|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is this unitarian or trinitarian?
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Speaking of Nicaea and Constantinople, § Andrew, you really ought to be hit over the head with the word "homoousios" until you come to an orthodox understanding of it.
Ponder, Reflect, and Inwardly Digest.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed, is it possible that both sides are in fact saying the same thing, but filtered through their own mindset? That while the words are different the concept itself is identical? And that even though all of us see the other as heretical, that is because we are seeing it through our own mindset filters and not theirs?
Not really familiar with all this argument.
I've seen the difference described as the "monarchy", I don't like that word, prefer cause, being attributed either to the essence or to the Father.
I think, was it Lydia?, touched on an aspect I'd like elaborated on. I don't see the Trinity as referring to "One God" which I think is the monarchy as essence view, but describing the Christological relationship, which, I think, is what Andrew means by stressing God the Father as cause.
Course I could be wrong.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Myrrh
Thank you for that. The characteristic aspects that distinguish the Father as a hypostasis are those that speak of a timeless source for the Word and the Spirit. We cannot safely use the word "origin" for this as that would infer a beginning (contra Arius). It's more like a direction, an order.
[ 21. November 2008, 06:51: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Speaking of Nicaea and Constantinople, § Andrew, you really ought to be hit over the head with the word "homoousios" until you come to an orthodox understanding of it.
Ponder, Reflect, and Inwardly Digest.
I have read extensively the writings from those fathers.
When that term was brought up, a huge debate erupted, not because the term was wrong, but because the term was not to be found in the Scriptures as such. If the Church was not like what I describe, that debate wouldn't have taken place.
It was only because the meaning of that fancy word you quoted was explained by pointing to the scriptures and not to metaphysics or philosophy, that it was finally accepted.
It's really amusing to find Protestants fighting so hard for Catholic metaphysics.
You know, when the Orthodox discussed with the Catholics in Florence, an Orthodox delegate was heard saying in frustration "Aristotle, Aristotle, Aristotle, all they talk about is Aristotle and Plato... What's wrong with those people? Why don't they speak about Paul, John, Matthew, Moses, David, Job, Isaiah, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil...." It's the same discussion here all over again.
Your insistence to do away with the few sayings of Paul I provided makes me very sad.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Perhaps from this thread, Andrew, you will have learnt that you have been making a false distinction between Western Catholic and magisterial protestant thought regarding basic Christian doctrine.
Thanks for the anecdote from Florence. Just how old are you anyway?
[ 21. November 2008, 10:22: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
LSK
I thought you really meant that sola scriptura thing. Now I know you mean it only when you disagree with the Catholics. But I'm sure another Protestant will come to say that you are wrong, and that there do exist genuine sola scriptura types...
Anyway.
Lyda & SPK
The tyranny of fancy words
Theology uses common words, because it's supposed to be used by common people. All those Greek words that now sound fancy are actually common words.
Don't get confused because they sound fancy in Greek. Prosopon, for example, is just a face, and, by extension, a person. And so on.
Taking a common Greek word and using it as if it was a fancy word in English is very problematic.
So, SPK, don't just throw "homoousio" as if that somehow justifies your view. It doesn't. That fancy word was used to mean "of the same nature". The magic is gone now we used simple and ordinary English words. Oh well.
The Father and the Son are of the same nature, just like Christ and the rest of us men are of the same nature. Nothing fancy there. No deep philosophical metaphysical talk only an expert would understand.
The question was: Does the fact that God's Son is another person than God make him any less divine? Or does this mean there are two kinds of divinity? And the answer was no, the Son is as divine as the Father, just like a man's son is as human as his father.
I suspect there is a deep confusion going on about these things. For example, and to borrow from Lyda's expression, God could be seen as one amorphous substance which is somehow both Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All this esoteric talk of "essence" points just to that. And this happens when the ecumenical councils taught the exact opposite of this!
So, let's put fancy words aside, and let's speak like ordinary people.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Andrew, sure there are sola scriptura types -- Baptists would be a typical example (though even there, the more highly educated of their clergy will probably be conversant with classical patristic theology as it is generally understood in the West). You also make a serious mistake lumping all Western non-Roman Catholics into the same artificial "protestant" category. The Anglican churches include a large number of Anglo-Catholics and not a few Lutherans view themselves and their church as Evangelical Catholic.
You seem to be introducing a non-standard term "nature" in place of the standard English word "substance" to talk of the shared Godhead of the three divine persons. This isn't an arbitrary thing. When used theologically, ousia is rendered into English as substance.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
First of all, I am aware that your position is rather a minority position in the Anglican Communion. This has been made clear by other Anglicans' responses in other threads. I don't mind plurality. I do want that we are straightforward with each other. OK, you made it clear that you aren't sola scriptura. I do think Luther, for example, wouldn't be ready to admit that he has all sort of extra-biblical baggage from Catholicism (despite the fact that he did carry that baggage with him!). Perhaps I'm naive, but I think those who speak for sola scriptura actually believe they are doing that.
As for the English terms... it's not an issue of words or terminology. Do you mean by substance what the ancients meant by ousia? If yes, I don't have any objection. But I suspect that many people mean something like Lyda's "amorphous" God that is somehow Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In which case the use of the word is mistaken as it doesn't render what the ancients meant.
Guys, this is not supposed to be about complex terms and difficult meanings. I saw an ultra-persona He, and I responded by saying there are three He and not one. I got back the reply that this is tritheism. If that's someone's evaluation of ancient orthodox scriptural and patristic christianity, I don't mind. I do mind though using words as one sees fit without any continuity with the faith of the scriptures and the ecumenical councils.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Please Andrew don't use "guys" too much ... to English ears it's an Americanism that often stets one's teeth on edge.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
§ Andrew, you can huff and puff all you want, but you are still pushing a heterodox reading of the Nicene Creed. Don't talk to me about homoousisos, I know what it means. The problem is that it appears you don't.
Your lack of knowledge of Protestantism is obvious. Let's deal with that right now. The Reformation is divided into two camps: The Magesterial Reformation, and the Radical Reformation. The Magesterial Reformation generally changed the national churches in the West, while the Radical Reformation produced the Mennonites and the like.
The Magesterial Reformation included the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Zwinglians and the Calvinist Churches, which includes the Presbyterian Churches in England and Scotland. The Zwinglians and the Calvinists later united and are known as the Reformed Churches. None of these groups ever disagreed with Roman Catholicism on the Trinity, not then, and not now. The major disagreements were over eccelisiology, eucharistic theology, and the theology of salvation.
Furthermore, all of the churches I just named accept second-order theology like the Trinity. They are just more insistent, to greater or lesser degrees, that higher theology be rooted in the Bible. The Eucharistic debates started because many thought that Western Church beliefs had become too far removed from biblical support.
If you think I seek your approval for anything, you are quite wrong. Your recent appeals to Protestants are nothing short of hypocritical. Your theology is dubious at best, and heretical at worst. Please refresh yourself with that the Church Fathers actually taught. Reading John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is also a good way to become familiar with the fundamentals of Christianity, especially the theology of the Reformed Churches.
[ 21. November 2008, 14:13: Message edited by: Sober Preacher's Kid ]
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Again, we aren't communicating properly. I know they didn't disagree. The issue is whether they admitted to extra-scriptural background or not. Quite different issue than what you are talking about.
Sigh.
As for who knows what the ancients said and who doesn't, that's just more cat fighting. I'm not entering that arena.
[ 21. November 2008, 14:24: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
LSK
this isn't productive, you know that?
Instead of discussing this further, we end up with assertions... You shouldn't be scared of there being three divine persons. They are not intra-anything. There really are three divine persons.
This is getting immature. I know I shouldn't hold anyone to high standards, but it's a pity we can't hold a serious discussion.
I understand though that such a challenge to the central dogma of your Christian faith, the trinity, must be hard to deal with. And perhaps I should have kept silent, I don't know. I don't like it though when silence is interpreted for agreement, and we end up with a we are all the same. We aren't. Not that this should be binding to anyone. There is no need to get defensive. If we all get defensive, nothing constructive will take place.
I'm not appealing to your past. Why get trapped there? I hope for a different discussion than:
Andreas: This is not the scriptural way.
SPK: But this is what the Catholics taught in the middle ages!
Instead, I would rather see us discussing about the Scriptures, and if you prefer even about the ancient fathers (just as long as we don't proof-text at each other... that would be immature and just silly).
[ 21. November 2008, 14:58: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
Again, we aren't communicating properly. I know they didn't disagree. The issue is whether they admitted to extra-scriptural background or not. Quite different issue than what you are talking about.
Sigh.
As for who knows what the ancients said and who doesn't, that's just more cat fighting. I'm not entering that arena.
Still the wrong question, the question ain't whether we allow for extra scriptural background or not. All Protestants do, even those who claim they don't. It is what weight and understanding it is given and there is NO SIMPLE way to work that out.
For instance our "SOLA SCRIPTURA" fellow Christian put a lot more reliance on certain stuff you seem to enjoy spouting than the more liberal and nuanced amongst us. If you want to find a protestant who believes Moses wrote the five books of the Law, Paul wrote all writings attributed to Paul and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written by who it is historically claimed they were, then go to those who proclaim loudly "SOLA SCRIPTURA" and they will answer the affirmative.
Therefore if you want to talk about secondary background, we ask what background and where from. Yes we accept some but we expect it to stand up to at least as severe a scrutiny as we put the Bible too.
Actually if you want to check this out go back and read Calvin's Institutes. You might learn something of the church fathers you did not know already, as Calvin just loves quoting them.
Jengie
[ 21. November 2008, 15:03: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I wonder why it is, Andrew, that it's only when you present your understanding of the Trinity that it takes on this Mormon-like tritheistic imagery. We never seem to get that from other Orthodox shipmates. That might suggest that there's something wrong with your conceptualisation.
Even if shipmates like Fr Gregory feel that your presentation still falls within orthodox terms, they themselves don't present matters in the same way. You claim to present the doctrine of the Fathers, but I wonder if you ever question your own understanding of what the fathers have written.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Even if shipmates like Fr Gregory feel that your presentation still falls within orthodox terms, they themselves don't present matters in the same way.
I suspect that much of that is due to the language barrier. Translating from greek to english (and vice versa) while retaining the precise original meaning is tricky even for the experts, and I do not think Andrew is counted among their number.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
LSK
There might be many reasons for that. This isn't fair to anyone if we discussed each person's stance... Don't you see that this is immature?
I understand what you are implying. And there is not much I can do about that, could I? What do you suggest I do?
JJ
The fathers were quoted by Protestants against the... Orthodox. Patriarch Jeremiah, I think, was mature enough to leave discussion at that. Getting your hands on texts outside of your tradition and trying to proof-text against those to whom these texts are part of their tradition is fruitless and immature. Sometimes you have to know when the other party can hold a discussion with you.
Marvin
I don't think it's an issue of language. I can't say anything more though; see my response to LSK.
By the way, could you carry on your thoughts from where you left them a few posts ago?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
MtM, it's difficult to know, I think. Andrew expresses himself very well in basic English. I don't know, however, if he appreciates the subtle shades of meaning around particular terms and grammer in English. However, he insists that we don't need to resort to metaphysical concepts and that theological conceptualisation should be simple and straightforward. I don't know if the problem is that his English expression comes off as concrete, or if his conceptualisation is actually excessively concrete regarding the Trinity. To me, the evidence seems to suggest more the latter. If he would just agree that for those of us who subscribe to the Nicene Creed, we hold the same trinitarian faith (I'm again leaving aside the question of the troublesome and unhappy filioque) than there wouldn't be a problem. However, Andrew insists on discovering the putative original intent behind the words and there he seems to insist on an impossible degree of mental homogeneity in order for believers to be "in communion". Frankly, I think this latter idea - the demand for complete homogeneity of subjective understanding - is pathological, possibly delusional.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
LSK
I don't think we accept the same creed, unless we mean the same things when we say the same things. Saying the same things alone is not enough.
It's evident (perhaps you'd like to challenge that) that you and me don't share the same trinitarian faith. If that's just me being heretical, that's little damage to you. But if I'm actually correct then there is a lot of work to do before the two of us could come into communion...
[ 21. November 2008, 15:27: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
The thing that I have trouble with in your explanations of the Trinity, Andreas, is your corollary between human individuality and Divine individuality.
As I understand what you've said: for humans humanity as a whole is the "humaness" of persons. Both you and I are not "humanity", but belong as part of it. We are each human beings. Then you say that for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Divine substance is the whole, while each of them are the Persons within that whole. My problem is that if belonging to humanity puts me in the category of being a human being, how does belonging to the Divinity make the Father "God" and the other two persons not? Is "God" just a title, with no other significance?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Lyda
Let me explain.
You are human, right? You are 100% human, you are not part of something, you are the real deal. The same applies to me. We are not parts of a larger "human nature", we are both fully human.
God is fully God. He is not part of a larger "God". He is the real deal. His Son, being, well, His Son, is fully God as well. This is what we mean when we say "light from light, true God from true God". So, you CAN call Christ God, and indeed we do so, PROVIDED we mean what I said above and not something else!
Is it any clearer now?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
*Whack*
Homousious!
There, get is now? You left out that bit. "Of one Being with the Father!"
I do not worship multiple gods. I worship the One True God, Triune, Almighty, Omnipotent, All-Loving and Ever-Present.
This educational session with the Stick of Orthodoxy has been brought to you by the Nicene Fathers, who find Arianism and Tritheism deplorable in all their forms.
Tritheism and Arianism make the Council Fathers cry. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
... this is not supposed to be about complex terms and difficult meanings.
Yes, but then you go on to do some talkign about difficult meanings.
quote:
I saw an ultra-persona He, and I responded by saying there are three He and not one.
I'm honestly not sure that that is meant to mean.
Or how you square it with "Hear O Israel, the LORD thy God, the LORD is one!"
It is obviously permissible to call God One. Even Jesus did it.
quote:
I got back the reply that this is tritheism.
I wouldn't have thought that there were any real tritheists in the world. It sounds a strange idea. But if there were then what you wrote sounds very much lime what they might say.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Thanks, Andreas. I think that was what I was looking for.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Lyda
You are welcome!
SPK
All humans are homoousians as well. So what? Are we all one ultra-personal Man? Gosh!
ken
The charge of tritheism historically speaking has been raised in two cases:
First, against the Orthodox, by those who didn't accept the Son and the Spirit being uncreated, because the Orthodox professed faith in three divine persons.
Second, by the Orthodox, against some Monophysites, who said that there are three divine natures, and that each divine person has a different divine nature.
Go figure out which category I fall under...
As for God being one... Of course He is one... Paul says that explicitly... For us there is one God, the Father.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Andreas: quote:
As for God being one... Of course He is one... Paul says that explicitly... For us there is one God, the Father.
:sigh:
Back to where I started.
So "God" as in the One God of monotheism is the Father. If the Son and the Spirit are of the same "God" substance, why are not they "Gods" the way persons of the human substance are called human beings? I could call you "Andreas, the Human" since you are of human substance, but that doesn't stop there being a bunch of other humans around of the very same substance.
So I just can't seem to see how Christianity can then be monotheistic in your view.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Because it is wrong to speak of "human beings" in the first place. That's the reply those great fathers during the time of the councils gave, since that question was raised by those who didn't share their faith...
Theology and anthropology (don't be afraid of the fancy term... anthropos just means human) are linked together...
Let me put it differently...
Read Christ's prayer in John 17... It's very beautiful and clear. Observe how he addresses the Father, and how he calls us in their oneness... My only point is that there isn't anything more to that prayer, there isn't anything pseudo-metaphysical or mysterious beyond-us, but it's all part of what's supposed to be ordinary life. "we in them, and they in us".
If the Son and the Father are one in a "metaphysical" way that's beyond us, then what on earth does it mean Christ's praying that "we become one just like they are one"? Will I somehow merge with Lyda? No! That's silly. I will still be a person other than Lyda, yet, at the same time, be one with her.
[ 21. November 2008, 18:24: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
If he would just agree that for those of us who subscribe to the Nicene Creed, we hold the same trinitarian faith (I'm again leaving aside the question of the troublesome and unhappy filioque) than there wouldn't be a problem. However, Andrew insists on discovering the putative original intent behind the words and there he seems to insist on an impossible degree of mental homogeneity in order for believers to be "in communion". Frankly, I think this latter idea - the demand for complete homogeneity of subjective understanding - is pathological, possibly delusional.
I don't think it's Andrew's discovery, but from the little I've read of the argument it's a given that Orthodox and RCC/Protestants don't see the Trinity in the same way. I think Andrew has put it simply as the difference between the way you understand the creed, 'One God, the Father etc.' and Orthodox 'One God the Father, etc.' is a difference. If you're going to accept arguments about an extra i or not, (not that I know the arguments particularly well), then you can't be dismissive of the comma...
I think the filioque could be relevant here in exploring the difference, because if the OneGodImpersonalEssence is the cause then it doesn't make any difference that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, but wouldn't that mean the Spirit also proceeds from the Spirit? Or has that created a duality in the Trinity? I seem to recall something about the Spirit being the Love between Father and Son in the RCC? So is this an introduction of two causes?
Also, it seems two Greek words were tranlated by one in the Latin in the 4th century which is thought to have given rise to the confusion.
εκπορεύεται proceeding forth/out of and πέμπεται sent forth by, both translated by the Latin procedure, so the first relates only to the ontological relationship in the Trinity and the second to Providence. Hm, maybe not so much a help, not sure what that's saying..
OK, back to OneGodEssence, OneBeing, - if this is the cause, is this saying that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are 'of the cause'?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
No Western trinitarian is saying that the God-essence (I don't like this term) is impersonal. Transpersonal, perhaps, only in that the One God exists co-eternally and co-equally as Three Persons. Remember, we neither confuse the persons nor divide the substance. The three divine persons are interpenetrating but distinct.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Remember, we neither confuse the persons nor divide the substance.
Except that for the ancients this applies to humanity as well... Our persons shouldn't be confused, and our substance shouldn't be divided. I suspect however that this is not something you had in mind.
It's not the words and phrases used, but the meaning we apply to them that matters.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Myrrh
The Spirit as the vinculum amoris (bond of love) first appears in (yes, you guessed it!) ... Augustine.
A reflection on trinitarian theology in the light of Arius ...
I think that Arius felt constrained to resist oneness in being / essence / substance between the Father and the Son because he took the subordination of the Son to the Father in the divine economy as indicating a corresponding ontological dissimilarity. I bring this up because Arius distorts an EARLIER formulation of the Trinity. Allow me to explain for Andrew's contributions seem to reflect this earlier approach.
Andrew's "one God the Father" although faithful to the formulation in the Nicene Creed and although certainly susceptible of an Orthodox interpretation does carry an inherent weakness if it goes on to deny that the Word and the Spirit are also contribute to the oneness of God in the ontology of the Trinity NOT by adding their own distinctive essence (tritheism) but by the mutual indwelling of all 3 hypostases (circumincessio). This the creed of Nicaea does not address. It didn't have to do that. Only when the Cappadocians Fathers have had a good go at resolving some of these issues does the doctrine of the Trinity become clearer.
Where is the shadow of Arius in all of this?
The monarchy of the Father combines the subordination of the Son (and the Spirit for that matter) in the divine economy with the directional precedence in the eternal begetting of the Logos and the spiration of the Spirit in and from the Father ALONE, ie., against then of course the filioque.
Andrew's characterisation, whilst Orthodox, strikes me as a little odd in that it seems to refelect this more primitive articulation of the Trinity (as indeed does the opening phrasing of Nicaea 1). From this earlier characterisation of the Father as God, Arius made his classical category confusion of economy and essence in a tripartite hierarchical ranking of the persons. There can be no hierarchy of BEING in God ... to which later trinitarian theology attests more explicitly .... or so at least it seems to me.
[ 21. November 2008, 21:56: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
JJ
The fathers were quoted by Protestants against the... Orthodox. Patriarch Jeremiah, I think, was mature enough to leave discussion at that. Getting your hands on texts outside of your tradition and trying to proof-text against those to whom these texts are part of their tradition is fruitless and immature. Sometimes you have to know when the other party can hold a discussion with you.
You can't have your cake and eat it.
Firstly I am not talking of Protestant vs Orthodox conversations. Calvin never intended Orthodox to read his Institutes. He expected fellow Protestants too, so he is not trying to be a better Orthodox the Orthodox by using secondary sources. So I am saying "Here is a Protestant writing to Protestants, see how he use the writings of the church fathers". You must agree that is very different.
Before you ask, it is directed specifically at Protestants not the whole Western Church. Also consider how often do Orthodox writers since the 15th Century write for a Protestant audience?
Secondly if we acknowledge secondary sources as valid sources then they are no longer solely your sources but our sources. Sources Protestants share with Orthodox, not the sole the possessions of the Orthodox. Just as I don't say to a Catholic who quotes Calvin "unhand him, he's Protestant". You cannot say to us "unhand the Church Fathers they are Orthodox". Protestants are not sole arbiters of Calvin, Luther, Hus, Zwingli, Farel, Knox or any other Reformers legacy. Nor can Orthodox be sole arbiters of the Church Father's legacy.
If your legacy is rich and everyone Christian should draw on it, then you should not shout foul every time another Christian does.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Father Gregory is of course right in what he wrote... I would only say one thing different.
Strange as it might sound in modern ears, circumincessio was not the solution to the arian controversy, because it wasn't denied by the heretics.... What was denied was the Son's (and the Spirit's) being uncreated.
Which is why the answer to the arian controversy (and the controversies that followed) is the Creed of the first (and the second) ecumenical councils and not additional theological deliberations!
That's the only correction I'd make to what father Gregory said!
Jengie Jon
There is use and there is... abuse. Now, I don't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to recognize my right to view the early Reformers' use of some patristic quotations as abuse, rather than as lawful use...
[ 21. November 2008, 22:29: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Good god, not another debate about the inner relations of the Godhead.
Can't we Christians simply accept the doctrine of the Trinity and resist the urge to speculate on the precise workings of the Godhead?
The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.
That is good enough for me.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Anglican_Brat, I tend to agree and have been thinking all afternoon how absurd this whole discussion must seem to the Blessed Trinity -- as if we stupid creatures could grasp the nature of the Godhead with any accuracy at all. What we propose are models for what God is like, given what we have seen. Our best model is the Nicean-Chalcedonian model of Godhead and Christology. It is undoubtedly, at best, very far stepped down from the divine Reality.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Amen.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Although there is truth in that you know that is what annoys us Orthodox about you Anglicans ... just as soon as we get somewhere with you in dialogue you leave the pitch in a harumph of spiritual superiority ... I suspect because such clear thinking challenges you too much NOT because God is offended by us debating the implications of the Incarnation for monotheism. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Well, Fr Gregory, I wasn't necessarily leaving, just stating my misgivings about a debate that seems more about words than realities.
Are we getting somewhere? ISTM that we have been at an impasse and that this impasse is due in no small part to a refusal to believe that Western Christians could possibly hold orthodox beliefs. If we affirm the Creed and the declaration of Chalcedon regarding the natures of Christ, then we are unquestionably reading these wrongly and benightedly, so that our understanding is heterodox. If we properly explicate the Creed, then we are still failing to grasp the proper patristic anthropology and philosophical categories. I'm sorry, Father, but this strikes one as so much OC chauvinism. And as a former Anglican cleric, you really ought to know better.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Lietuvos
Did you not notice what had happened when Andrew agreed with my last post? I had actually managed to close the gap somewhat between you and him but rather than gauge the importance of this we had a "down tools" response. Yes, I know precisely what I am dealing with here. Rather than a celebration of apophatic theology (remember who it is who emphasises that?) this reluctance to debate I think reflects a certain Christian anti-intellectualism in the west. Long words, call him "smart arse," (not you of course ... another thread).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Although there is truth in that you know that is what annoys us Orthodox about you Anglicans ... just as soon as we get somewhere with you in dialogue you leave the pitch in a harumph of spiritual superiority ... I suspect because such clear thinking challenges you too much NOT because God is offended by us debating the implications of the Incarnation for monotheism.
Spiritual superiority? My "amen" was acknowledgment of the fact that as humans with limited language resources to describe the Ultimate, there comes a point that as refined as we could get in speaking of eternal things, trying to understand some of them completely is as difficult as trying to grasp quantum without the proper math. "Now I see in a glass darkly..." and all that. I don't think Paul was feeling particularly spiritually superior when he said that. And I'd take a look in the mirror before hurling charges of "spiritual superiority" at us Anglicans.
And I certainly don't think the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit is offended by people discussing the issues as best they can. I doubt L.S.K. does either.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Father Gregory, I agree with the content of your post of yesterday addressed to Myrrh (the one touching in part on Monarchianism and Arius). I just don't see what more there is to say at this point.
I don't understand what you mean by "down tools" response.
As to anti-intellectualism, is it disingenuous to admit, at the end of the day (one of those most annoying expressions in the English language)the limitations of our intellects as regards the resolution of certain questions?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Precisely, Lyda*Rose. I was sitting here quietly applauding the courage and debating skill, clear evidence of considerable intellectual ability, from every person who even dared to enter that thread, excluding myself, since I bear the august title of Giant Flaming Ass.™
I do have enough intelligence/intellect to have realised, finally, that the thread is far better off without posts from the likes of me!
Best wishes,
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
This is not an issue of intellectual discussion. This is an issue of worship...
It is very different to address your worship to the divine persons and quite different to address one's worship to an "amorphous" substance that is the Trinity.
What I find particularly problematic is the change of meanings. The divine nature is indeed beyond all words, thoughts, anything. But to say there are three divine persons, this does not say anything about their nature. To say "discussion on the Trinity is about the divine nature" presupposes that the three persons are relations within that nature, which is a mistake.
Same for "precise workings of the Godhead". To think this is what we are discussing is to miss the point.
All this "the trinity won't care" could be said for every single issue that led to an ecumenical council, with the anathemas this meant and the lives it costed. These things are very important, and, believe it or not, for some people their salvation depends on them.
And if we get a "how absurd this whole discussion must seem to the Blessed Trinity" for discussing the issues of the first ecumenical council, what would your response be if we ever got to the fifth ecumenical council. The entire church history looks pretty silly that way, and we get to appear very enlightened, when it is we that are mostly in the dark here...
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
errr..... I meant SIXTH ecumenical council, not fifth (although the fifth is in itself pretty impressive....)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Andrew, I don't think any theologically orthodox Western Christians are worshipping an amorphous Trinity. We worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Only those with heterodox ideas that amount to modalism (and hence a type of implicit but unacknowledged unitarianism) worship what might be called "an amorphous Trinity-God". There are formulations that one hears these days popularly amongst some Western clerics, such as the invocation of "God: Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier", which suggests possible modalism and hence pseudo-Trinitarianism. But such tendencies are not the teachings of the Western Church, whether Catholic or Magisterial Protestant.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
For one thing, Lietuvos, it seems to me that somehow, Americans in particular have conveyed, wittingly or unwittingly, to Europeans that as a
nation, we have a rather narrow mindset. Our mega-churches and televangelists are very vocal, and they're the ones Europeans see on tv.
I got some free software the other day, hoping I could see tv from Greece without having to pay extra for it to the satellite company. Unfortunately, the only free tv from Greece that I could find on the free download player was a grainy thing with a Pentecostalist preacher going on and on in Greek.
Some of my Greek friends at church told me that pentecostalism is a fast-growing group in Greece, largely from watching the Greek version of "God TV".
But it seems to me that perhaps some people have got quite the wrong impression of all of us "Westerners", and perhaps that impression comes, more than anyone cares to admit, from the media.
Best wishes,
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
LSK
I was quoting Lyda's
quote:
I must say that one thing I've gotten out of this thread is that it is right to direct prayers to the Persons, not to the rather amorphous Substance. And I'll start doing that consistently.
Father Gregory
I have been thinking about what you called a bit odd way to articulate the Trinity... and I think that for me it's not odd precisely because in Greek when we refer to God we mean God the Father most of the time... We say God, and mean the Father, and Christ, and mean Christ...
Leetle Masha
I doubt Greeks know anything about American Christianity. If the media started to show how e.g. Pentecostals worship in America, and make a point that many people in high places accept that as normal worship, I think the entire Greek people would get scared and think you are nuts... (I say scared, because nutcases shouldn't have that much power, and your nation is indeed very powerful, in the secular sense)
As for Pentecostalism in Greece, it is considered a cult... When you hear it's fast growing, you should keep in mind that that's a Greek evaluation of growth... I mean, when there were zero Pentecostals, the existence of a few is huge... even though in absolute numbers they are almost negligible...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Andrew, in the American context when I hear people refer to "God" meaning God the Father, and refer separately to Christ or Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Ghost, I worry that many times they aren't Trinitarians at all but Arians. This is because they may not even have the most basic understanding of the Trinity as three divine persons of one subtance and as mutually indwelling or interpenetrating. Actually, I'm afraid that in our protestant cultural context that is where sola scriptura gets one in practice. I don't know if you can understand how this can be the case, but for starters it has to do with extraordinarily poor catechesis, I think.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
