tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post5014194299439692783..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: Which Augustine ???David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-91484530306826293912013-03-15T19:23:54.517-07:002013-03-15T19:23:54.517-07:00Dale, can you elaborate more on your claim about t...Dale, can you elaborate more on your claim about the early catholics concerned calling Jesus God? In my reading, Ignatius did that, in the geniune larger texts. <br /><br />BTW, your research and comments are very helpful.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Mark徐马可https://www.blogger.com/profile/09841500062485778894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-26338798804737960742013-03-15T19:18:30.083-07:002013-03-15T19:18:30.083-07:00Hi David,
My view of his is largely based on a cl...Hi David,<br /><br />My view of his is largely based on a close reading of his On the Trinity. If I sound a little bitter, I am. :-) But I do plan to continue on with him, and read everything I can my hands on. I have a pile of things by and on him that awaits me even now.<br /><br />I came to these views about him by simply taking seriously some of the things he says in On the Trinity - see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#Aug and the texts quoted there. His agenda is really quite different than that of an analytic theology, or any modern academic.<br /><br />I've been thinking a lot lately about the concern with words here - early catholics, at least by the end of the 100s, were very concerned that we CALL Jesus - or at any rate, the Logos - "God" - although frequently what they said could be translated as any of: a god, God, a "God", or a "god". Very frustrating, when trying to analyze arguments! Once the subject is changed to what ought to be said, though, our eyes are off of the theological or christological issues, and problems are not confronted.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-15147551157599171482013-03-13T19:39:17.157-07:002013-03-13T19:39:17.157-07:00Hi Dale,
Thanks much for taking the time to post ...Hi Dale,<br /><br />Thanks much for taking the time to post and share some of your insights; you wrote:<br /><br />==We have to constantly keep in mind his loose attitude about analogies - he really has no interest in coming up with a model of the Trinity, that is, with coming up with a seemingly consistent, literal interpretation of the creedal words. He doesn't think it can be done.==<br /><br />Me: Interesting Dale; do you say this because you believe Augustine is devoted to a via negativa/apophatic approach to the doctrine of God, or is there something else to this?<br /><br />==If you try to read him to find out what he really thinks, in a sense, there is nothing he really thinks - he is content to reproduce all the orthodox metaphors, terms, and arguments, and likes to play with metaphors of his own... but that's it! He is "pro-Nicene" - yes - that's part of the tradition to which he's committed, and he seems to be quite blind to the development of doctrine, and to how there were innovations of language and theory post-Nicea. To him its all the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.==<br /><br />Me: Once again, interesting; I would really like to hear more on your take of DD—have you already written on this topic?<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-38628329796376823022013-03-13T07:30:58.499-07:002013-03-13T07:30:58.499-07:00Hi David,
Excellent post.
Augustine... ugh. An ...Hi David, <br /><br />Excellent post.<br /><br />Augustine... ugh. An abyss of interpretation, and endlessly, painfully wordy. We have to constantly keep in mind his loose attitude about analogies - he really has no interest in coming up with a model of the Trinity, that is, with coming up with a seemingly consistent, literal interpretation of the creedal words. He doesn't think it can be done. If you try to read him to find out what he really thinks, in a sense, there is nothing he really thinks - he is content to reproduce all the orthodox metaphors, terms, and arguments, and likes to play with metaphors of his own... but that's it! He is "pro-Nicene" - yes - that's part of the tradition to which he's committed, and he seems to be quite blind to the development of doctrine, and to how there were innovations of language and theory post-Nicea. To him its all the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.<br /><br />I noticed in some of your quotes the unhealthy obsession with words, with what can be said, as opposed to concern with what is true or false, and with what is justified or unjustified. This goes way back, and is a consequence of the rule by bishops, but I find this focus getting more crippling through the course of the 200s... It is a way of changing the subject when one gets to a hard point in one's thinking. <br /><br />Barnes is right; the whole Latin-Social or Latin-Greek classification has to go. I hope to get rid of it when I revise my "Trinity" entry in the SEP later this year. I think a better classification is of one-self and three-self theories. Of course, this doesn't capture all the theories, because some will refuse to think there are any selves in the Trinity.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-53424881086466557572013-03-12T11:28:40.294-07:002013-03-12T11:28:40.294-07:00Hello again Mark,
You posted:
==Thanks for your...Hello again Mark,<br /><br />You posted: <br /><br />==Thanks for your clarification, but I think that makes the picture even muddier, for by making the Trinity One God, left us with only one thing, thus, contrary to "homoousios" term he claimed to hold to.==<br /><br />Me: I apologize for the lack of clarity; shall try again. In the Chalcedonian Definition our Lord is said to be <i>homoousion</i> with the Father pertaining to the <i>theotēta</i> (i.e. Divinity/Godhead) and <i>homoousion</i> with humans pertaining to <i>anthrōpotēta</i> (i.e. humanity/manhood), which means that what makes man man He is, and what makes God God, He is.<br /><br />=="For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all thinsg it behoved him to be made like (homoi) unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb 2:16,17==<br /><br />Me: IMO, <i>homoiōthēnai</i> (like) in the above verse is the equivalent of <i>homoousios</i>, for if it were something less than that, it would mean that our Lord did not become truly man.<br /><br />Now, back to Augustine. His use of the physical analogies (one "water", one "wood") strongly indicates that he was using the term "God" in the sense of what something is, such that "God" in that context is a synonym of <i>theotēs</i> (i.e. Divinity/Godhead), which fits nicely with the phrase "God from God" in the Nicene Creed.<br /><br />We must keep in mind that the term "God" had more diverse meanings back then, than it does for most modern folk.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-32401697774543275742013-03-11T12:30:19.565-07:002013-03-11T12:30:19.565-07:00I forgot to add, homoi by itself seems to be a law...I forgot to add, homoi by itself seems to be a lawful biblical term. 徐马可https://www.blogger.com/profile/09841500062485778894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-26462829458288549062013-03-11T12:29:18.568-07:002013-03-11T12:29:18.568-07:00David,
Thanks for your clarification, but I think...David,<br /><br />Thanks for your clarification, but I think that makes the picture even muddier, for by making the Trinity One God, left us with only one thing, thus, contrary to "homoousios" term he claimed to hold to. <br /><br />"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all thinsg it behoved him to be made like (homoi) unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb 2:16,17徐马可https://www.blogger.com/profile/09841500062485778894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-73533559406488524292013-03-11T11:39:55.055-07:002013-03-11T11:39:55.055-07:00Hi Mark,
Thanks much for your question. (Forgive ...Hi Mark,<br /><br />Thanks much for your question. (Forgive me for not replying earlier, but had a very busy weekend with no time for the internet.) You asked:<br /><br />==Can you elaborate more on your new understanding on why Augustine was so adamant in calling the Trinity "one God"?==<br /><br />I think it had a lot to do with the Homoians that he was dealing with. Augustine was not 'comfortable' with the "like" talk that permeated Homoian thought; and this due to his adamant belief that if our Lord was the Son of God by the process of a real/true begetting (i.e. God from God), and not mere adoption, then His divinity could not be merely "like" His Father's, but rather, the same.<br /><br />Look at it this way: Peter, James and John are not merely "like" man (i.e. human), they are each truly man.<br /><br />Sincerely hope that I have been of some assistance; if not, let me know, and I will attempt to clarify again.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-13896177264738447622013-03-08T19:32:45.360-08:002013-03-08T19:32:45.360-08:00David,
Can you elaborate more on your new underst...David,<br /><br />Can you elaborate more on your new understanding on why Augustine was so adamant in calling the Trinity "one God"? <br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Mark徐马可https://www.blogger.com/profile/09841500062485778894noreply@blogger.com