tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post4781194779242885939..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: The original Nicene Creed and semantic confusionDavid Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-58639864244981084472010-04-19T07:27:58.332-07:002010-04-19T07:27:58.332-07:00I'm not really qualified to get involved in th...I'm not really qualified to get involved in this discussion, but I have been trying to follow it, and I find myself a bit confused by the following:Nilesh Ku Mahapatrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10552665027393484715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-56398878293667488532010-03-19T12:46:34.362-07:002010-03-19T12:46:34.362-07:00David,
I apologize for the delay but I have been ...David,<br /><br />I apologize for the delay but I have been occupied with joustin elsewhere.<br /><br />Here are two relevant passages from Irenaeus. <br /><br />"Wherefore also the light which is from God does not illumine them, because they have dishonoured and despised God, holding Him of small account, because, through His love and infinite benignity, He has come within reach of human knowledge (knowledge, however, not with regard to His greatness, or with regard to His essence—for that has no man measured or handled—but after this sort: that we should know that He who made, and formed, and breathed in them the breath of life, and nourishes us by means of the creation, establishing all things by His Word, and binding them together by His Wisdom..." Against Heresies, 3.24.2<br /><br />"There is therefore one God, who by the Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things; but this is the Creator (Demiurge) who has granted this world to the human race, and who, as regards His greatness, is indeed unknown to all who have been made by Him (for no man has searched out His height, either among the ancients who have gone to their rest, or any of those who are now alive); but as regards His love, He is always known through Him by whose means He ordained all things. Now this is His Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the last times was made a man among men, that He might join the end to the beginning, that is, man to God. Wherefore the prophets, receiving the prophetic gift from the same Word, announced His advent according to the flesh, by which the blending and communion of God and man took place according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Word of God foretelling from the beginning that God should be seen by men, and hold converse with them upon earth, should confer with them, and should be present with His own creation, saving it, and becoming capable of being perceived by it, and freeing us from the hands of all that hate us, that is, from every spirit of wickedness; and causing us to serve Him in holiness and righteousness all our days,in order that man, having embraced the Spirit of God, might pass into the glory of the Father." Ibid, 4.20.4.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-10948165695950176192010-03-04T10:06:16.654-08:002010-03-04T10:06:16.654-08:00Hello Ken,
I finally finished the post, mentioned...Hello Ken,<br /><br />I finally finished the post, mentioned earlier, that I had started working on concerning <i>monogenēs</i> and eternal generation:<br /><br /><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/03/eternal-generation-of-son.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a><br /><br />Sincerely hope that you find it relevant.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-64094052149069830962010-02-25T13:20:02.351-08:002010-02-25T13:20:02.351-08:00Hello again Ken,
Don’t want you to think that I a...Hello again Ken,<br /><br />Don’t want you to think that I am ignoring your last post, quite the contrary; in fact, I am deeply engaged in research for a new post on the eternal generation of the Son. Hopefully, the Lord willing, I will have a substantial post up by Saturday (Monday at the latest).<br /><br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />David<br /><br /><br />P.S. Perry, I have put your last posts on the ‘back-burner’ for the present, but plan to return to them after my upcoming thread on the eternal generation of the Son.David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-62400585987823175312010-02-24T13:30:57.544-08:002010-02-24T13:30:57.544-08:00David,
Thank you so much for this discussion - mos...David,<br />Thank you so much for this discussion - most of what you have written I knew or have seen before - I remember reading somewhere years ago that Gordon Clark quote and I thank you for digging it out again.<br /><br />I am just asking questions the way the Iranian former Muslims do and the way other Muslims have on this issue - in order to help me improve how to talk about this issue. Listening to Muslim-Christian debates on the Trinity also conjure up these thoughts in me: "how would I explain that?". <br /><br />But monogenes in Hebrews 11:17 is used of Isaac, and since Abraham had other sons - namely Ishmael, it does seem like "unique" or "one of a kind" is the right meaning.<br /><br />Also, it is the word in the LXX for "lonely", "all alone" several times. Dr. White points this out in his book, The Forgotten Trinity. <br /><br />What does "eternal begotten-ness" mean in the creeds? (since it is talking about Jesus' nature before the incarnation - what does "generated" or "begotten" mean? - is it like "rays coming out from the sun"? Didn't Origen come up with that? (seems like I read that somewhere also.)<br /><br />In Luke 1:34-35, the Scripture says, "for this reason" He is called the Son of God - what reason?<br />- because of the Power of the Most High and the Holy Spirit that would come upon and overshadow Mary. It is all spiritual and invisible before the conception. He is born from the virgin Mary, and that seems to be the emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God; that God was His Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit. (no physical relationship - not as some of the Mormon leaders have explained their doctrine of the incarnation)<br /><br />Interesting that you talk about "ginomai" (become) and gennao (to be born or give birth) as both coming from "genos" ( kind, generation) - do you think Genesis 1 helps us here ? __ the phrase "according to their kinds" is repeated 11 times in that chapter. "God said" (creative word), "and it was so" (they became) and "they were created, "according to their kinds" (they naturally have offspring, children) <br /><br />How can Jesus, before the incarnation be a "Son" ?- must be a spiritual son - emanating out from the Father. (like rays from the Sun again is conjured up by "eternally past generated") <br /><br />These are the kinds of comments and questions I have gotten for the last 26 years from Muslims (Arabs, Iranians, Turks) and for the last 16 from Iranians and former Iranians who struggle with the Trinity and the eternal son-ship of Christ.<br /><br />When the Scripture says, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You" - Psalm 2:7, Hebrews 1:5; 5:5, Acts 13:33, the word "today" seems to be referring to time, and His incarnation and entering into time. <br /><br />The eternal logos (the word) is easier to explain to Muslims and former Muslims. But without the Father and Son terminology, the personal relationship aspects of the love within the Trinity are lost or dimished. <br /><br />Is the reason God chose to use the words "Father" and "Son" to reveal Himself to us is because they help us humans understand the close relationship they have with each other in the Trinity?<br /><br />That is usually what I say to Iranians in discipleship classes and getting deeper with their sincere questions.<br /><br />Thanks again.<br /><br />I would appreciate your thoughts on the Sun and rays question and was that illustration from Origen?<br /><br />I went back and read Walter Martin's take on it. He also says the Biblical meaning was ignored from 100 Ad to 230 AD as Origen was the first to come up that.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-63336024848958967302010-02-24T10:58:29.749-08:002010-02-24T10:58:29.749-08:00Hi Ken,
On the 22nd, you posted the following:
&...Hi Ken,<br /><br />On the 22nd, you posted the following:<br /><br />>>Do you thing "monogenes" originally meant "one of a kind"/ "unique"/ "one and only" in the Biblical literature?>><br /><br />Me: The above definition(s) has certainly become the majority opinion of NT lexical scholars; however, not ALL are convinced that “begotten” should be dropped. For instance, Büchsel in his entry on “μονογενης” in the <i>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</i> (pp. 737-741), writes that the apostle John, “understands the concept of sonship in terms of begetting”, and that “μονογενης probably includes also begetting by God”. <br /><br />Then there is the very interesting observations made by Gordon H. Clark in his book, <i>The Trinity</i>. In pages 119-121, he critiques J. Oliver Buswell’s speculations (from his <i>Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion</i>), writing:<br /><br />“…when Dr. Buswell says that the Greek fathers did not know as much Greek as we do, it must surprise the student to learn that Athanasius and a hundred Greek bishops, whose mother tongue was Greek, knew less Greek than we do, and in particular did not know that <i>monogenēs</i> is derived from <i>ginomai</i> rather from <i>gennaō</i>. Even so, the two verbs are themselves derived from an earlier common stem. At any rate, the <i>genes</i> in <i>monogenēs</i> derives immediately from <i>genos</i>. This word as a matter of fact suggests begetting and generation, as much as if it had been derived from <i>gennaō</i>.” (Page 120.)<br /><br /><br />>>If so, what is the meaning in the creeds, "begotten, not made" ??>><br /><br />Me: I suppose scholars can present plausible arguments for excluding “begotten” in the NT usage, but I have never been convinced that one can do so with the early creeds. I think Clark is absolutely correct here.<br /><br />>>What does the "eternal begotten- ness" mean ?<br /><br />How can anything in the eternal past, ie, the pure spiritual reality of the Tri-une God (Father, Son, and Spirit) be "begotten" into the past?>><br /><br />Me: The complexity of the “eternal begetting/generation” of the Son of God is evidenced by the fact that it is still being hotly debated by modern Trinitarians. I first came upon the denial of eternal Sonship (i.e. begetting/generation) back in early 80s via the writings of Walter Martin. In his <i>Kingdom of the Cults</i> he explicitly denies the doctrine of “eternal generation”, and states that it, “springs from the Roman Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen” (p. 117 – 1985 ed.). Interestingly enough, John MacArthur has reversed his position on this issue: <a href="http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A235" rel="nofollow">SEE THIS ARTICLE</a>.<br /><br /><br />>>I am asking because I am trying to formulate how to explain to Muslims, who know about the Biblical meaning of monogenes (only; unique, one and only) vs. the creedal meaning; and seek to exploit this.>><br /><br />Me: A difficult task for sure. The denials of eternal Sonship/generation by some Trinitarians such as Buswell and Martin, the <i>autotheos</i> speculations concerning the Son by Calvin (and many of his followers), and subordinationism of the pre-Nicene Fathers, certainly speak to the complexity of this issue. I sincerely hope you will share your efforts in this matter with me…<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-68128213788549130822010-02-24T09:32:07.572-08:002010-02-24T09:32:07.572-08:00Hello Ken and Perry,
Once again, Blogger has fail...Hello Ken and Perry,<br /><br />Once again, Blogger has failed to inform me of all the new posts—Perry’s last two posts showed up in my emails, but Ken’s did not—Blogger’s new post(s) email alert continues to be ‘hit-and-miss’…<br /><br />Anyway, with that said, I would like to address Ken’s new post before Perry’s; I need to brush up a bit on some of the past research I have done on the term “monogenēs” before I respond, so please patient with me.<br /><br />Perry: I somehow missed the quote from Irenaeus you made reference to in your last post; could you provide the book, chapter, paragraph?<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-50443442062755154842010-02-24T09:08:06.902-08:002010-02-24T09:08:06.902-08:00David, (cont.)
I quite agree that the majority we...David, (cont.)<br /><br />I quite agree that the majority weren’t adherents of Arius or Alexander in terms of the terms of the debate at the outset. That is just evidence of their Modalistic and Adoptionistic worries that the terms of each side seemed to imply. But when they heard what the Arians were in fact advocating they swung over to the Alexandrian side and not out of any sympathy with Sabellianism. They may not have been clear on how it wasn’t Sabellian, but that of itself proves nothing one way or the other. The fact that most of them “went on” being semi-Arian in the sense that I sketched above seems to support the idea that while endorsing the Alexandrian party, they did so without endorsing a Sabellian view even in cases where they may not have been sure how to articulate how it wasn’t Sabellian.<br /><br />As for theosis, it is important in the post that I referred you to, to note that I cited Ireneaus to show conceptual convergence with Athanasius. Secondly, I don’t grant the two distinctions you with to draw. First, Athanasius at times speaks of the Son as generated by the Father’s will. Granted he doesn’t say it often, but he does say it. Does that make Athanasius a “subordinationist?” I don’t think so and I don’t think it makes Ireneaus one, at least not in the sense that say Justin seems to have a problematic subdorinationalism. Second, even if true, it wouldn’t imply that their views of theosis in fact differed. It might imply that they should have and that one was inconsistent, but that requires a demonstration and in any case leaves my point above untouched in terms of what they in fact taught. <br /><br />I also noted in that post that Ireneaus essentially qualifies his “exchange” view in the same way that Athansius does, namely no transfer of the divine essence. So this is why I referred you to it so you could read the text ;)Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-65681148417526231142010-02-24T09:06:07.580-08:002010-02-24T09:06:07.580-08:00Hullo David,
I agree that the terms are complicat...Hullo David,<br /><br />I agree that the terms are complicated and so all the more caution should be used in putting a good amount of weight on them in an argument. My point was that the plurality of uses alone helps to account for terminological and hence some conceptual confusion. That of itself doesn’t imply that some of the respective parties didn’t have the same concept in mind or as a target all along. Nor does it imply any kind of conceptual development, but just that a specific term was refined and coined to mean this thing and no longer that thing. Natural languages work that way.<br /><br /><br />As for inspiration, the term “theological schools” gets thrown around a lot without much definition. It is hardly informative. That said, while the Arian controversy didn’t revolve around a specific view of inspiration, that doesn’t imply that the respective theological parties didn’t have their views of inspiration shaped by their distinctive theological commitments. And inspiration was most certainly in view in the earlier Adoptionist heresies as well as the post Nicene Nestorian heresy. It seems implausible to me that there is some common theory neutral concept of inspiration between the various parties. Moreover, you left untouched my question on how you ascertained in a principled way the patristic consensus.<br /><br /><br />When you say that you have only begun your reflections on the councils, does this mean in terms of what you are planning to post or in terms of thinking the matter through? In either case to ignore Athanasius Tomus seems to leave a significant gap in the argument that you appear to be presenting.<br /><br />As for Hanson’s work, simply quoting Hanson doesn’t establish what he says. This is true for any scholar. What does is the argument. I don’t think that a lack of “balance” (whatever that is supposed to mean) is present by Athanasius’ inability to define what God is since I don’t think God is definable. Hence I do not share Hanson’s implicit premise and I doubt that Athanasius did as well. Second, it is quite understandable why given the earlier use of hypostasis in terms of an actual essence he would have to carve out the terminological space. But it is something of a leap to argue from the need to carve out terminological space to conceptual space. I can know what I mean without being able to express it for a time. The inability to do the latter doesn’t of itself imply the vacuity with respect to the former. Something similar happens with the Nestorians with theopoiesis and the shift to theosis. In any case, what is in play here between Hanson’s assessment and Athanasius’ thought is in part a theory of language. But that aside, as Hanson himself argues, most bishops were not trained in philosophy and so it is quite understandable why there was semantic confusion. It is quite possible to use terms meaningfully while getting the referent wrong.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-81162599305685708282010-02-22T12:35:31.263-08:002010-02-22T12:35:31.263-08:00oops -
Do you thing "monogenes" origin...oops - <br /><br />Do you thing "monogenes" originally meant . . . <br /><br />should have been<br /><br />Do you think . . . ?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-7425814296966780592010-02-22T12:34:18.082-08:002010-02-22T12:34:18.082-08:00David and others:
Do you thing "monogenes&quo...David and others:<br />Do you thing "monogenes" originally meant "one of a kind"/ "unique"/ "one and only" in the Biblical literature?<br /><br />If so, what is the meaning in the creeds, "begotten, not made" ??<br /><br />What does the "eternal begotten- ness" mean ?<br /><br />How can anything in the eternal past, ie, the pure spiritual reality of the Tri-une God (Father, Son, and Spirit) be "begotten" into the past?<br /><br />I am asking because I am trying to formulate how to explain to Muslims, who know about the Biblical meaning of monogenes (only; unique, one and only) vs. the creedal meaning; and seek to exploit this.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-57077527707182429952010-02-17T09:07:22.357-08:002010-02-17T09:07:22.357-08:00Hi Jonathan,
You wrote:
>>Did I tell you I...Hi Jonathan,<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />>>Did I tell you I was typing fast? Maybe when my son hits a month, I'll actually have the luxury of checking for typos. ;-)>><br /><br />Me: A newborn!?! My-oh-my, sincerely hope you are a young man, for I would wager that you are not getting much sleep !!! (BTW, congratulations…)<br /><br />Thanks for the heads up on Hagg’s book; a good portion is available online—I think I will wait for the pb before I order it though. (FYI: ordered Ayres book last week so I can read it again.)<br /><br />My turn to recommend a book: Peter Widdicombe’s, <i>The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius</i>.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-50750863662046532452010-02-16T05:12:17.282-08:002010-02-16T05:12:17.282-08:00Ayres (not Ayers – wink) from my read (it has been...<i>Ayres (not Ayers – wink) from my read (it has been well over 4 years now and I got the book through interlibrary loan due to the price—now that it is available much cheaper in pb, I will probably order it) agrees much more with Hanson than he disagrees. IMO, his disagreements with Hanson begin much earlier than chapter 12; I would argue that it is his understanding of Origen’s theology which lays the foundation for his upcoming disagreements with Hanson; and to be brutally honest, I have grave concerns with Ayres interpretation of Origen—I believe it is a ‘miss-step’ on his part.</i><br /><br />Did I tell you I was typing fast? Maybe when my son hits a month, I'll actually have the luxury of checking for typos. ;-)<br /><br />I agree that there are disagreements throughout, but Chapter 12 really gets to the heart of it. As to Ayres on Origen, what helped me understand where Origen fit in was reading about Clement. Henny Fiska Hagg's _Clement of Alexandria and the Beginning of Christian Apophaticism_ presents a good explanation of Clement's metaphysical understanding and how it plays into subsequent theology better than Origen's. Remember that Plotinus and Origen both came after Clement and extended the speculation beyond Clement's basic framework. Those speculative developments in metaphysics, which were NOT followed by orthodoxy in many cases, were the roots of the heresy of Origenism. Ayres's assessment of Origen, particularly with regard to his Platonic cosmology ultimately being at odds with his orthodoxy and unmooring his allegorical Scriptural exegesis, seems to be exactly right. Clement's more Aristotelian Middle Platonism was far more compatible with orthodoxy in that regard. <br /><br />Hagg rightly points out that most of the attacks on Clement (like Photios) involve interpreting him in terms of Origen, rather than reading him in his own right. What I found most interesting is that St. Maximus identifies Clement as being the first one to actually understand the difference between the faculty of will and its operation, obviously a key distinction for later orthodoxy. It's definitely worth taking a look at the metaphysical differences between Origen and his background (particularly Clement) before forming a definitive opinion on Origen's role, because you might be surprised at the results. While Origen had great influence, there are many cases where the influence appears to be an existing background that is much broader than Origen's particular metaphysical beliefs.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-36076243629241070312010-02-14T15:24:42.227-08:002010-02-14T15:24:42.227-08:00>>Fifth, you wrote that Ireneaus’ views on t...>>Fifth, you wrote that Ireneaus’ views on theosis have no current adherents. I’d beg to differ. The Orthodox certainly do. http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/contra-mundum-athanasius-and-the-lds-on-deification/>><br /><br />Me: We are discussing Irenaeus and not Athanasius [wink]. Two important distinctions between Irenaeus and Athanasius, concerning the doctrine of deification, must be noted: first, Irenaeus was a subordinationist, Athansius was not; and second, Irenaeus’ “exchange” doctrine/theory displayed no qualifications, Athanasius’ did.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-14649720016439950342010-02-14T15:07:18.017-08:002010-02-14T15:07:18.017-08:00>>Fourth, it seems awfully strange to say th...>>Fourth, it seems awfully strange to say that the majority of the Nicene bishops took the terms in a Sabellian sense, given that at the outset most of them were Semi-Arians of the homoiousian variety and were so out of concern over Sabellianism. And by semi-Arian I mean in the sense of Basil (the Great) who saw the error of Arianism but lacked the terminological apparatus to distinguish the persons without individuating the essence. This and the Sabellian worry goes to the pre-Nicene Hellenistic usage of terms that I mentioned above.>><br /><br />Me: I think you are probably referring to the following I posted earlier:<br /><br />== Me: The Fathers who actually drafted the NC of 325 understood what THEY meant by the language they employed, so for them a Sabellian interpretation is not necessarily demanded. But, that solves nothing, for every other theological school of the day (including many of the bishops who attended Nicea and signed off on the NC) could not help but read the “not of a different hypostasis or ousia” clause in anything but a Sabellian sense.==<br /><br />We must keep in mind that the majority of the bishops in circa 325 were anything but strict adherents of either Arius or Alexander, and those who attended Nicea and signed off on the NC did so for reasons (political and polemical) that had little to do with their actual theological beliefs. In the end, only two bishops stood with Arius. “All the rest saluted the emperor, signed the formula, and went right on teaching as they always had. In the case of most of them, this meant a doctrine of Christ somewhere between that of Arius and that of Alexander.” (Jaroslav Pelikan, <i>The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition</i>, p. 203.)<br /><br />Many patristic scholars have pointed out that <i>homoousian</i> was probably included in the NC because Arius detested the term, and his opponents knew that he would not sign off on the NC if it was in it. They also knew that Arius’ had endorsed the use of three <i>hypostases</i> in reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; so, for polemical purposes, <i>hypostases</i> and <i>ousia</i> were equated to further combat Arius, even though this ‘opened the door’ for a Sabellian interpretation.<br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-1345454079379571852010-02-14T14:29:19.673-08:002010-02-14T14:29:19.673-08:00>>Third, I don’t know, but so far I haven’t ...>>Third, I don’t know, but so far I haven’t seen a discussion of Athanasius’ Tomus ad Antiochenos here and the council of Alexandria in 362 A.D. Certainly Hanson as well as other scholars cover it (Kopecek, Ayres, et al.) and it seems quite germane to what is being claimed by you.>><br /><br />Me: Not yet, but keep in mind, I have only just begun my reflections on councils. However, since you have raised the issue, for now, I would like to provide the following selection from Hanson:<br /><br />==What gave an inevitable lack of balance to Athansius’ use of the word <i>homoousios</i> and his championship of it was his incapacity to define effectively what God is as Three in distinction from what he I as One…until he could come to terms with a theology which admitted the existence of three <i>hypostases</i>, and no longer regard the word <i>hypostasis</i> as a synonym for <i>ousia</i>, he could not fail to give the impression that he was in danger of falling into Sabellianism.<br /><br />For Athanasius <i>ousia</i> is what God is, what makes God God. But what did <i>hypostasis</i> mean to him? We must answer, almost nothing. He avoids using the word as far as he can, and, at least till he wrote the <i>Tomus ad Antichenos</i> in 362, he treats is as a simple synonym of <i>ousia</i>. (<i>Search</i>, p. 444.)==<br /><br />And interestingly enough, just a few years prior, in his <i>De Decretis</i>, <b>Athanasius has the nerve to delete the term <i>hypostasis</i> from his “quote” of the Nicene Creed!</b><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-11177380337848260592010-02-14T13:38:01.810-08:002010-02-14T13:38:01.810-08:00>>Second, you write that the consensus of th...>>Second, you write that the consensus of the Fathers on Scripture is that it is inspired. How did you ascertain the consensus of the Fathers? And by inspired, did they all mean the same thing and if so, does that mean exactly what moderns mean by the term?>><br /><br />Me: The consensus I spoke of has come via my own reading of the CFs, and from the assessment(s) of many patristic scholars. To summarize my take, the disputes between the various theological schools of the period that is usually termed, “the Arian controversy”, did not involve questions over the “inspiration” (or canon) of the Scriptures, but rather, the interpretation of the Scriptures. <br /><br />As for precisely what the CFs understood inspiration to mean, I have never done a detailed study on this, but I do recall certain CFs stating the Scriptures are “divine”, “holy” “perfect”, “written by the Spirit of God”, “the work of the Holy Spirit”, “God’s Word”, et al.<br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-25243942746981208092010-02-14T13:15:48.694-08:002010-02-14T13:15:48.694-08:00Hello Perry,
Finally have some ‘spare’ time to si...Hello Perry,<br /><br />Finally have some ‘spare’ time to sit down and address the questions you posed to me—I shall do so in the order that they were asked, and one question per post.<br /><br />>>First, what does hypostasis mean for Aristotle and Middle and Late Platonists who used Aristotelian terms and categories? Do Aristotle and his commentators use hypostasis or substance in one and only one sense?>><br /><br />Me: I concur with John Zizioulas, who wrote: “The history of the terms ‘substance’ (<i>ousia</i>) and ‘hypostasis’ is extremely complicated.” (<i>Being As Communion</i>, p. 38). Any assessment of the use of <i>hypostasis</i> prior to the Cappadocian ‘revolution’ should keep in mind Zizioulas’ broad assessment of the Greek and Roman philosophical schools inability “to create a true ontology of the person as an absolute concept”.<br /><br />The combox is certainly not the place to elucidate the particulars of the use(s) of “hypostasis or substance” by “Aristotle and Middle and Late Platonists who used Aristotelian terms and categories” (and let’s not forgot the Stoics), <b>so I will at this time state simply state that <i>ousia</i> and <i>hypostasis</i> are used in more than one “sense”</b>. (IMHO, any comprehensive discussion on this issue should begin with Aristotle’s distinction between πρώτη ουσία and δευτέρα ουσία.)<br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-77928394566804182672010-02-12T09:36:10.825-08:002010-02-12T09:36:10.825-08:00Hi Perry,
So good to see you enter into the ongoi...Hi Perry,<br /><br />So good to see you enter into the ongoing discussion(s); I am just now reading through your questions, once finished, will then head over to the thread you linked to, and then, the Lord willing, shall attempt to respond (hopefully later today, but it may be tomorrow).<br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-44928795156156196642010-02-12T09:28:05.539-08:002010-02-12T09:28:05.539-08:00Hello Jonathan,
Thanks much for responding. Pleas...Hello Jonathan,<br /><br />Thanks much for responding. Please forgive my somewhat tardy response, I took yesterday off from the computer and internet (just had too many things going on and did not want to get side-tracked). Anyway, I would like to now briefly respond to your Wednesday post—you wrote:<br /><br />>>I'm surprised that your read of Ayers is so different from mine. On the highly relevant point of substance, creation, and participation as a logical development of Logos theology, see Ch. 12, where Ayers explicitly takes issue with Hanson's conclusion that pro-Nicene theology replaced an earlier Logos theology, which is key to understand the mediating function of the nature/person categories that I outlined above. I take your assertion of a reversal between Nicaea and Constantinople as an explicit result of that reversal. ISTM that Ayers does an excellent job of chipping away at that mistaken understanding (politely, of course). I see Ayers as presenting good reasons for thinking that Ayers was wrong in the specific conclusion you cite, and while they are in general agreement on the facts, that is one area where they explicitly differ.>><br /><br />Me: Ayres (not Ayers – wink) from my read (it has been well over 4 years now and I got the book through interlibrary loan due to the price—now that it is available much cheaper in pb, I will probably order it) agrees much more with Hanson than he disagrees. IMO, his disagreements with Hanson begin much earlier than chapter 12; I would argue that it is his understanding of Origen’s theology which lays the foundation for his upcoming disagreements with Hanson; and to be brutally honest, I have grave concerns with Ayres interpretation of Origen—I believe it is a ‘miss-step’ on his part. <br /><br />>>I agree that Behr overstates the case on the absence of development; that much should be clear from what I said above. My point is simply that there are many areas of logical consistency in the developments, so even if I don't agree with the ultimate conclusion, Behr still provides good support for the idea that this development was not in any way a reversal. Even if I don't agree with his ultimate conclusion (as I do with Ayers), various particular facts along the way appear to be sound.>><br /><br />Me: I hope you do not think that I do not acknowledge “that there are many areas of logical consistency in the developments”, for I most certainly do; the creed promulgated at Constantinople in 381 is a “logical” development in my mind.<br /><br />>>Anyway, if you're willing to at least read through these critically (including particularly the disagreement with Hanson by Ayers), then there probably isn't much more I can do but wish you well on that endeavor.>><br /><br />Me: Thanks Jonathan, I sincerely appreciate this.<br /><br />>>From a logical standpoint, though, I think Ayers has the upper hand on Hanson, and I'm a little surprised to see that shrugged off, or, for that matter, to see Mike Liccione's criticism accepted without accepting the belief on development that motivated it.>><br /><br />Me: Perhaps in the near future, I will take the time to outline the difficulties I have with Ayres take on Origen, and how this affects (adversely) SOME of conclusions.<br /><br />>>This just seems hurried, and having seen this particular phenomenon a couple of times, I'd just encourage you to take your time and really go through the arguments in a structured way to see how robust the conclusion is. You've got time to be right.>><br /><br />Me: I appreciate the advice, and shall embrace it—thanks again Jonathan.<br /><br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-24664547888562090822010-02-11T10:37:42.724-08:002010-02-11T10:37:42.724-08:00David Waltz,
I have only been following the last ...David Waltz,<br /><br />I have only been following the last few posts and conversations from a distance, but here are some suggestive questions that I think might help clear up some of the problems.<br /><br />First, what does hypostasis mean for Aristotle and Middle and Late Platonists who used Aristotelian terms and categories? Do Aristotle and his commentators use hypostasis or substance in one and only one sense?<br /><br />Second, you write that the consensus of the Fathers on Scripture is that it is inspired. How did you ascertain the consensus of the Fathers? And by inspired, did they all mean the same thing and if so, does that mean exactly what moderns mean by the term?<br /><br />Third, I don’t know, but so far I haven’t seen a discussion of Athanasius’ Tomus ad Antiochenos here and the council of Alexandria in 362 A.D. Certainly Hanson as well as other scholars cover it (Kopecek, Ayres, et al.) and it seems quite germane to what is being claimed by you.<br /><br />Fourth, it seems awfully strange to say that the majority of the Nicene bishops took the terms in a Sabellian sense, given that at the outset most of them were Semi-Arians of the homoiousian variety and were so out of concern over Sabellianism. And by semi-Arian I mean in the sense of Basil (the Great) who saw the error of Arianism but lacked the terminological apparatus to distinguish the persons without individuating the essence. This and the Sabellian worry goes to the pre-Nicene Hellenistic usage of terms that I mentioned above.<br /><br />Fifth, you wrote that Ireneaus’ views on theosis have no current adherents. I’d beg to differ. The Orthodox certainly do. http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/contra-mundum-athanasius-and-the-lds-on-deification/Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-43900414806176499332010-02-10T18:13:37.172-08:002010-02-10T18:13:37.172-08:00Oops! "Ayers was wrong" should be "...Oops! "Ayers was wrong" should be "Hanson was wrong." I guess I should take my own advice on hurrying...CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-74426995726113058412010-02-10T18:12:24.794-08:002010-02-10T18:12:24.794-08:00I'm surprised that your read of Ayers is so di...I'm surprised that your read of Ayers is so different from mine. On the highly relevant point of substance, creation, and participation as a logical development of Logos theology, see Ch. 12, where Ayers explicitly takes issue with Hanson's conclusion that pro-Nicene theology replaced an earlier Logos theology, which is key to understand the mediating function of the nature/person categories that I outlined above. I take your assertion of a reversal between Nicaea and Constantinople as an explicit result of that reversal. ISTM that Ayers does an excellent job of chipping away at that mistaken understanding (politely, of course). I see Ayers as presenting good reasons for thinking that Ayers was wrong in the specific conclusion you cite, and while they are in general agreement on the facts, that is one area where they explicitly differ.<br /><br />I agree that Behr overstates the case on the absence of development; that much should be clear from what I said above. My point is simply that there are many areas of logical consistency in the developments, so even if I don't agree with the ultimate conclusion, Behr still provides good support for the idea that this development was not in any way a reversal. Even if I don't agree with his ultimate conclusion (as I do with Ayers), various particular facts along the way appear to be sound.<br /><br />Anyway, if you're willing to at least read through these critically (including particularly the disagreement with Hanson by Ayers), then there probably isn't much more I can do but wish you well on that endeavor. From a logical standpoint, though, I think Ayers has the upper hand on Hanson, and I'm a little surprised to see that shrugged off, or, for that matter, to see Mike Liccione's criticism accepted without accepting the belief on development that motivated it. This just seems hurried, and having seen this particular phenomenon a couple of times, I'd just encourage you to take your time and really go through the arguments in a structured way to see how robust the conclusion is. You've got time to be right.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-88125997649107226412010-02-10T09:16:07.203-08:002010-02-10T09:16:07.203-08:00Must be nice to be able to buy all these expensive...Must be nice to be able to buy all these expensive scholarly works [envious] . . . <br /><br />Thank heavens for Google Reader . . . (and for used book sales and amazon used books).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-36543367641347573142010-02-10T08:27:21.534-08:002010-02-10T08:27:21.534-08:00Hi Jonathan,
Thanks much for responding to my req...Hi Jonathan,<br /><br />Thanks much for responding to my request. Of the list you provided, I have read Lewis Ayers’, <i>Nicaea and Its Legacy</i>; and John Behr’s, <i>The Way to Nicaea</i>.<br /><br />Concerning Ayer’s, he wrote:<br /><br />“In the years which followed Nicaea these bishops were to find that this was a matter still very much open to dispute. Nicaea’s terminology is thus a window onto the confusion and complexity of the early fourth-century theological debates, not a revelation that a definitive turning-point had been reached. My conclusions here are close to those of Richard Hanson…” (p. 92)<br /><br />As for Behr, IMO, he offers nothing new, and it would be accurate to state that his work is a throw back to older patristic works that have been showing to be flawed (e.g., Harnack, Gwatkin, Prestige, etc.). <br /><br />BTW, Dr. Michael Liccione did an excellent job in exposing Fr. Behr’s seriously flawed view of the development of doctrine in <a href="http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-time-fr-behr.html" rel="nofollow">THIS POST</a>.<br /><br />As for the other works you listed, I will try to obtain them ASAP. (I do own Barnes’ <i>Constantine and Eusebius</i>, which I thoroughly enjoyed.)<br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.com