and see what more prominent fathers taught... what they said the Apostolic faith they received was.
For example, Ireneus of Lyons speaks of "three points" in which we believe, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He says that: "This, beloved, is the preaching of the truth, and this is the manner of our redemption, and this is the way of life, which the prophets proclaimed, and Christ established, and the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children. This must we keep with all certainty, with a sound will and pleasing to God, with good works and right-willed disposition."
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm
Isn't the language of "three points" similar to my way of understanding what the trinity means?
P.S. In a post above I explained that the Creator in the Creed refers to God the Father. This was not to exclude the Son and the Spirit from creating the cosmos, but in order to affirm God the Father's being the Creator which the heretics rejected saying that the world was not created by God but by an evil deity.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Here's an excerpt from Ireneus' (second century) work on the Apostolic Faith:
quote:
6. This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our conversation: God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith. The second point is: The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father: through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and man. And the third point is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteousness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God.
7. And for this reason the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit.
[snip]
100. So then, in respect of the three points of our seal, error has strayed widely from the truth. For either they reject the Father, or they accept not the Son and speak against the dispensation of His incarnation; or else they receive not the Spirit, that is, they reject prophecy.
And here's some of what Saint Hippolytus (died about 236 AD) wrote:
quote:
Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced.
[snip]
The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God;
[snip]
And that by Himself in person He might prove that God made nothing evil, and that man possesses the capacity of self-determination, inasmuch as he is able to will and not to will, and is endued with power to do both. This Man we know to have been made out of the compound of our humanity. For if He were not of the same nature with ourselves, in vain does He ordain that we should imitate the Teacher. For if that Man happened to be of a different substance from us, why does He lay injunctions similar to those He has received on myself, who am born weak; and how is this the act of one that is good and just?
See how Saint Hippolytus speaks of the two natures of Christ and of the one nature of the Father and the Son? Note that this distinction predates Arius (born in 250 AD).
Also note that Saint Hippolytus was accused by the Sabellians as a ditheist and that they used the same line of arguments used in this thread against what I said is the trinitarian monotheism of Christianity...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm
It's interesting that in this work all these verses, from "you shall have no other God beside me" and "I am the first and the last" and "I and the Father are one" were used by those Noetians against the trinitarian orthodoxy of Saint Hippolytus. His replies are very interesting and revealing...
[ 29. April 2007, 15:41: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Freddy... The use of the terminology is irrelevant.
The reason that I think it is important is that it shows the way that people were dealing with the language of Scripture. I think that it is mistaken to think of God in terms of one nature and three persons - so I am wondering when this language, which is not present in Scripture, crept into their thinking. The answer seems to be Tertullian.
To me it seems obvious that these people were grappling with the problem of how to think about Jesus' words about the Father, if Jesus Himself is also God and if there is only one God. This is a serious and puzzling issue.
The solution of one nature and three persons is a very understandable conclusion to come to. It is also wrong, in my opinion.
andreas, in everything you have written about this you make it clear that you actually think in terms of three distinct entities, each of whom are God in regard to their nature, but who are separate as to their persons. As I have said, I call that tritheism, and I understand that you call this the trinity and not tritheism.
But I'm not sure that you are seeing that I also have a problem with the very idea that nature and person are divided in God the way that Tertullian proposed.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And I don't think that highly of Tertullian, because of the heresy he fell into later in life. However, you can go even before Tertullian and see what more prominent fathers taught... what they said the Apostolic faith they received was.
For example, Ireneus of Lyons speaks of "three points" in which we believe, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I love Ireneus, and think very highly of what he writes here. I don't have a problem with what he writes about the "three points" or with what he writes about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He stays within the language and imagery of Scripture. It is noticeable that he makes no reference to any idea of one nature and three persons.
andreas I'm not sure that you understand that my issue is not with the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but with an understanding of these terms that turns them into three persons or three hypostases.
I understand these terms to be figurative language used to explain the relationship of the invisible interior divine, the Father, with the visible, incarnated divine, the Son. All of Jesus' sayings, prayers, and struggles, in which He speaks about or with the Father, are about the relationship between the external and the internal, and the process of uniting them, or of bringing the external into perfect unity and correspondence with the internal.
The Old Testament often speaks of the "spirit" of God and yet no one ever saw this as a distinct person from God Himself. People understood that this was simply God. But when the Son came along it was more complicated, because He spoke as if they were separate persons - with one bowing to the will of the other.
Ireneus does not fully grapple with this issue, speaking firmly about one God, and about Jesus as "God with us", and yet not resolving how it could be that He and the Father are one and the same. The idea of nature and persons does resolve the issue - but, in my opinion, it creates many more.
[ 29. April 2007, 17:39: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dafyd
I still don't understand what you mean when you say "there is one God". What does the word "God" in that phrase means?
God means the blessed and holy uncreated Trinity, (except when it is clear from the context that it refers to one member of the Trinity, usually the Father).
When we understand the word 'God' we understand the Father through the Son by the power of the Spirit. We understand the Son and when we understand the Son, the Son makes the Father understood. The Son is the knowledge and understanding of the Father.
Thus, Jesus says 'he who has seen me has seen the Father'.
So:
quote:
And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spoke with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.
quote:
Without the Spirit it is not possible to behold the Word of God, nor without the Son can any draw near to the Father: for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit
quote:
So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God. And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father. Because to created things the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable, therefore those who are to draw near to God must have their access to the Father through the Son.
quote:
These things did the prophets set forth in a prophetical manner; but they did not, as some allege, [proclaim] that He who was seen by the prophets was a different [God], the Father of all being invisible.
quote:
You are saying that for three divine persons the way I describe them we should have been using the term "three Gods", But you, within your framework, use the term "one God". Am I right in thinking that you do not mean the trinity the way I do?
I am not sure how you understand the Trinity.
If you refuse to use the phrase 'there are three Gods' then we may understand the Trinity in the same way.
As I see it, I think your way of understanding the Trinity is one true way and the Western tradition is another true way, and that both are correct in what they affirm and false in what they deny. That is, we can start from the three persons or start from the one substance.
Thus I mean what you mean, but you do not mean what I mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Language, especially as far as God is concerned, does not predate religion. Therefore, religion is not to learn the meaning of the word God from the current use of language, but language is to be taught by true religion.
If you mean that theology may stipulate that by 'God' we understand the creator of the universe, and not merely beings such as Odin or Thor, this is true. However, if you mean that theology may stipulate that the statement 'two humans' used to mean 'you and me' is used erroneously, you are talking nonsense.
I do not think the fathers talked nonsense for the most part, and so I suspect that either you misunderstood them or you have not clearly communicated what you meant.
quote:
P.S. I don't agree with what you say on Plato and Aristotle... But I don't want to change the thread's focus from trinitarian Orthodoxy to ancient Greek philosophy.
If I am trying to understand what you are saying, then I need to know how my understanding of what you are saying is incorrect.
quote:
Isn't the language of "three points" similar to my way of understanding what the trinity means?
Yes. The question though is not whether it agrees with what you say, but whether it denies what you deny. And as above, I don't think it is intended to do so.
Dafyd
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Dafyd, what are you quoting there? Several of them are very nice. Are they Ireneus?
Posted by Davy Wavy Morrison (# 12241) on
:
Now I understand why rectors get their curates to preach on Trinity Sunday.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
It's not an issue of language or a different approach being used in the East than that in the West.
Let's see what Saint Hilary (died on 368 AD), a Latin-speaking bishop of Poitiers, wrote on the issue... He has the same understanding, and he does not let the way common people use language affect his faith. Neither does he thinks in a different manner because of Latin.
quote:
There is a distinction, for They are Father and Son; not that Their Divinity is different in kind, for Both are One, God of God, One God Only begotten of One God Unbegotten. They are not two Gods, but One of One
(on the trinity, book 2, emphasis mine)
Saint Hillary explains that there is one God because the divine nature is one.
quote:
23. You hear the words, I and the Father are one John 10:30 . Why do you rend and tear the Son away from the Father? They are a unity: an absolute Existence having all things in perfect communion with that absolute Existence, from Whom He is. When you hear the Son saying, I and the Father are one, adjust your view of facts to the Persons; accept the statement which Begetter and Begotten make concerning Themselves. Believe that They are One, even as They are also Begetter and Begotten. Why deny the common nature? Why impugn the true Divinity?
(book 3, emphasis mine)
That great Saint speaks clearly of two Absolute Existences, which are called one, because they are of the same nature.
And when he rejects what the Sabbelians confessed, he writes:
quote:
we reject this confusion of two Persons in One, while yet we cleave to the Divine unity. That is, we hold that God from God means unity of nature; for that Being, Who, by a true birth from God, became God, can draw His substance from no other source than the Divine.
(book 6, emphasis mine)
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
Now I understand why rectors get their curates to preach on Trinity Sunday.
Yes, I think that this is why people often resort to the word "mystery":
quote:
The existence of theological mysteries is a doctrine of Catholic faith defined by the Vatican Council, which declares: "If any one say that in Divine Revelation there are contained no mysteries properly so called (vera et proprie dicta mysteria), but that through reason rightly developed (per rationem rite excultam) all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles: let him be anathema" (Sess. III, Canons, 4. De fide et Ratione, 1). This teaching is clearly explained in Scripture. The principal proof text, which was cited in part by the Vatican Council, is I Cor., ii. Shorter passages are especially Eph., iii, 4-9; Col., i, 26-27; Matt., xi, 25-27; John i 17-18. These texts speak of a mystery of God, which only infinite wisdom can understand, namely, the designs of Divine Providence and the inner life of the Godhead.
If I'm not mistaken, the contradiction which appears to be inherent in a trinity that is not tritheism is often identified that way.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Freddy, we say the incarnation is a mystery, but we do not mean that there is a paradox with God the Son coming in the flesh in Judea. The mystery is the way the Incarnation happened, not that it happened. Likewise, the divine nature is mysterious and the way the Son is begotten of the Father (and the way the Spirit proceeds from the father) is a mystery, but it is no mystery that there is one divine nature in three divine persons and that the Father is the source of the other two...
Yes, some people do hide their unclear understanding behind the term "mystery", but the Church's view on the trinity has been clearly explained by the holy Christians of the first centuries and that faith was re-affirmed, at least in Orthodoxy, by all the holy people of God at all times and places.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
but it is no mystery that there is one divine nature in three divine persons and that the Father is the source of the other two...
Are you sure? I have often heard the term "mystery" applied to the idea that there are three persons and yet, mysteriously, not three gods.
Maybe that is just in the popular imagination. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
As I have mentioned, I don't think that the concept of one divine nature but three persons is actually helpful here.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
And I have implied that much of Western christianity at the moment is unitarian... So, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that this has been your experience. I wouldn't be surprised even if you quoted some Orthodox (that are not Saints though) attributing it to mystery that "paradox"... I find it shocking that the same things that was said by the Arians and the Sabellians and the Eunomians against the holy people of God, that they were tritheists, is now also said against the distinction I confess between the three persons, but perhaps I should not be surprised.... especially if I take into account a) the real consequences of and causes for the schism and b) the fact that theology and sanctity cannot be separated, i.e. the only theologians whose theology is authentic and true are the Saints.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As I have mentioned, I don't think that the concept of one divine nature but three persons is actually helpful here.
Why? There is One God and this God has a Son... How many gods? One. The Father. But the Son isn't of a different nature than the Father. Just like the Son of a man is man and not a horse or a rose or a stone, so the Son of God is God. Same nature, different person. The difference being that He lives in the Father and the Father in Him. So, we can use the term God as a name, referring to the Father, like Paul or the Creed does, we can use it to mean the divine nature, ann we can use it, as a consequence of all this, to call a divine person on an individual basis. But these three different uses of the term are not to be confused.
[ 30. April 2007, 15:35: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I find it shocking that the same things that was said by the Arians and the Sabellians and the Eunomians against the holy people of God, that they were tritheists, is now also said against the distinction I confess between the three persons, but perhaps I should not be surprised....
The Arians and the Sabellians and the Eunomians were heretics. The solutions that they proposed to the puzzling nature of the trinity were not any better than the one that was adopted. It doesn't mean that their criticism of three persons was necessarily wrong.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
They were heretics because they were not standing firm on the ground of sanctity. When one tries to solve the great theological problems of one's times based not on communion with God but on what is available to all humans irrespectively of their morality, i.e. the wisdom of this world, this is where we get... Heresy...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
They were also heretics because they were not standing on the solid ground of Scripture...
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
The Scriptures cannot be understood by the non-holy, because they were written by people that were themselves holy who tried to guide others towards a face-to-face meeting with God. So, the heretics misinterpreted the scriptures, using phrases like "I an the father are one" and "he who has seen me has seen the father" in a mistaken way, not intended by the original authors. Unlike them, the holy people of God knew from experience what the scriptural writers were talking about, and they defended the Scriptures against the heretics' misusing them. But since the wisdom of man on which the heretics were dependent, is not enough to search the Wisdom of God, they could not understand the reasonableness of what the Christians that have kept the Apostolic faith were telling them, leading themselves to their own destruction...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Dafyd, what are you quoting there? Several of them are very nice. Are they Ireneus?
Yes, they are.
Dafyd
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Scriptures cannot be understood by the non-holy, because they were written by people that were themselves holy who tried to guide others towards a face-to-face meeting with God.
The problem with this argument is that it equally applies to you, Andreas. If one side slings mud, the other side can sling mud back.
It doesn't convince anyone or help anyone learn; it merely entrenches both sides in their own pride and folly.
I'm sorry that you feel the need to resort to name-calling.
Dafyd
[ 30. April 2007, 17:40: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
It's not name-calling. It's my analysis on what those people did. Imagine the countless gnostic sects, and the heresiarchs that existed after that, from Arius and Sabellius, to Eunomius and Nestorius... What is it that those people did? How where they led in their errors? My view is clear about them and those that like them struggled with the important theological questions without being holy. After all, holiness takes a great price, while rational discourse is relatively easy, especially for people as distinguished as they were.
P.S. I read those quotes from Saint Ireneus and I see they are perfectly trinitarian and within what I have been describing. This does not mean though that I am surprised people misunderstand them to uphold unitarianism... I am not. It's no different than the debates of antiquity.
[ 30. April 2007, 17:45: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
It's interesting to see that the Latin-speaking Saints also said the same things concerning the way people use language. Saint Ambrose, in his work on the Christian faith (book 5), he writes:
quote:
39. But the Arians maintain the following: If you say that, as the Father is the only true God, so also is the Son, and confess that the Father and the Son are both of one substance, you introduce not one God, but two. For they who are of one substance seem not to be one God but two Gods. Just as two men or two sheep or more are spoken of, but a man and a sheep are not spoken of as two men or two sheep, but as one man and one sheep.
40. This is what the Arians say; and by this cunning argument they attempt to catch the more simple-minded. However if we read the divine Scriptures we shall find that plurality occurs rather amongst those things which are of a diverse and different substance, that is, ????????? . We have this set forth in the books of Solomon, in that passage in which he said: "There are three things impossible to understand, yea, a fourth which I know not, the track of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the path of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man in his youth." Proverbs 30:18-19 An eagle and a ship and a serpent are not of one family and nature, but of a distinguishable and different substance, and yet they are three. On the testimony of Scripture, therefore, they learn that their arguments are against themselves.
This discussion, unfortunately, became too hard to follow... I'm partly responsible for that. My question as to how influential some forms of unitarianism are remains. Many thanks to those that contributed... Especially to Freddy. And apologies to the people that found my posts difficult to read...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
So when Ambrose confesses that the Father and the Son are of one substance, you agree that he is defending the catholic faith?
Because that is what we are saying - that you must not deny that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are of one substance.
And you must also affirm that they are three persons.
Dafyd
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's not name-calling. It's my analysis on what those people did. Imagine the countless gnostic sects, and the heresiarchs that existed after that, from Arius and Sabellius, to Eunomius and Nestorius...
It is name calling because it is saying that we who disagree with you are unholy and therefore unable to understand. This may be the case. But the opposite may also be the case - so it isn't an argument that is usually made in polite company.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
What is it that those people did? How where they led in their errors?
They did, I agree, misunderstand the Scriptures - but whether they did this willfully we cannot know. Their errors, though, in the end, were that they denied the teaching of Scripture, such as that some denied Jesus' divinity for example.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
My view is clear about them and those that like them struggled with the important theological questions without being holy. After all, holiness takes a great price, while rational discourse is relatively easy, especially for people as distinguished as they were.
Yes, rational discourse is easy. It is not so easy to walk the walk, which is what really counts.
It is tricky, however, to exclude unholy people from struggling with important theological questions.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
My view is clear about them and those that like them struggled with the important theological questions without being holy.
And what good does that do you and me? You are - if you pardon my saying so - not especially holy yourself, and neither am I.
Were the Scriptures written for those who are already holy, or those who are not yet holy? They were surely written for those who are not yet holy, that they might become holy, since those who are already holy do not need the Scriptures.
In order to understand the Scriptures we do not need to be already holy. Rather we need to confess that we are not already holy. And we need to worship with the people of God and to receive the Eucharist and to submit our understanding to the correction of our brothers and sisters.
What the heretics all did was they denied that there could be one substance and three persons. For each human person is only one substance, and so the heretics said that you must have the same number of substances and persons. So Sabellius and the Modalists say there is one substance and therefore only one person; and Arians says that there are two or three persons and therefore two or three substances. Thus, the heretics all tried to tie down God to something that could be easily understood as the same as created persons.
Rowan Williams, who is rather more holy than I, has written about the history of Arius and Arianism, and I understand the above from what I remember of what he said.
We cannot truly think the Father except by the Son, and we cannot think the Son truly unless we think the Father as well, and we cannot think either truly without the power of the Spirit. Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are one substance since none could be without the other two.
That is why we do not ever say that there are three Gods, because that would say there are three substances.
I believe that this is compatible with the teaching of the fathers, I believe that this is what Irenaeus affirms above, and I hope that this is compatible with your understanding of the Trinity.
quote:
P.S. I read those quotes from Saint Ireneus and I see they are perfectly trinitarian and within what I have been describing. This does not mean though that I am surprised people misunderstand them to uphold unitarianism... I am not. It's no different than the debates of antiquity.
Of course they are perfectly trinitarian. I don't know what Freddy believes, but I'm not upholding unitarianism. I am describing the blessed Trinity within the limits of my understanding.
Now I don't know what you mean by unitarianism. You say that the West is unitarian because it affirms one substance and then you say that Ambrose is not unitarian because he affirms one substance. Which is it?
Does affirming one substance make you a unitarian?
In English, someone is a unitarian if they deny the divinity of Jesus. That's clear enough. By extension, we can say that someone is a unitarian if they claim that the Logos is created.
The word is not normally used for someone who is a modalist or patripassionist or sabellian; but I can see why the word would be used for such people because they confound the three persons.
Dafyd
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
<I'm just down here on my knobby knees, Dafyd, thanking God that nobody's confusing substance with "nature" at this point!>
I'll get me chotki.
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Substance has been defined by all the fathers to be the same as nature. Dafyd's and Leetle Masha's position that substance is somehow different than nature leads to unitarianism. It's simple.
As to whether the scriptures are accessible by the non-holy, I'll just say that it's a matter of tradition, just like what the trinity means is a matter of tradition. In my tradition, when Anthony the great were asking some monks about a particular verse, what it meant, and they gave him their opinion, the youngest monk, that was asked last, said "I do not know". Anthony the Great replied that that monk was right and he was on his Way to God, because he said that he does not know.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Substance has been defined by all the fathers to be the same as nature. Dafyd's and Leetle Masha's position that substance is somehow different than nature leads to unitarianism. It's simple.
Which makes me wonder what you mean by that? Neither terms are biblical, unless I am mistaken. They were applied in the effort to reconcile how there could be three persons but one God.
After Dafyd's question, I wonder if you could clarify what you mean by unitarian. Is it the denial of Christ's divinity? Modalism? Something else?
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
As to whether the scriptures are accessible by the non-holy, I'll just say that it's a matter of tradition, just like what the trinity means is a matter of tradition. In my tradition, when Anthony the great were asking some monks about a particular verse, what it meant, and they gave him their opinion, the youngest monk, that was asked last, said "I do not know". Anthony the Great replied that that monk was right and he was on his Way to God, because he said that he does not know.
The one who understands best is the one who knows that he does not understand. What does that say about us?
I agree that the Catch 22 that you are describing is real. You can't understand the wisdom of the church unless you are holy. You can't become holy without the wisdom of the church.
In my opinion, the Lord came into the world to solve that puzzle.
Before He came, the only way to wisdom was by direct access to the interior wisdom of holiness. It could be described in words only remotely, and earlier in human history it could not be described at all. Instead there was much more commonly a kind of direct access to angels who enlightened the wise without words.
As humanity moved farther and farther from God, becoming more and more materialistic, technologically oriented, skeptical, and immoral, the interior channels were perverted into magic and idolatry, or closed completely.
So there was no way back. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
The Lord came into the world to make Himself present in external things, so that materialistic and technologically oriented humanity could again have access to Him. He spoke in words that more directly described the path to wisdom and opened the way back to Him.
It is still true that people who do not wish to hear, or who see but do not see, will still not understand. But God has now made it so that anyone who wishes to understand will be able to grasp His truth, and come little by little into wisdom.
So the Catch 22 isn't as definitive as you make it sound. It is true that the unholy can't understand Scripture, but we can understand it little by little, and our understanding will grow as we become better people. Scripture is God's presence among us, helping us to see Him.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Freddy... When one says, contrary to the ancient church, that there is "something" called substance which all three divine persons somehow possess that makes the one, and not three. Substance as a deeper reality. Dafyd says that each man has a substance of his own, but the three persons of the Trinity have one substance. This is not trinitarian. Trinitarian would be to say that ALL men have one substance in common, i.e. their human nature, and, likewise, all three persons are of one substance, i.e. one divine nature.
We end with something irrational here. Nobody wants to say that he is unitarian. So all condemn unitarians. And they confess three persons. But they say that the one God has to do with their being one in a "deeper" sense, that their existence is one. But this, if we want to keep our sanity, is unitarianism. This is why they speak of a paradox and a mystery. To bypass the apparent irrationality. Without actually receiving that faith from the fathers of the ecumenical councils.
As far as Scriptures are concerned, I don't see Christ's words as more clear than the rest of the Scriptures. They were not easy to understand then, they are not easy to understand now. And that's because Christ was speaking about something uncreated (the Rule of God) and the uncreated cannot be put in human words. As we become closer to God, in our lives, we get to understand clearer and clearer, by experience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit we received through baptism. By the way, the ancient world was not technological... On the contrary. Especially the Greeks, they subdued all technology to their spiritual quests. And this was inherited to the Byzantine fathers as well. technology in help of philosophy (for the ancients) and theology (for the Byzantines). And not the other way around. If Christ came for the materialists and the technological hype, then he should have come now, not in 1st century Palestine.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Freddy... When one says, contrary to the ancient church, that there is "something" called substance which all three divine persons somehow possess that makes the one, and not three. Substance as a deeper reality.
Very helpful. What about "nature"?
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
As far as Scriptures are concerned, I don't see Christ's words as more clear than the rest of the Scriptures.
They are more clear when it comes to describing the difference between good and evil. Christ emphasizes the importance of love and mercy, of forgiveness, and makes clear that the way to salvation is not through the rituals of the church but through faith and life.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
If Christ came for the materialists and the technological hype, then he should have come now, not in 1st century Palestine.
The point is that all of humanity is more materialistic and technologically oriented than Adam and Eve were in Eden.
But you are exactly right. He should come now. This is just the point. The growth of knowledge since ancient times has reached a point now that we have the language, the terms, and the education to begin to receive the things that He would give us. Two thousand years ago He said:
quote:
John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth...
Could we maybe bear them now?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
What about "nature"?
Things are different with "nature". It allows for three distinct persons.
quote:
Could we maybe bear them now?
This phrase of Jesus has been fulfilled by those that have been born from above throughout the centuries... The Apostles in Pentecost for example fulfilled that saying. Saints like the ones that spoke so clearly about the one nature in three persons fulfilled that saying. The countless holy men and women whose names we do not know but who beautified creation with their presence, they have fulfilled that saying.
[ 01. May 2007, 12:18: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Well, if substance and nature are the same, even though we use two different words in that instance, then the debate is over because we have no way of preventing tritheism from getting into the "English".
We are "effing the ineffable."
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
That's what Arians said against the Orthodox. Fortunately, the debate ended in favor of the Orthodox supporting that just because they are three, this does not make us tritheists because tritheism has to do with three natures... The fact that we have to re-run the debate now is sad, and one can only ponder as to what are the causes for that need. What happened in the meantime and the ancient faith is no longer confessed the same by all people?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
What about "nature"?
Things are different with "nature". It allows for three distinct persons.
I meant, how do you see the distinction between "nature" and "substance"?
I think that they are both bogus terms, neither of which is used in Scripture the way that the church uses them.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Could we maybe bear them now?
This phrase of Jesus has been fulfilled by those that have been born from above throughout the centuries...
I guess that makes sense, and do not deny it.
But I was thinking about the Second Coming. That is when every eye shall see.
[ 01. May 2007, 13:16: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Substance as a deeper reality. Dafyd says that each man has a substance of his own, but the three persons of the Trinity have one substance.
That's not what I'm saying quite. Each human is a substance, not has a substance. The substance is nothing other than the thing. It isn't anything in addition that the thing has, or a deeper reality.
Anyway, as you say only saints can profitably argue about these things, and they don't need to do, and we aren't saints.
Dafyd
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in essence (substance): "The Trinity, one in essence and undivided".
Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, is known in two natures (Perfectly Human and Perfectly Divine) without confusion. He is one in Essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Therefore we do not say "nature" when we mean "essence" (substance). And vice-versa.
The argument here only seems to be semantic. If the terms essance and nature are confused or used as synonyms, problems result. As this thread shows.
M
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
And Dafyd, as you can see I can't even spell "essence".
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I meant, how do you see the distinction between "nature" and "substance"?
Both terms have been used by the ancient church fathers because they were terms in use while they were alive. They explained that these words are to be used interchangeably... Take human nature for example. The fathers said that we are all humans, and this means that we can speak of one human nature. Man is an amazing creature. This phrase does not speak about an individual man, but about men in general. This is the human nature. Interchangeably we can speak of a human substance. Likewise, we can speak of a divine nature (this nature is what is ineffable). Since the terms mean the same thing, we can speak of one divine substance and mean the divine nature.
quote:
I think that they are both bogus terms, neither of which is used in Scripture the way that the church uses them.
The scriptures don't speak of bioethics or nuclear science either, but this does not mean that terms like zygote or atom are bogus... The Scriptures neither use the name "Freddy", but this does not prevent me from calling you Freddy.
quote:
But I was thinking about the Second Coming. That is when every eye shall see.
Religious people are known for thinking the end was to take place in their times... Luckily, every time they were proved mistaken. Historically speaking, I don't think that our era is any different than previous eras. Sure, it's a turning point, but humanity has a long way to walk... We'll see what the future stores.
By the way, I'd also like to note that religious people typically assigned the world to Satan, devaluing the lives of the people that lived at the same time with them, but did not share their religious convictions / way of life. "Relativism" seems to be the new word under which many are justifying themselves while condemning and judging others. I don't buy it.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, is known in two natures (Perfectly Human and Perfectly Divine) without confusion. He is one in Essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
And He also is one in essence with His Mother, and you, and me, and all humans that ever lived. This is what was taught by the ecumenical councils. If we say that the meaning of essence and the meaning of nature differs, then we fall under unitarianism... We are not fighting tritheism by saying that Jesus is not of one essence with all of us men. We are entering unitarianism.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Anyway, as you say only saints can profitably argue about these things, and they don't need to do, and we aren't saints.
I'm not entering into that... It would be ungenerous for me to presume what exists in your heart. And I am not saying anything about myself. After all, who cares? I am pointing nonetheless to what people that are accepted as Saints universally taught on the issue. That's why I pointed at them. Since mainline Christian denominations claim one faith with the ancient church as far as the trinity is concerned, what the ancients said can be used to test our faith today.
[ 01. May 2007, 13:36: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Here, in both Greek and English:
The Chalcedonian definition where you will see that ousia (substance, essence) and "physis" (nature) are different.
M
Yes, it is confusing. That is why it's best not to add to the confusion by using essence and nature as synonyms, especially in view of the fact that "nature" has many modern connotations that don't enter into the Chalcedonian definition.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Are you kidding? Read the Greek text and you will see that it says Jesus is of one essence with the Father and the Spirit and of one essence with us humans. The adjective used is omoousion, one in essence.
[ 01. May 2007, 13:40: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
No, the Chalcedonian definition is being twisted again. I can read the Greek as well as the English. What is being confused is not "essence" but "nature" here.
I pray someone will see the sense of all this. I can't.
M
[ 01. May 2007, 13:51: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I am pointing you to the fact that the fathers in Chalcedon in the very quote you make confessed that Jesus is of one essence with the Father and of one essence with us and you say this is twisting the definition??
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
But "substance" and "essence" do not mean the same thing in Latin philosophical jargon. And they are used in Christian theology as translations of Greek words which don't mean the same thing.
In ordinary English they mean something quite different and irrelevant to this discussion anyway.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
I will be happy to see people modify "nature" with either "human" or "divine", just so we know who we're talking about. Jesus Christ is the only one with two natures.
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Without agreeing with Thomas Aquinas' theology, I will quote his reply concerning the terms:
quote:
I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), substance is twofold. In one sense it means the quiddity of a thing, signified by its definition, and thus we say that the definition means the substance of a thing; in which sense substance is called by the Greeks ousia, what we may call "essence." In another sense substance means a subject or "suppositum," which subsists in the genus of substance. To this, taken in a general sense, can be applied a name expressive of an intention; and thus it is called "suppositum." It is also called by three names signifying a reality--that is, "a thing of nature," "subsistence," and "hypostasis," according to a threefold consideration of the substance thus named. For, as it exists in itself and not in another, it is called "subsistence"; as we say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in another. As it underlies some common nature, it is called "a thing of nature"; as, for instance, this particular man is a human natural thing. As it underlies the accidents, it is called "hypostasis," or "substance." What these three names signify in common to the whole genus of substances, this name "person" signifies in the genus of rational substances.
The first meaning, i.e. the definition of something, is what we call nature and essence and form in Greek, and in this respect Jesus is of one substance with both us and the Father. In the second meaning, the person or hypostasis is signified, and in that respect Jesus differs both from the rest of us AND from His Father.
So, the philosophical uses of the term are not relevant to this discussion... Because L.M. assumes a unity between the three divine persons that does not exist between Jesus and us men. And this is refuted by BOTH philosophical uses of the latin term.
But I am not interested in terminology. Only in what the terms mean. And I disagree with L.M. not only in terminology but also, and most importantly, on what she means when she says that the three divine persons are of one essence.
[ 01. May 2007, 14:06: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
quote:
Because L.M. assumes a unity between the three divine persons that does not exist between Jesus and us men
says andreas1984.
I would prefer that others not rephrase what I have actually said on this topic. "Assuming" - well the Ship of Fools has a definition for that word.
The unity of the Divine Persons does not yet exist between me and Jesus Christ. But I'm working on it.
Best wishes,
Mary
<fatuous wink borrowed without permission>
[ 01. May 2007, 14:17: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
You have said that he is of one Essence (sic) with the Father implying that he is not of one essence with us as well. Therefore, I did not misrepresent you in any way.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
What part of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost, one God" am I getting wrong here? The three persons of the Holy Trinity are one God. That's all I'm saying.
I am not one God (of the same nature) with the Persons of the Holy Trinity. If anybody here is one God in unity with the Persons of the Holy Trinity, I am in a quandary.
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, one God.
Andreas, Mary, Freddy, John, Jesus, one Man.
I didn't say you are of one essence with the Father. I said you are of one essence with the Son. Just like the rest of us are. Jesus has two essences.
[ 01. May 2007, 14:28: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
What I said was, "The Trinity one in essence and undivided", not "The Trinity in some separate essence from Jesus Christ's essence."
This form of argumentation is very counter-productive. It does not enhance the faith of anyone.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Can you say "Humanity: One in essence and undivided in essence"? Because if you can't, then I don't see how you are not expressing a unitarian understanding... using the term essence to mean something that in that sense it was condemned by the ancient church.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Of course I can say humanity. I just can't say that physis and ousia have precisely the same meaning. Or that God and Man are synonyms.
That's enough from me on this topic.
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So when Ambrose confesses that the Father and the Son are of one substance, you agree that he is defending the catholic faith?
Because that is what we are saying - that you must not deny that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are of one substance.
And you must also affirm that they are three persons.
Dafyd
With Ambrose, I affirm that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are of one substance, in the same sense that all humans are of one substance. I also affirm that they are three persons, in the same sense that us humans are 6 billion+ persons.
Am I right in thinking that you use the term substance with a different meaning in mind? That you read Ambrose to be saying something different than what I am saying?
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
I just can't say that physis and ousia have precisely the same meaning. Or that God and Man are synonyms.
Nobody says that God and Man are synonyms. And nobody says that by equating nature with essence we say that God and man are synonyms. What I am saying, and what the fathers of the councils did say, is that the three divine persons are one in nature, and that Jesus is one in nature and essence with the Father, because He is the Son of God, but He also is of one nature and essence with us men, because He is the Son of Mary.
[ 01. May 2007, 14:43: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
If ousia and physis are interchangeable in the way suggested above, why are they not the same, then?
Why is God infinite and man finite, if we can refer to nature and essence as interchangeable?
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Ousia means fysis and fusis means ousia. We speak of the divine nature and the human nature, but just because we use the same word "nature", and we do that because they are both natures, this does not mean that the two natures are the same!
Likewise, when we speak of the divine essence and the human essence, we don't mean that the divine essence and the human essence are the same thing, even though they are both essences!
Jesus Christ has two essences: the divine and the human. So, He is one with the Father and the Spirit as far as his divinity is concerned, and one with us as far as his humanity is concerned.
Why do you see using nature and essence interchangeably as problematic?
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Because they don't mean exactly the same thing, and because the imprecision of the Fathers (which they did not see as imprecision) does not justify the imprecision of those of us who come later and do not speak in the same way the Fathers spoke.
It was that very imprecision that divided the Monophyites and Nestorians from the Chalcedonians, alas. Once we explain to a non-Chalcedonian that we think "nature and essence" are the same thing, they'll say either that Christ has only one nature, or some Nestorian will stand up and claim He's two persons.
If we differentiate between the two words by saying that God is infinite and man is finite, we show the difference in essence. If we say that God is Divine and Man is human, we show the difference in nature. Where humanity and divinity are perfectly united is in the Person of Christ.
Please see Letters of Étienne Gilson to Henri de Lubac , (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988) or the French original published in Paris by Cerf in 1986. Pages for the English edition: 83-90.
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
It depends on what you mean by imprecision. For example, it is said that St. Cyril uses the term fysis-nature, sometimes to speak of nature, and other times to speak of the individual (i.e. hypostasis). But he did use ousia-essence to mean nature. And after the third council, these two terms were even further clarified, and the consensus reached was that by nature we will mean the same thing essence does and not what the word person means. So, for example, we have Saints like John from Damascus saying "nature, that is essence, that is form". After the first few centuries any double use of the term nature was ended.
But it's not "nature" you have problems with here... as the monophysites supposedly did. It's the term "essence".
What do you mean by essence? Because if you do not mean what we now mean with the term "nature", then this is the important question here. And there are all sorts of questions that need to be answered. You spoke of one essence in God. How many essences in Man? Could you explain what you mean by essence? I have explained that I mean nature. Human nature, human essence. I use them interchangeably. What do you mean though?
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
To borrow a few words from the book I just cited:
A man and his son are two persons of the same nature: human. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three persons of the same nature: divine.
In this illustration, we have two humans. A man and his son.
But in the second part of the illustration, because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same nature, do we have three Gods?
The translators of the Creed into French made that same mistake (ousia and physis are interchangeable) when they did their post-Vatican II "New Liturgy". It caused tremendous upset at the Sorbonne, because the French translation of the Nicene Creed said, for "Homoousion", "of the same nature". The defence employed by the translators was laughable. They said, "Oh, in France nobody cares about that any more; nobody in France will even know the difference."
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I suspect that the book you quote from was written by a non-Orthodox guy... definitely not an Orthodox Saint. So, what Western Christians might have thought the word omoousion to mean, is irrelevant to what the Orthodox Saints have been teaching... since it is the Western Christians' belief we examine in this thread.
In the very link you gave us, from Chalcedon, the word omoousion is used in exactly the same way for humanity and for divinity; Jesus being omoousios with his Father according to his divinity and omoousios with us according to his humanity.
In fact, what that book you quote on France says, from what you have written, rather affirms my suspicion that much of Western Christianity is influenced by unitarianism... The three persons are one in this mysterious "ousia"/"essence" while human persons are not one in a human "essence".
[ 01. May 2007, 15:53: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Well, I think that if we use the words "essence" and "nature" in the same way that the Fathers did, and remember, we're talking to more people than just the Orthodoxen here, we will only add to the confusion. If the western interpretation of "essence" is incorrect, then I must say that until Vatican II at least the west was using the same word the east was using.
Or until you posted that essence and nature are the same thing, which they clearly are not.
If they were the same thing, why did the Greeks ever bother coining two words?
I fear we will never understand one another at this rate. I can understand andreas1984, and Greeks can understand him, but not everybody else can. That is our problem. If I try to translate andreas1984's Greek usages into English usages, he disagrees, so I had better give up that project, as I've been told to do so many times before.
I guess I'll never learn. I keep trying to bridge gaps that are created by language. It's fruitless.
As the English and the Americans are two nations separated by a common language, the Christians are divided by a common theology.
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
If they were the same thing, why did the Greeks ever bother coining two words?
I have read the fathers explaining why there are three words describing the same thing, why there are three Greek words (essence, nature, form) that mean exactly the same thing.But, apparently, you haven't read them...
You present it as a language thing. I explained that Greek-speaking Arius (for example) accused the Orthodox Greek-speaking fathers for tritheism because of what they were saying in Greek. The fathers replied that his use of the term "God" is incorrect. Likewise in Latin. Saint Ambrose and Saint Hilary said the same things against the Latin-speaking unitarians and arians and all sort of heretics. It's not a language thing. It's a theology thing. Differences in theology lead to different understandings of what it means for there to be three Gods. The meaning of the phrase "three Gods" is not self-evident. Hence it's our theology that influences our understanding of the phrase.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Have it however you want it, then, andreas1984.
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
It's not an issue of "my way" or "your way". At least it's not such an issue for me. What did the ancient church believe in? Is this the same faith today as far as the trinity is concerned? This is the question we have been trying to explore here. And before discussion touched different terms and their differences we had a very clear disagreement on theology and not just terminology.
I find saying that you are trying to translate my Greek uses to English patronizing, and I think that it darkens things and it does not enlighten us. Especially when it is me the one who explains clearly that I use essence and nature interchangeably, while you say they don't have the same meaning...
Is trinitarian belief the way it was understood and proclaimed by the ancient church now seen as belief in three Gods? Is the faith of many people nowadays that claim faith in the Trinity unitarian? Those are the questions that concern me. And I think I have every right to ask such questions, especially since the theological developments that took place in the West were never the subject of discussions in the East... The Roman Empire fell to the Turks before Western thought could be discussed in depth. Even Augustine's works were not translated in Greek in their fullness before New Rome fell... Let alone Aquinas et al...
And when something "Western" has been discussed, it was condemned unanimously, as the Palamite controversy shows, where the Calabrian was condemned for his theology... And the poor guy seems to be amazed that what he took for granted as the Christian teaching while he lived in Italy, are unanimously rejected as foreign to the gospel by the Greek fathers in Byzantium...
[ 01. May 2007, 16:23: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
If we all agree that quote:
The meaning of the phrase "three Gods" is not self-evident.
we shall have to give up speaking English entirely.
M
1 + 1 + 1= 3 (essence, but the Trinity is of one essence, so it's just one Trinity, so = 1)
1 + 2 + 1= 4 (nature, with the Father having one, the Son having two, and the Holy Spirit having one)
If Nature and Essence mean the same thing, it is not surprising that we are thought to be polytheists by the world at large. What is surprising is how God can be "One in Three" (which to some implies Unitarianism, while we call it Trinitarianism).
And the term "Person" (hypostasis) has no bearing on the discussion?
[ 01. May 2007, 16:31: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
I think that they are both bogus terms, neither of which is used in Scripture the way that the church uses them.
The scriptures don't speak of bioethics or nuclear science either, but this does not mean that terms like zygote or atom are bogus... The Scriptures neither use the name "Freddy", but this does not prevent me from calling you Freddy.
I'm pretty sure Freddy is in the Scriptures.
But unlike bioethics, nuclear science, zygote and atom, the concept associated with your use of the words nature and substance is central to the way that we think about God.
The concepts were invented to overcome the problem that three persons means three gods.
"How do we get around that one?" the ancients asked themselves. "I know, we'll say that although there are three persons, they are still one because they have the same nature."
That's bogus, I think.
A much better idea, in my opinion, is what Irenaeus said in Dafyd's quote:
quote:
And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spoke with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.
The Son is not a different person, He is the Father made visible. The Father is the invisible, incomprehensible, inner divine. The Son is God as we can know and love Him.
Talk about substance and nature is meaningless, in my opinion, apart from the issue of how God can be one if He is three persons. The terms were employed purely for that purpose, as far as I can see. They are not biblical concepts at all. According to the Bible, God is love.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
If we all agree that quote:
The meaning of the phrase "three Gods" is not self-evident.
we shall have to give up speaking English entirely.
This sounds like what the Arians and the Eunomians and the Sabellians were saying... If the meaning of the phrase "treis theoi" is not self-evident, then we shall have to give up speaking Greek entirely. However, Christians continued speaking Greek. They just used the phrase in the Orthodox way. And this is why when an obscure Monophysite sect claimed that there are three divine natures along with three divine persons, the Orthodox called them "tritheists". The fact remains that the Orthodox did not accept that argument from the common use of the phrase. We can see, for example, St. Gregory saying that although it is an error to speak of three men, we do so and since it does not have a bearing in our salvation we don't get hurt much, but when we try to enforce the erroneous custom with regards to the three divine persons we end up harming ourselves spiritually... so it would be better if we dropped the custom altogether for the shake of Truth.
quote:
1 + 1 + 1= 3 (essence, but the Trinity is of one essence, so it's just one Trinity, so = 1)
1 + 2 + 1= 4 (nature, with the Father having one, the Son having two, and the Holy Spirit having one)
It doesn't go like that and this is why I'm saying we differ in our theologies and that it's not an issue of terms alone...
1+1+1=3 as far as persons are concerned.
1 = 1 = 1 as far as natures/essences are concerned
1=1=1=1=1=1=...=1 6 billion+ times as far as human nature is concerned
You cannot add the one nature when people share that nature.
But you can add the persons when they share the same nature.
quote:
If Nature and Essence mean the same thing, it is not surprising that we are thought to be polytheists by the world at large. What is surprising is how God can be "One in Three" (which to some implies Unitarianism, while we call it Trinitarianism).[/QB]
It seems to me that what you call trinitarianism is unitarianism and to say the opposite is irrational. Saying that God is "one in three" in any other way than "one nature in three persons" is not surprising... it is irrational. And when something is irrational, you cannot go to "mystery" and "paradox". Mystery can be spoken of only in cases of supra-rational situations... Not of irrational situations.
You have yet to explain what you mean by essence...
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The concepts were invented to overcome the problem that three persons means three gods.
No, the concepts were not invented to overcome that problem. The concepts were used because they were in current use already for centuries... They were used both in common language and in philosophy... and the fathers used terminology of the science of their times. No conspiracy-like "invention" of terms. Just speaking in, well, ordinary language of the time.
The problem is that since we have the same faith today, then we should check to see if we understand words the same way they did, to see if our faith is the same with theirs.
By the way, Ireneus is most definitely NOT saying what Swedenborg confessed on the issue... We could go into that area, but I'm not sure people are interested in that...
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The concepts were invented to overcome the problem that three persons means three gods.
No, the concepts were not invented to overcome that problem. The concepts were used because they were in current use already for centuries...
I understand that they were concepts in Greek philosophy. But they were applied to Christianity to overcome this problem.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By the way, Ireneus is most definitely NOT saying what Swedenborg confessed on the issue... We could go into that area, but I'm not sure people are interested in that...
Ireneus believed in one God, and He saw Jesus as God. He appears to be content to live within the metaphor. He does not show evidence to me of having to confront the issue of Arianism.
I think that it is the issue of Arianism, and similar heresies, that drove Christianity to invent the idea of three persons from eternity sharing a common nature but having distinct hypostases.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
We are definitely not speaking the same theological language, at all events.
I believe what the Orthodox Church teaches. Anyone can look that up. Try here: Fundamental Teachings of the Orthodox Faith
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
]I understand that they were concepts in Greek philosophy. But they were applied to Christianity to overcome this problem.
First of all, they were not only used in philosophy... They were used in common language as well. You will find the term "ousia" for example in the Scriptures themselves, when Jesus speaks of our daily bread. After all, ousia comes from the verb to be... and it's participle... on ousa on... Keep in mind that God said "I am The On" which you translate "I am he Who Is"...
This "O On", YAHWE, is still the name for Jesus in his icons in Orthodoxy...
So, it is a common word... and different philosophers used it in different meanings... The fathers used it with the Orthodox meaning in mind...
Plus, you have to see philosophy as part of that era's science... in fact, while some philosophical claims (like the Universe being eternal and not having a beginning) were refuted by the Christians, other claims were not... for example some things about what "will" means etc...
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Ireneus believed in one God, and He saw Jesus as God.
OK, allow me to be playful here... Find a quote you want us to discuss, and I will explain why Ireneus in that quote does not mean what you mean...
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
I believe what the Orthodox Church teaches. Anyone can look that up. Try here: Fundamental Teachings of the Orthodox Faith
Unless you are a spokesman for the Orthodox Church, you believe what YOU THINK the Orthodox Church teaches. And since a) your background is Western, theologically speaking and b) there was a breach in Orthodox education when New Rome fell and c) there has been a decline in the degree to which holiness influences the lives of the people in Orthodox countries, what YOU THINK the Orthodox Church teaches might not be the actual faith of the confessors and the martyrs and the fathers and the other saints...
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Andreas1984, neither you nor I are spokesmen for the Orthodox Church and I hope everyone knows that. Nor can we "explain" the "essence" of God, for we are finite creatures with finite minds.
I think if anyone cares to peruse the link to the Greek Orthodox Church's fundamental teachings in my previous post, they will see two things:
1. A concise summary of what the Orthodox Church believes.
2. Fr. Mastrantonis' careful discussion of the Holy Trinity, where he uses "substance" when he means "substance" and "nature" when he means "nature", as well as discussing the hypostatic union of the three Persons of the Godhead.
Please refrain from accusations that I might be some sort of American semi-Orthodox Christian, or our friend Freddy some kind of "unitarian".
Tx, Mary
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I pointed to the fathers themselves. You point to a web site. As if the fathers themselves are forever lost and we can only learn what is the ancient faith by looking at modern pages... Nevertheless, I did have a quick look at that site and I did not find anything contrary to what I have been saying. You read too much into it. It doesn't say that we use the term substance with regards to the Trinity alone and the word nature with regards to humanity. It doesn't say that the two terms are different. If you think this is what it means, you can only ask the writer and he can speak for himself.
I, on the other hand, pointed you to the very ancient text's from Chalcedon you linked us to, where it said that Jesus is omoousions to God the Father according to his divinity and to us men according to his humanity. I got no reply...
Freddy is a great Shipmate... He does not need anyone to defend him. One does not have to be an expert in Swedenborgian theology to see that it is different from trinitarian faith...
As to what you believe in... I am not personally attacking you. I am only asking you to accept the obvious. That since Orthodoxy does not have spokesmen, and that even being a prominent member of this Church does not mean one is Orthodox (Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople, Pyrrhos was Patriarch of Constantinople, Honorius was Pope of Rome, Arius was priest in Alexandria, Eutuchius was archimandrite in Constantinople... need I say more?), we say what we THINK Orthodoxy teaches...
This is why I pointedto what the ancient fathers said. I think that we can hear them speaking for themselves... Hearing what others said on them is not the best thing to do...
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
andreas1984 says
quote:
am not personally attacking you. I am only asking you to accept the obvious. That since Orthodoxy does not have spokesmen, and that even being a prominent member of this Church does not mean one is Orthodox (Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople, Pyrrhos was Patriarch of Constantinople, Honorius was Pope of Rome, Arius was priest in Alexandria, Eutuchius was archimandrite in Constantinople... need I say more?), we say what we THINK Orthodoxy teaches...
No, you need say no more, I'm sure all your posts speak for themselves.
However, I still trust the Greek Orthodox website.
Mary
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
You still have not defined what you mean by essence...
As to that webpage, I repeat that I don't see it saying anything different than what I am saying... And I do not see it saying what you are saying. It does not say that a distinction exists between substance and nature. But even if it did say so, I would follow the Saints that said very clearly that it is the same thing, and not what a non-Saint says.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
I have stated clearly that I cannot "define essence". Please stop insisting that I undertake a task that no one is truly capable of accomplishing.
I do not think anyone can adequately 'define essence'. Perhaps one might come up with a definition of "nature", but all I was asking is that we not confuse the two terms by using them interchangeably.
In English, one tries to mean what one says and say what one means. Just to explain our own opinions, we should not need to cite Church fathers and go on and on about the various heresiarchs in such an accusatory manner as the posts above exhibit.
I am not going to continue with this sort of debate.
It is not debate. It is just argument of the "is!" "Isn't!" type.
I do feel that I have just as much right to express my opinions and have them treated with respect as anyone else has.
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
L.M. At one point you speak of your opinions at another point you speak of what the Orthodox Church says... You cannot enter a defense mode and say that I don't respect your opinions, while a few posts earlier you equated your opinions with what the Orthodox Church teaches.
And you can't expect me to say "this is my opinion" and not cite the fathers when this thread is about what the fathers taught and said... You chose to refer to modern people when the issue is what the ancients taught.
I have seen it in the past, and I am noticing it now. It's almost as if it was some kind of game... In this thread I asked you to explain what you mean by essence. You evaded the issue by saying the divine essence is incomprehensible. Of course, this is a reply to a different question, to a question I did not ask. I asked what a term means, and you replied that you cannot explain God as if I have asked you to do so.
Evading the issue by turning from "essence" to "divinity"... This is what you just did. As to the fact that you think it's disrespectful to speak of heresiarchs... I am not partial at people. If I see the same argument the heretics used, that if the fathers are right then we are to speak of three Gods because that's what the word "God" means in choose-your-language, then I say so. After all, this is a board when we can debate things.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
I refer everyone to the OP, at the top of Page 1 of this debate.
This debate started with an unfounded accusation, and it continues in accusatory and defensive mode.
I tried to clear up a bit of confusion. I failed. I'm afraid nothing has been accomplished here.
I'm sorry to see that happen, but it happens all the time because we're all just finite human beings.
I trust the priests of the Orthodox Church. I don't have time to make extensive studies in patristics, nor should such studies be required to understand a simple distinction in the English language.
Please continue, but when proof-texting from the Church fathers, the "spin" stops right here.
Mary
[ 01. May 2007, 19:05: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
We are all finite beings, but the priests of the Orthodox Church (like Arius) are somehow infinite... Nice...
The issue here is that what the fathers wrote is available online and we can all read much of what they wrote. And since they talked for common people to understand and they were not academic theologians, what they said is accessible by all. This "I follow my priest" version of religiosity sounds exactly like the caricatures people lower in the candle have been opposing... Perhaps there is truth in what they were saying...
By the way, post one on this thread does not place my statement in context... But you say the things you said nevertheless... Nice.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
quote:
Nice...Nice...
Is that why the translator of the Councils kept talking about the Council of "Nice" when he meant Nicea?
Please lay off this accusatory manner, andreas1984. In no place have I ever said that I believe what Arius said.
Mary
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
]Ireneus believed in one God, and He saw Jesus as God.
OK, allow me to be playful here... Find a quote you want us to discuss, and I will explain why Ireneus in that quote does not mean what you mean...
OK. How about the one I quoted from Dafyd:
quote:
And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spoke with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.
My Swedenborgian understanding of this is that he is saying that Jesus was the visible form of the Father - visible in more than one sense of the word. The Father was in Him as His invisible soul. They were as the body and soul of one individual. I don't think that Ireneus really sees them as two, but as one.
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
L.M. Either you have trouble understanding or you evade again. I said that Arius was an Orthodox priest and that this is an example that priests can be mistaken too; they are not to be trusted blindly, especially when we can check for ourselves what the fathers actually said. I did not say you are Arian.
Freddy, challenge accepted. I googled for the quote you made. I found the newadvent site. It said it's from book 4 chapter 6 of Against Heresies. Now, the good part. I'm going to Migne's Patrology. That way we can read the original ancient Greek text and see what that great father wrote in his own words. It turns out it's not that simple, because the Greek text does not follow the layout of newadvent's text. Give me some time to find the exact passage that you quoted...
I found chapter 4... Now where's chapter 5? And where's chapter 6 the way newadvent has it?
I can't find it... Let me check the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Ireneos on newadvent site... They say that we have a latin translation of that work, so I guess they have uploaded the English translation of the latin translation...
So, I can't draw my arguments from the Greek text. Crap
OK, let's see what it says in English from that Latin translation.
This is the way I understand it:
The Word of God, a person distinct from God, becomes man. Not only is He the exact image of God, but He becomes a created icon of God as well. In His life, we can see God through that material icon that was made from flesh taken by the Virgin. So, both when he is materially present (i.e. after the Incarnation), but also before he became materially present, when he was present in His Glory (Shekinah), He is the Icon of God the Father, in the first case in His humanity, in the second case in His divinity.
But how can we say that the icon of God is not God?
Here comes a very ancient practice, where the King in the Roman Empire had an icon and that icon was processed n towns and villages when the King was absent and the people revered the King's icon and called that icon King, but nobody dared to say there are two Kings...
In a like manner, Christ is the icon of God, distinct from God, but also identical with God. Unlike the King's icon, Jesus Christ lives. But we still don't speak of two Gods, even though what was born of God is also uncreated and ineffable and incomprehensible.
What do you think?
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
quote:
I said that Arius was an Orthodox priest and that this is an example that priests can be mistaken too; they are not to be trusted blindly, especially when we can check for ourselves what the fathers actually said. I did not say you are Arian.
To say that I have said something identical to what Arius said is to say that I am Arian. I am not Arian and I never mentioned Arius in this context.
To classify great scholars like Étienne Gilson and Cardinal Henri de Lubac as being in error is something that I've never seen people do before.
They're dead, of course, so I'm sure they aren't offended.
Mary
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
To say that I have said something identical to what Arius said is to say that I am Arian.
Right...
quote:
To classify great scholars like Étienne Gilson and Cardinal Henri de Lubac as being in error is something that I've never seen people do before.]
Cardinal Henry de Lubac? Cardinal? As in those folks that believe the Church to be founded on the Rock that is Peter? That accepts Pope's authority over the universal church? And you haven't heard that that guy was in error? Ever? Right...
By the way, what does this mean, you haven't heard them being in error? Does this mean we must fall to our knees and worship them? That they can lead us in all truth?
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
quote:
By the way, what does this mean, you haven't heard them being in error? Does this mean we must fall to our knees and worship them? That they can lead us in all truth?
Of course not. But I cannot bring myself either to fall on my knees and worship your posts, or your ideas, or believe that your posts can lead us into all truth.
Scholarship is scholarship. Opinion is opinion.
Please get a grip.
Mary
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
To trust is not always "to follow blindly", but it is not correct to claim that Orthodox priests in good standing have no authority to explain the faith to the laity. Orthodox priests are also under authority of Bishops who have the responsibility to correct them if they err. If my quoting of an Archdiocesan Greek Orthodox website was the wrong thing to do, and should have quoted some website that gave translations of the Fathers, in order to save time and quibbles over definitions, I guess that's just my bad luck.
If it is required to do extensive patristic studies before contributing to topics on the Ship of Fools, then most of us had better stop contributing! If the websites of our respective churches cut no ice with fellow-posters, that's just too bad, isn't it.
I have said nothing in any of my posts that is not contained in the Divine Liturgy. If other posters choose to "interpret" my posts in their own way, it's their affair.
Mary
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Scholarship is scholarship. Opinion is opinion. And the Saints are the Saints. You have expressed your opinion and you appealed to a few Roman Catholic theologians... On a thread about whether Western theology keeps the same faith with the ancient church as far as the trinity is concerned... that says that essence is different from nature... without explaining what the difference is... even though it opposes what the Saints clearly taught... for example Saint John from Damascus saying that the holy fathers used the two words interchangeably... as in "We should know that from two essences, i.e. natures, it is impossible to be given birth to one composite nature"... or that "the holy fathers say that essence and nature and form is the same thing" (kai tauton legousi ousian kai fysin kai morfin)...
But you, not having read what the Saints themselves taught, cite a modern non-Orthodox theologian's grudge towards his fellow Catholics, expecting what? To proclaim that that is the faith of the fathers? Nice...
[ 01. May 2007, 21:05: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Just give up with that "nice" business. I can quote whomever I please whenever I please, as others can do.
If you have the only correct interpretation of the Church Fathers, andreas1984, I suppose I should be quoting you, for therefore by your own reasoning you are a saint worthy of all of us to blindly follow without question.
The fact that we none of us are saints has been pointed out several times in this discussion. If the only "experts" who may be quoted to define the Orthodox position are the Church Fathers, then none of us but andreas1984 is to be trusted on this topic.
I don't think there's any more I can say. andreas1984 wins, by sheer weight of argument.
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
because the Church Fathers are hidden and only I posses the volumes of their works... because to just open a book would mean to "do expensive patristic studies"... Even if the book is short compared to today's standards... when we have advanced technology and we print large amounts of info... and because the Saints wrote only for experts in patristic theology... and not for the lay people that lived during their times...
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
quote:
because the Church Fathers are hidden and only I posses the volumes of their works... because to just open a book would mean to "do expensive patristic studies"... Even if the book is short compared to today's standards... when we have advanced technology and we print large amounts of info... and because the Saints wrote only for experts in patristic theology... and not for the lay people that lived during their times...
What happened? Did the edit time run out? Didn't I say "extensive" rather than "expensive"? Is anyone reading anything I'm saying any more?
Hello?
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
Typo. After all, much of what the fathers actually wrote is available online for free.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Sorry. I don't buy your garbled paraphrase of what this thread is discussing, andreas1984, but I already knew what would happen if I tried to clarify anything in here.
Never mind. I said you win. Enjoy your victory.
M
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on
:
I guess our posts are here for everybody to read and judge for themselves what's going on... By the way, I don't play games here; no winning or losing. It's a discussion board for pete's shake!
[ 01. May 2007, 21:22: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This is the way I understand it:
The Word of God, a person distinct from God, becomes man. Not only is He the exact image of God, but He becomes a created icon of God as well. In His life, we can see God through that material icon that was made from flesh taken by the Virgin. So, both when he is materially present (i.e. after the Incarnation), but also before he became materially present, when he was present in His Glory (Shekinah), He is the Icon of God the Father, in the first case in His humanity, in the second case in His divinity.
But how can we say that the icon of God is not God?
Here comes a very ancient practice, where the King in the Roman Empire had an icon and that icon was processed n towns and villages when the King was absent and the people revered the King's icon and called that icon King, but nobody dared to say there are two Kings...
In a like manner, Christ is the icon of God, distinct from God, but also identical with God. Unlike the King's icon, Jesus Christ lives. But we still don't speak of two Gods, even though what was born of God is also uncreated and ineffable and incomprehensible.
What do you think?
You tried. Very good. It doesn't make sense to me, but I guess it does to you.
The way that you have explained it, though, is not in harmony with what Jesus said about Himself and His mission.
Shall I explain why not? Or do you not agree that it even needs to be in harmony with what Jesus said?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You cannot add the one nature when people share that nature.
But you can add the persons when they share the same nature.
I'm sorry, but the same logic and grammar attaches to the words 'person' and 'human'.
Andreas is a human, Freddy is a human, Leetle Masha is a human, Dafyd is a human: one human?
Andreas is a person, Freddy is a person, Leetle Masha is a person, Dafyd is a person: one person?
(I don't think was true of 'hypostasis' btw prior to the Trinitarian debates: 'person' tells you what type of thing something is. To say that something is a substance, or an individual or aiui in modern Greek a hypostasis is not to say anything about it.)
Elsewhere in the thread you say that there seems to be a reluctance to agree to the term 'unitarian' when it fits. It seems to equally apply to you that you reject the phrase 'three Gods'.
Anyway, I wasn't going to comment on this thread any further, but a thought struck me.
Human is probably not the best example to distinguish between substance and nature. We might be better off using iguanas as an example.
There is a sense in which all humans do have a common good and share a common destiny. In particular, humanity is only fully predicated of Jesus.[1] The rest of us only achieve our common good by participation in Jesus. So there is a sense of 'humanity' in which 'humanity' is a single substance, in that we can only think it truly if we think it all together.
Most uses of 'man does such and such' or 'humanity is such and such', however, are false, since they ascribe common agency to all human beings, which does not apply except by participation in Jesus.
(A substance is something such that if we think it truly we think it all. If you have two substances then you can think one truly without thinking the other. I put it to you that this isn't true of God: you cannot think any person of the Trinity truly without also thinking the other persons.)
Now if you have three iguanas, by contrast, one in the wild, one in a zoo in London and one in a zoo in New York, then they don't have any common good. So there are clearly three substances - three iguanas, and only one nature.
quote:
It seems to me that what you call trinitarianism is unitarianism and to say the opposite is irrational. Saying that God is "one in three" in any other way than "one nature in three persons" is not surprising... it is irrational. And when something is irrational, you cannot go to "mystery" and "paradox". Mystery can be spoken of only in cases of supra-rational situations... Not of irrational situations.
I don't think that you can really take this line consistently. You've already said that if you aren't holy you can't understand the Scriptures using reason alone, and that that was the heretics' problem. In which case, you can't turn around and say some things are superrational and other things are irrational without further comment.
In fact, I think your position is even weaker than that, since we can explain specifically why you think it's irrational when it isn't.
When we learn how to talk about persons and things, we learn from corporeal things, bodies. Everything we know according to normal language is based on our experience of bodies. But God is not a corporeal thing, and so is not extended in space, does not exclude other substances from an area of space, does not have parts, and so on. But our imagination isn't set up to cope with that.
Now when it comes to corporeal bodies we have one person one substance. (But what of Siamese twins who share vital organs?) But there are decent reasons to suppose that this is because of the corporeal body, not because of the nature of personhood.
Dafyd
[1] Either because our humanity is damaged by sin, or because our proper end is in the technical sense supernatural.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0