Starting with my October 7, 2010 post, "Back to the Bible" (link), I have devoted 8 important threads to the doctrine of God (link). These threads generated some 487 comments, and for the most part, a fair amount of 'heat', even though I believe that my presentations were Biblical, and had a good deal of support from the pre-Nicene Church Fathers. (For another important thread that is germane to this one, see this link.)
With that said, it is still always nice to discover scholars (who hold a high view of the Bible) that have developed similar assessments as mine; most recently, from the pen of a Reformed Baptist professor.
Back on July 13, 2011, Dr. Sam Waldron (a professor and dean at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies) began a series of posts under the title, "Who's Tampering With the Trinity?". One will discover in these contributions that Dr. Waldron holds to a number of theological positions that I have elucidated on, which include: the 'one God' of the Bible is the Father; the 'monarchy' of the Father; the eternal generation of the Son (essence and person); and the subordination of the Son to the Father. Below, I am providing links to all 11 posts:
Now, although Dr. Waldron affirms a number of positions that I embrace, I want to be clear that he goes beyond what I am willing to declare (at present) one must hold to be considered a 'true' Christian; most importantly, that he maintains homoousias must be understood as "one substance", while I believe with Eusebius (and a number of other CFs) that "same substance" is the more correct understanding.
Grace and peace,
David
21 comments:
Are you then affirming generic nature over numerical nature? If so I agree with you. I would be most interested in how you understand personhood. I am of the opinion that the Godhead contains 3 minds. The Father's being the auto-theos and Momarch. He is the One God. One God because one Father. Not one God because one nature. I would also be interested in seeing how you understand substance. If you take Aristotle's definition, substance is always subject, ergo God is only one person.
Hi Drake,
Thanks much for taking the time to respond; your post seems quite timely, for over the last few days, I have been seriously pondering over whether or not to start a new thread to discuss some of the important issues you have addressed/raised in the last three threads under the Triadology label at your Uncreated Light blog.
In your above response, you penned:
==Are you then affirming generic nature over numerical nature?==
Me: Yes, and I have done so for quite sometime now. (BTW, I first came across the generic concept in Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology back in the early 90s, but did not appreciate its importance until later.)
==If so I agree with you. I would be most interested in how you understand personhood.==
Me: I have relied on Boethius' definition.
==I am of the opinion that the Godhead contains 3 minds. The Father's being the auto-theos and Momarch[sic]. He is the One God. One God because one Father. Not one God because one nature.==
Me: Apart from the notion of "3 minds" (need to reflect on that before drawing any conclusion), I concur with everything else above.
==I would also be interested in seeing how you understand substance. If you take Aristotle's definition, substance is always subject, ergo God is only one person.==
Me: I maintain that 'spirit' is a 'substance'; with that said, there are 3 primary substances: energy, matter, and spirit. (BTW, have you read Christopher Stead's, Divine Substance?)
As for, "Aristotle's definition, substance is always subject, ergo God is only one person", I am anything but an expert on Peripetics—perhaps you could walk me through his concept of substance, and how it relates to Plato's, Augustine's, and EO thought on this issue.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
Could you refer me to a book, article, or something on Boethius'definition?
Hello again Drake,
You asked and you shall receive:
"Wherefore if person belongs to substances alone, and these rational, and if every substance is a nature, and exists not in universals but in individuals, we have found the definition of person: 'The individual substance of a rational nature.'" (Contra Eutychen, III – from the Loeb Classical Library, Boethius – The Theological Tractates & The Consolation of Philosophy, p. 85 – translated by Stewart, Radn & Tester.)==
Grace and peace,
David
Typo correction:
==(BTW, I first came across the generic concept in Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology back in the early 90s, but did not appreciate its importance until later.)==
90s should read 80s
What is generic nature vs. numerical nature?
Hi Ken,
I touched on this in the combox of the TurretinFan vs. Mark Shea: inaccuracies and misnomers - part 1 thread. On August 17, 2001 (5:58 PM) I posted:
==The reality, however, was for more complex. The apparently all-important homoousios could in fact be understood in a variety of ways. Literally, it meant “same being.” But what was the “sameness” here? To be “the same as” can be “identical to” in a specific sense or “exactly like” in a generic sense. The “being” in question is also vague: a human and animal may both be described as “beings,” but one has on form of “being” (or “nature” or “substance”) and the other another. For staunch enemies of Arius, such as Eustanthius and Marcellus, homoousios meant “one and the same being.” For Eusebius of Caesarea, on the other hand, it meant “exactly like in being”—potentially a very significant difference. Is the Son, the same as God in his being, or is he exactly like God in his being? To Eusebius and many other Greek bishops it seemed better to say that he is like God. (Ivor J. Davidson, The Baker History of the Church, Vol. 2 – A Public Faith: From Constantine to the Medieval World, AD 312-600, 2005, pp. 35, 36.)== (LINK)
J.N.D. Kelly put it this way:
==It is reasonable to suppose, pace Eusebius, that a similar meaning, viz. 'of the same nature', was read into the homoousion. But if this is granted, a further question at once arises: are we to understand 'of the same nature' in the 'generic' sense in which Origen, for example, had employed ὁμοούσιος, or are we to take it as having the meaning accepted by later Catholic [i.e. Western] theology, viz. numerical identity of substance? The root word οὺσία could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, or it could connote an individual thing as such. (Early Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. 1960, p. 234.)==
Grace and peace,
David
Just noticed yet another typo:
(Contra Eutychen, III – from the Loeb Classical Library, Boethius – The Theological Tractates & The Consolation of Philosophy, p. 85 – translated by Stewart, Radn & Tester.)
Radn should read Rand.
I should also mention that it is the revised 1973 Loeb edition that I used, and not the original 1918 edition. The 1918 edition is available online HERE, and HERE.
David,
The substance of a rational nature, yeah I read that in Aquinas and in AA Hodge when I was studying for my Christology paper. Do you see any difference between that and consciousness? If so, what?
Hi David,
Thanks for sharing this. I skimmed through Dr. Waldron's posts and was pleased with the main thrust of his presentation. His distinguishing the varieties of subordination is great, though (following Bp. Bull) I doubt whether he has interpreted Calvin correctly.
God bless,
John
David,
But since there is only one God, "same substance" ( homo-ousia) or "same being" are the same thing as "one substance" and "one being". (there are many human beings, but there is only being of God; one God.)
If we keep "only one God" in our minds at all times, we won't go off into doctrinal heresy; along with keeping the 3 hypostasis / persons in our minds because it is based on the Scripture verses that show a relationship between them.
Therefore, I don't see why you object so much to Nicea and Constantinople and Augustine and Athanasius and Calvin; they all flow from one another on the doctrine of the Trinity.
So, I am still trying to figure out what you believe about the Son from all eternity. Was He consciously there from all eternity, eternally begotten
- logos - mind and speech and communication -
(meaning - like beaming out like rays from the sun; the Sun as an illustration of the Father and the rays the Son, that there was never a time when the rays were not coming out from the Sun?
You wrote somewhere, I think, that that was the most common illustration the ECF used.
By your emphasis, you seem to be saying the Son was not conscious yet, but came out of the Father later in time. (however we are to understand eternity past) Correct?
Person means that they have mind, will, and emotions. We see the emotions of the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 4:30 - "do not grieve the Holy Spirit" and the Father - in Genesis 6:5 (could be all three persons together).
The one nature protects monotheism.
The three persons guards against modalism (Sabellianism) and also is the result of all the verses that shows the relationships between the three persons.
Hi Drake,
Earlier, you posted:
==The substance of a rational nature, yeah I read that in Aquinas and in AA Hodge when I was studying for my Christology paper. Do you see any difference between that and consciousness? If so, what?==
Me: Consciousness for sure, but more (IMHO), in that Boethius (as do most Eastern/Greek fathers), makes a clear distinction between οὺσία and ὑπόστασις, with οὺσία corresponding to what we would term being/essence/nature, and ὑπόστασις with person/individual.
This distinction, when coupled with the eternal generation of both the οὺσία and ὑπόστασις, puts any form of modalism to rest.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello Iohannes,
So good to see you back! You wrote:
==Thanks for sharing this. I skimmed through Dr. Waldron's posts and was pleased with the main thrust of his presentation. His distinguishing the varieties of subordination is great, though (following Bp. Bull) I doubt whether he has interpreted Calvin correctly.==
Me: Are you referring to Calvin's certain skepticism concerning the Nicene doctrine of eternal generation (i.e. οὺσία and ὑπόστασις) ???
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. Drake has couple of good threads on this: HERE and HERE.
Hi Ken,
Earlier today, you posted:
== But since there is only one God, "same substance" ( homo-ousia) or "same being" are the same thing as "one substance" and "one being". (there are many human beings, but there is only being of God; one God.)==
Me: One must equate the "one God" with οὺσία, and not the ὑπόστασις of the Father for the above to consistent. Unfortunately, this is contrary to what the Bible actually teaches, as well as the vast majority of the CFs before Augustine.
==If we keep "only one God" in our minds at all times, we won't go off into doctrinal heresy; along with keeping the 3 hypostasis / persons in our minds because it is based on the Scripture verses that show a relationship between them.==
Me: As Dr. Letham points out, most Westerners have diminished the definition of hypostasis (ὑπόστασις)/"person" to the point that they "practical" modalists. It's reminds me of what Harnack had to say about Augustine:
"We can see that Augustine only gets beyond Modalism by the mere assertion that he does not wish to be a modalist, and the aid of ingenious distinctions between different ideas." (History of Dogma, 1958 Eng. ed., 4. 131.)
==Therefore, I don't see why you object so much to Nicea and Constantinople and Augustine and Athanasius and Calvin; they all flow from one another on the doctrine of the Trinity.==
Me: I don't object to Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), but rather, the Latin/Western interpretation of the creeds formulated at the two great councils.
See Drake's two threads on Calvin's view of the Nicene formula: HERE and HERE.
==So, I am still trying to figure out what you believe about the Son from all eternity. Was He consciously there from all eternity, eternally begotten
- logos - mind and speech and communication -
(meaning - like beaming out like rays from the sun; the Sun as an illustration of the Father and the rays the Son, that there was never a time when the rays were not coming out from the Sun?
You wrote somewhere, I think, that that was the most common illustration the ECF used.==
Me: Yes, the above is an excellent summation of my take; and for the record, Calvin (and many modern Reformed theologians) would not subscribe to the above.
==By your emphasis, you seem to be saying the Son was not conscious yet, but came out of the Father later in time. (however we are to understand eternity past) Correct?==
Me: No, the Son is eternally begotten (οὺσία and ὑπόστασις) by the Father; as such, he is an eternally conscious person.
==The one nature protects monotheism.
The three persons guards against modalism (Sabellianism) and also is the result of all the verses that shows the relationships between the three persons.==
Me: I disagree, the monarchy of the Father protects true monotheism.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
That's exactly what I had in mind. I hadn't seen Drake's threads, but agree with him that Calvin seems confused about the meaning of ousia. My impression (possibly mistaken) is that Calvin understood it as the Eunomians did, in such wise that to be truly God the Son must be autotheos. But whereas the Eunomians said he's obviously not autotheos, therefore he's not truly God, Calvin said he's obviously God, therefore he must also be autotheos.
In Christ,
John
David,
"
Me: Consciousness for sure, but more (IMHO), in that Boethius (as do most Eastern/Greek fathers), makes a clear distinction between οὺσία and ὑπόστασις, with οὺσία corresponding to what we would term being/essence/nature, and ὑπόστασις with person/individual. "
Agree 100%. It's just that when I read McGukin on Christological Controversies he said that Cyril refused to equate personhood with consciousness.
Also, if personhood is seated in consciousness would this not draw you away from the Pelagian idea of arbitrary action and arbitrary nature, putting personhood in being and ergo putting God in being demanding a denial of essence and energy?
David, you said to Ken,
“But since there is only one God, "same substance" ( homo-ousia) or "same being" are the same thing as "one substance" and "one being". (there are many human beings, but there is only being of God; one God.)==
Me: One must equate the "one God" with οὺσία, and not the ὑπόστασις of the Father for the above to consistent. Unfortunately, this is contrary to what the Bible actually teaches, as well as the vast majority of the CFs before Augustine.”
What Ken is saying is the exact thing I got from Perry Robinson about 6 months ago. I agree with your reply completely.
“"We can see that Augustine only gets beyond Modalism by the mere assertion that he does not wish to be a modalist, and the aid of ingenious distinctions between different ideas." (History of Dogma, 1958 Eng. ed., 4. 131.)”
>>>LOL! Man can I feel that. I get that all the time. Drake to westerner: So what are the divine persons? Westerner : Modes of an absolute Monad; Predicates/relations of a prime substance/subject. Drake: So how is that not Sabellian modalistic heresy? Westerner: Because I don’t want to admit that it is.
David Waltz wrote:
Me: One must equate the "one God" with οὺσία, and not the ὑπόστασις of the Father for the above to consistent. Unfortunately, this is contrary to what the Bible actually teaches, as well as the vast majority of the CFs before Augustine.”
Is Hebrews 1:3 your main text that leads you to this conclusion? Are there any others where ὑπόστασις is used?
καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αυτου
and the exact imprint/seal/representation of nature/being/essence of His . . .
Why did the Greek fathers use υποστασις for “person” ? (if it meant “nature/substance/essence” in NT ?
“
David W. wrote:
Me: Yes, the above is an excellent summation of my take;
I think we finally made some progress here in communication - in me understanding you better. Thanks.
and for the record, Calvin (and many modern Reformed theologians) would not subscribe to the above.
I Don't see how, given what the doctrine of the Trinity is; does not seem to be really any real significant difference, given the clarifications that you are making.
Ken wrote:
==By your emphasis, you seem to be saying the Son was not conscious yet, but came out of the Father later in time. (however we are to understand eternity past) Correct?==
David wrote:
Me: No, the Son is eternally begotten (οὺσία and ὑπόστασις)
You wrote "No" to that - good ! I am getting better clarity here . . .
Are you saying both His essence/substance (ousia) and His υποστασισ - person/sub-sistence/consciousness/mind/personality/will/word are also shining out from the Father?
Does the Word and the Father face each other in relationship and know one another? John 1:1 "and the word was with God" (facing God)
by the Father; as such, he is an eternally conscious person.
That is more progress in communication. Good.
Me: I disagree, the monarchy of the Father protects true monotheism.
"Mono - - one, alone,
arche -
rulership, head, beginning; -
but the Trinitarianism you are objecting to also believes in a difference in role, a kind of subordination; that the Son submits under the Father, and this would be the aspect of "My Father is greater than all" that is agreeable to Trinitarians.
there is really practically no difference.
Why so much drama over this?
Drake wrote:
What Ken is saying is the exact thing I got from Perry Robinson about 6 months ago.
An eastern Orthodox agreeing with (according to Dave's take on Augustine also) with Augustine?
Doesn't this show that there is no real difference?
“"We can see that Augustine only gets beyond Modalism by the mere assertion that he does not wish to be a modalist, and the aid of ingenious distinctions between different ideas." (History of Dogma, 1958 Eng. ed., 4. 131.)”
Doesn't this point to Augustine and his Latin distinctions as reflecting basically the same thing as the Greek fathers and their distinctions with the Greek words and terminology?
Perry - EO,
agreeing with
Augustine, Latin.
Doesn't all the Biblical texts force us to the Trinity doctrine, with "the Father loves the Son, sends the Son"; "Jesus prayed to the Father", and "the Spirit testifies", "the Spirit searches", "the Spirit knows", "do not grieve the Holy Spirit", "you have lied to God; you lied to the Holy Spirit", etc.
The Word was with God. facing, relating, face to face.
and the Word was God. same nature/ essence/substance
I and the Father are one. one essence and purpose
the father is greater than I" John 14:28 - role, subordinate, especially during the incarnation.
they fell down and worshiped - the one who sits on the throne and to the lamb. Revelation 5:13-14
Hi Ken,
Thanks for responding; in your 8:36PM post from last night you wrote:
==David Waltz wrote:
Me: One must equate the "one God" with οὺσία, and not the ὑπόστασις of the Father for the above to consistent. Unfortunately, this is contrary to what the Bible actually teaches, as well as the vast majority of the CFs before Augustine.”
Is Hebrews 1:3 your main text that leads you to this conclusion? Are there any others where ὑπόστασις is used?
καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αυτου
and the exact imprint/seal/representation of nature/being/essence of His . . .
Why did the Greek fathers use υποστασις for “person” ? (if it meant “nature/substance/essence” in NT ? ”==
Me: Because ὑπόστασις (ὑποστάσεως) in Heb. 1:3 it did not mean “nature/substance/essence”, but rather, it meant precisely what Boethius wrote that it meant. (BTW, Lampe's, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, devotes 6 massive pages to this term, and is a must read IMO.)
At least one Reformed writer 'got it right'; note the following from the pen of John Owen:
==The apostle adds, that, he is χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, "the express figure" (or "image") "of his person;" that is, of the person of God the Father. (John Owen, Hebrews, 1991 Banner ed., 3.95)==
A bit later in the same work, Owen, in his exposition of Heb. 1:8, adds the following:
==God is said to be the God of the Son upon a threefold account: [1.] In respect to his divine nature. As he is his Father, so his God; whence he is said to be "God of God," as having his nature communicated unto him by virtue of his eternal generation. [2.] In respect of his human nature...[3.] In respect of his whole person...(Ibid., 3.185.)==
Calvin did not like the Nicene Creed, he thought there was too much subordinationism in it. His insistence on the autotheos of the Son and rejection of the eternal generation of His essence, introduced a non-Biblical conception into the Nicene understanding of the Trinity. In essence, Calvin was a neo-modalist.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment