tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post6712307594712270009..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: Is Jesus Christ autotheos?David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-68017207126496831152021-03-28T14:01:20.478-07:002021-03-28T14:01:20.478-07:00Hi Errol,
Thanks much for the quote. It certainly...Hi Errol,<br /><br />Thanks much for the quote. It certainly speaks to the Son’s continuing reliance on the Father.<br /><br />I was not aware of the publication of the book you quoted from. A good portion can be read online via Google Book Preview—<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=0ha1zQEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">LINK</a>.<br /><br />I also want to thank you for your last post in the previous thread. It is an excellent summation of Justin’s so-called angelomorphic pneumatology. I plan on sharing a few of my own musings on this issue over in that thread later today, but it may be tomorrow before I can do so.<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-40828167572491659662021-03-28T13:58:25.725-07:002021-03-28T13:58:25.725-07:00Hi Rory,
Hope you are having a blessed Palm Sunda...Hi Rory,<br /><br />Hope you are having a blessed Palm Sunday. <br /><br />It is great to hear that you were able to find the time to read the three-part series I recommended. I am not surprised that have sided with Warfield’s belief that Calvin’s view of the aseity of the Son was a theological novelty. I am convinced that this take on Calvin is the most consistent one—if one objectively examines the evidence. However, as you well know, I adamantly disagree with Warfield’s conclusion that this novel development of Calvin was a legitimate/positive theological advancement; but rather, that it was heretical/negative one. As such, concur with the following you wrote:<br /><br />==Whatever Calvin meant may still not be certain, but those in the Reformed camp, who interpret and accept that autotheos means self-existent have taken a heretical position.==<br /><br />I also like the comparison you made at the end of your post:<br /><br />==A rigorous autotheos seems as arbitrary as Calvin's rigorous predestinationism without freedom of the will.==<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-13139831979033163022021-03-27T14:08:31.300-07:002021-03-27T14:08:31.300-07:00Indeed. As chance should have it, I just came acro...Indeed. As chance should have it, I just came across this instance in my readings:<br /><br />“the soul is nourished, and without nourishment it dies. The soul is nourished with its own proper nourishment. It is nourished with Christ himself, and without nourishment it dies. But my Savior and Lord is nourished and drinks: ‘You are the portion of my inheritance and my cup,’ [Psalm 15:5] he says to the Father. But I often neglect my nourishment, and as often as I have neglected it, in proportion to the neglect, I am either sickened or I have died. But my Savior never neglects his own nourishment, but always keeps watch and is nourished by the Father. If, hypothetically, he were not to be nourished, I do not know what would follow. But the Savior actually is nourished and always nourished by the Father.”<br />(Origen, ca. 251, <i>Homilies on Psalm</i> 15 1:9, in <i>Fathers of the Church</i> 141:55)Errol Ameyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17423191831511750561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-35109680081976229942021-03-27T11:54:26.543-07:002021-03-27T11:54:26.543-07:00---continued from above
Then the disciples catc...---continued from above <br /><br />Then the disciples catch up to Him. They knew he was experiencing bodily weariness and begged him to take some food that they had procured while Jesus rested at the well:<br /><br /><i>"In the mean time the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat. But he said to them: <b>I have meat to eat, which you know not.</b> The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat? Jesus saith to them: <b>My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.</b>"</i><br /><br />---Jn 4:31-34 <br /><br />How does such a mission make sense among three self-existent Gods. Why this concern that one of them, who is not the principle without a principle, who is not the source and fountain of all divinity, be so elevated that Jesus Christ subsisted on doing "the will of him that sent me"? <br /><br />There is much to ponder. There is mystery here. But it is consistent with the knowledge that Christ is not self-existent, whereas the Father is self-existent. On earth Jesus gives us the privilege of beginning to see the inner dynamics which guide the Blessed Trinity for all eternity. <br /><br />In my opinion, the use of autotheos which Reformed theology has accepted as meaning self-existence for the Son, is not simply mysterious. It is bizarre. For what reason would it be necessary to the Gods or man, that One of the Three, should be glorified, obeyed, and adored before the other Two? Nicene Orthodoxy answers this question. <br /><br />A rigorous autotheos seems as arbitrary as Calvin's rigorous predestinationism without freedom of the will. <br /><br />Rory leeseykayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08503185314393960017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-42316763809206280712021-03-27T11:48:57.894-07:002021-03-27T11:48:57.894-07:00Hi again David,
I have no recollection of this we...Hi again David,<br /><br />I have no recollection of this well done series from 2105, that I have just finished. What I have seen thus far, makes it seem probable that Calvin used the term autotheos, not as Eusebius before him to mean, "truly God".<br /><br />With respect St. Bellarmine, I tend to agree with Warfield and you that this marks a new epoch in the history of theology on the Trinity. <br /><br />Calvin's apparent autotheos would destroy the way Catholic understand relations in the Trinity, which is subordinationst and hierarchical, while the Son and the Spirit enjoy the fullness of the Father's divinity. <br /><br />What factor decided among the three self-existent Gods, perfectly equal, which "role" would be played by each?<br /><br />Whatever Calvin meant may still not be certain, but those in the Reformed camp, who interpret and accept that autotheos means self-existent have taken a heretical position. <br /><br />Tomorrow is Palm Sunday, and the readings from the Traditional Catholic missal begin on today to give an account of events leading up to our Lord's Passion and Death according to how many days until the Crucifixion. Today is the sixth day before.<br />In that account from today we see how, as His "hour" approaches, the human soul of Jesus experiences anxiety at the thought:<br /><br /><i>"If any man minister to me, him will my Father honour. Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause I came unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. A voice therefore came from heaven: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again."</i><br /><br />---Jn. 12:26b-28<br /><br />What is striking about this passage is the always present concern that the Son has that His Father be recognized and glorified, and not only adored and glorified by the Son, but that all men would also follow Jesus to the Father.<br /><br />After Jesus met the woman at the well, His final words to her are instructive on the mission of the Son:<br /><br /><i>"Woman, believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father. You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know; for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth."</i><br /><br />---Jn. 4:21-24<br /><br />---to be continuedleeseykayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08503185314393960017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-39586953428050424862021-03-26T09:40:02.140-07:002021-03-26T09:40:02.140-07:00Hello again Rory,
Last night you wrote:
==If we ...Hello again Rory,<br /><br />Last night you wrote:<br /><br />==If we want to understand what someone means, we have to accept as best we can their language as they used it. ==<br /><br />Agreed. Yesterday, I found a good Latin edition of Calvin’s <i>Institute’s</i>. In Book 1, chapter 13, paragraph 23, Calvin provides his most in depth explanation of his understanding of the aseity of the Son. Below I provide the germane Latin texts, with three English translations:<br /><br />>>…sequitur deitatis respectu ex se ipso esse. (Tholuck, 1.106)<br /><br />…it follows that with respect to his deity his being is from himself. (Battles, 1.150)<br /><br />…it follows that in respect of his Deity he is self-existent. (Allen, 1.159)<br /><br />…it follows that, in regard to Deity, he is of himself. (Beveridge, 1.176)<br /><br />Nam quisquis essentiatum a patre filium esse dicit, a se ipso negat esse. (Tholuck, 1.106)<br /><br />For whoever says that the Son has been given his essence from the Father denies that he has being from himself. (Battles, 1.150)<br /><br />For whoever asserts that the Son owes his essence to the Father, denies him to be self-existent. (Allen, 1.159)<br /><br />Whosoever says that the Son was <i>essentiated</i> by the Father, denies his self-existence. (Beveridge, 1.177)>><br /><br />The above sure seems contrary to what the original Nicene Creed said (see quote in my opening post). What do you think?<br /><br />You also wrote:<br /><br />==I would be interested in how those who have looked into this subject would answer this question: With Calvin's autotheos,is it difficult to know how he was using the word?==<br /><br />The three parts series I linked to in my opening post provides extensive quotes from “those who have looked into this subject”. When you have the time, I hope you can read them.<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-56268936492518535032021-03-26T07:10:50.128-07:002021-03-26T07:10:50.128-07:00Hi David. From the link to the thread where this s...Hi David. From the link to the thread where this subject was raised.<br /><br />David Waltz wrote:<br /><i>"Now, it is extremely important to point out that the term autotheos can be understood in two different senses—as one who is true God, or as one who is God of himself."</i><br /><br />I have been in a discussion elsewhere in which a few parties were implying that because Catholic theology says God is <i>incomprehensible</i> that Catholics are happy to be completely ignorant about God.<br /><br />I think I made a little headway among some in explaining that to comprehend in the sense theology speaks about it, is to have exhaustive knowledge. Catholics do not believe that they are totally ignorant about God. There was one who was unwilling to accept, that even though I provided a dictionary definition that distinguishes between understanding and comprehensive knowledge. He would not allow such a use of the word.<br /><br />This was why I said in my first post, "Whatever Calvin meant." If we want to understand what someone means, we have to accept as best we can their language as they used it. I would be interested in how those who have looked into this subject would answer this question: With Calvin's <i>autotheos</i>,is it difficult to know how he was using the word? <br /><br />Roryleeseykayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08503185314393960017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-82465335092387122602021-03-25T20:17:48.751-07:002021-03-25T20:17:48.751-07:00Dave, hi.
It seems like perhaps Calvin was unnece...Dave, hi.<br /><br />It seems like perhaps Calvin was unnecessarily making sure that the Son was equal to the Father as to their relationship. The relationship of a Father and Son can, and must be unequal, if it is to make any sense why They are revealed to us as such. It doesn't affect ontology. They are equal in that respect.<br /><br />And what of the Holy Ghost? Derived eternally, or autotheos? <br /><br />If the Persons have to be fully equal in every sense, would it not make Three Gods? Could we speak of a Patriarch, the Father, or a Monarch, the Father? It would be an oligarchy of equals.<br /><br />That's fine with me if that is what Calvin's short Bible tells him. Not bring sarcastic here. But it seems like he cut himself loose from Tradition which keeps equal ontology, with unequal relationships.Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636193337129338354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-23067252192328644932021-03-25T19:35:54.128-07:002021-03-25T19:35:54.128-07:00Hi Rory,
Thanks for taking to comment. You wrote:...Hi Rory,<br /><br />Thanks for taking to comment. You wrote:<br /><br />== What did Calvin mean?<br /><br />If he meant "true God", then okay. What is the point of autotheos if that is the limit of what is meant? One can have "true God" without using language that seems to indicate that with or without the Father, the Son is God.==<br /><br />Calvinists disagree amongst themselves as to what Calvin meant. Given the amount of controversy his musings on the Trinity created during his own life, I am quite surprised that he did not definitively clarify what he meant.<br /><br />==Did Calvin employ the word, autotheos?== <br /><br />Calvin wrote in French and Latin, and I have only read his writings in the English translations. I suspect he used the Latin and French equivalents of <i>autotheos</i> and <i>autotheotēs</i>, but I am not sure on this.<br /><br />== Perhaps I been misunderstanding Calvin's use or non-use of the expression, autotheos, as meaning that the Son is God independent of the Father? I am happy if Calvin didn't think that.==<br /><br />If Calvin had only meant that the Son was ‘God of God’ and ‘true God of true God’ I doubt it would have precipitated the incredible amount of controversy that has lasted for over four centuries now.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, Robert Bellarmine thought Calvin was just sloppy in his Trinitarian assessments; but the highly respected Catholic theologian, Petavius (Denis Petau), adamantly disagreed, and maintained that certain aspects of Calvin’s Trinitarian thought were heretical.<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-90787008407118551362021-03-24T22:33:45.740-07:002021-03-24T22:33:45.740-07:00Perhaps I been misunderstanding Calvin's use o...Perhaps I been misunderstanding Calvin's use or non-use of the expression, autotheos, as meaning that the Son is God independent of the Father? I am happy if Calvin didn't think that. <br />Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636193337129338354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-15344939692530372392021-03-24T22:25:43.394-07:002021-03-24T22:25:43.394-07:00Whatever someone means.
What did Calvin mean?
I...Whatever someone means.<br /><br /> What did Calvin mean?<br /><br />If he meant "true God", then okay. What is the point of autotheos if that is the limit of what is meant? One can have "true God" without using language that seems to indicate that with or without the Father, the Son is God. <br /><br />Did Calvin employ the word, autotheos?Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636193337129338354noreply@blogger.com