Friday, January 12, 2024

Athanaius: did he teach Sabellianism (i.e. modalism) ???

I have recently encountered the proposition that Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) was not a Trinitarian, but rather, that he was a Sabellian (i.e. modalist).

The first instance of connecting Athanasius with Sabellianism that I came across occurred back on 11-26-2023 via my reading of a post published by Andries van Niekerk on his blog From Daniel to Revelation under the title, 'The Sabellians of the Fourth Century'. Andries wrote:

Note that the West also vindicated Athanasius. His theology was similar to the Sabellians...

And:

Another article provides further evidence of the Sabellian leaning of the theologies of Alexander and Athanasius. For example, “Studer’s account here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped.” (LA, 238) The question is, why did the West vindicate these two Sabellians?

The 'Another article' mentioned (and linked to) by Andries was published under the title, 'Was Athanasius a Sabellian?' From that post we read:

There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of their time; Eustathius and Marcellus. As ‘one hypostasis’ theologians, Alexander and Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’ theology and the term homoousios were already formally rejected as heretical by the church during the preceding century, they followed an already discredited theology.

The Western Council of Serdica in 343, where Athanasius played a dominant part, is devastating evidence. It explicitly describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one hypostasis and Athanasius approved and supported this creed. People struggle with this conclusion is that it shows that Athanasius, who is regarded as the hero of the Arian Controversy, was a Sabellian; not a Trinitarian.

Before moving on to my second recent encounter with the notion that Athanasius was a Sabellian, I would like to mention I have been following Andries blog for over two years now. It began shortly after Andries posted a few comments back in late November 2021 in an old thread here at AF [LINK]. (Interestingly enough, earlier this week during some online research I discovered that Andries had also published the material from the two above mentioned threads at the Christianity Stack Exchange [LINK].)

With this background information in place, I suspect that folks reading this post will be as surprised as I was that in a mere seven days after reading Andries’ posts on Athanasius and Sabellianism, I began receiving emails from a knowlegable member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has embraced the proposition that Athanasius was a modalist/Sabellian. (My December 10, 2023 AF post  was inspired by our email exchanges.)

Prior to all this, I was involved in an email exchange—beginning on August 30th—with an advocate of neo-modalism who had questions concerning my AF post, James White's (mis)use of Melito of Sardis as an early witness to the incarnation of God (the Son) [December 5, 2011 - LINK].

There is one more connection that warrants mentioning: the LDS gent mentioned above is a friend with Errol Amey. Errol has a keen interest in patristics, and has contributed a number of informative comments in a few threads here at AF. And so, we have four gents mentioned above, that have at least three interests in common—patristics, theology, and challenging/respectful dialogue—who are in one way or another linked to this current post.

It is now time to delve into why I maintain Athanasius was not a Sabellian/modalist. One of Andries’ arguments—which initially seems quite strong and compelling—is that,"Athanasius opposed the concept of 'three hypostases'" and taught the "Father and Son are only one Hypostasis". (LINK)

Though Athanasius wrote in at least two extant documents that the Father and Son are 'one hypostasis', he also acknowleged that they are 'three hypostases'. Note the following:

And how do the impious men venture to speak folly, as they ought not, being men and unable to find out how to describe even what is on the earth? But why do I say 'what is on the earth?' Let them tell us their own nature, if they can discover how to investigate their own nature? Rash they are indeed, and self-willed, not trembling to form opinions of things which angels desire to look into (i Pet. i. 12), who are so far above them, both in nature and in rank. For what is nearer [God] than the Cherubim or the Seraphim? And yet they, not even seeing Him, nor standing on their feet, nor even with bare, but as it were with veiled faces, offer their praises, with untiring lips doing nought else but glorify the divine and ineffable nature with the Trisagion. And nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men specially selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance of the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is lower, but in the third, quite low,—and that consequently the first utterance denotes lordship, the second subordination, and the third marks a yet lower degree. But away with the folly of these haters of God and senseless men. For the Triad [Τριὰς], praised, reverenced, and adored, is one and indivisible and without degrees (ἀσχηματιστός). It is united without confusion, just as the Monad also is distinguished without separation. For the fact of those venerable living creatures (Isa. vi. ; Rev. iv. 8) offering their praises three times, saying 'Holy, Holy, Holy,' proves that the Three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις] are perfect, just as in saying 'Lord,' they declare the One Essence. They then that depreciate the Only-begotten Son of God blaspheme God, defaming His perfection and accusing Him of imperfection, and render themselves liable to the severest chastisement. For he that blasphemes any one of the Subsistences [τῶν ὑποστάσεων] shall have remission neither in this world nor in that which is to come. But God is able to open the eyes of their heart to contemplate the Sun of Righteousness, in order that coming to know Him whom they formerly set at nought, they may with unswerving piety of mind together with us glorify Him, because to Him belongs the kingdom, even to the Father Son and Holy Spirit, now and for ever. Amen. [Athanasius, In Illud ‘Omnia’, Mihi Tradita – On Luke x. 22 (Matt. Xi. 27) - NPNF 4.90]

And:

And prohibit even the reading or publication of the paper, much talked of by some, as having been drawn up concerning the Faith at the synod of Sardica. For the synod made no definition of the kind. For whereas some demanded, on the ground that the Nicene synod was defective, the drafting of a creed, and in their haste even attempted it, the holy synod assembled in Sardica was indignant, and decreed that no statement of faith should be drafted, but that they should be content with the Faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea, inasmuch as it lacked nothing but was full of piety, and that it was undesirable for a second creed to be promulged, lest that drafted at Nicaea should be deemed imperfect, and a pretext be given to those who were often wishing to draft and define a creed. So that if a man propound the above or any other paper, stop them, and persuade them rather to keep the peace. For in such men we perceive no motive save only contentiousness. For as to those whom some were blaming for speaking of three Subsistences [τρεῖς λέγοντας ὑποστάσεις], on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious, we thought it right indeed to require nothing beyond the confession of Nicaea, but on account of the contention we made enquiry of them, whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, subsistences [τριοουσίους] foreign and strange, and alien in essence [οὐσίας] from one another, and that each Subsistence [ὑπόστασιν] was divided apart by itself, as is the case with creatures in general and in particular with those begotten of men, or like different substances, such as gold, silver, or brass ;—or whether, like other heretics, they meant three Beginnings and three Gods, by speaking of three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις λέγωσι].

They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held it. But upon our asking them 'what then do you mean by it, or why do you use such expressions?' they replied. Because they believed in a Holy Trinity [ἁγίαν Τριάδα], not a trinity [Τριάδα] in name only, but existing and subsisting in truth, 'both a Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge,' and that neither had they said there were three Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate such as said or held so, but that they acknowledged a Holy Trinity [ἁγίαν μὲν Τριάδα] but One Godhead [μίαν δὲ θεότητα], and one Beginning, and that the Son is coessential [ὁμοούσιον] with the Father, as the fathers said; while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor external, but proper to and inseparable from the Essence [τῆς οὐσίας] of the Father and the Son. (Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos - Tome to the People of Antioch, Paragraph 5 - NPNF 4.484)

Having accepted then these men's interpretation and defence of their language, we made enquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of One Subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to the negation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as though the Son were non-substantial, or the Holy Spirit impersonal. But they in their turn assured us that they neither meant this nor had ever held it, but 'we use the word Subsistence thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence [ὑπόστασιν μὲν λέγομεν ἡγούμενοι ταὐτὸν εἶναι εἰπεῖν ὑπόστασιν καὶ οὐσίαν];' 'But we hold that there is One, because the Son is of the Essence of the Father [ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας], and because of the identity of nature [τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς φύσεως]. For we believe that there is one Godhead [μίαν γὰρ θεότητα], and that it has one nature [φύσιν],  and not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are distinct.' Well, thereupon they who had been blamed for saying there were three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις] agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of One Essence, also confessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was anathematised as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the truth, and Manichasus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by God's grace, and after the above explanations, agree together that the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea is better than the said phrases, and that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its language. (Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos - Tome to the People of Antioch, Paragraph 6 - NPNF 4.484, 485)

Clearly, Athanasius used the term 'hypostasis/hypostases' in two, distinct senses. In one sense, he equated 'hypostasis' with 'ousia' and 'theotēs', and in a second sense, with the personal distinctions of the three members of the Trinity. He also made it quite clear that he separated himself from those folk who embraced a Sabellian sense of the term. With these facts in place, I must conclude that Athanasius did not embrace Sabellianism.


Grace and peace,

David

14 comments:

Errol Amey said...

That last quotation seems fairly conclusive on the matter. I cannot say that I'm surprised to see Athanasius specifically address and reject Sabellianism in such a way as I've never seen a patristic scholar hypothesize that he might have been a Modalist, but it's good to have the citation itself. Also of particular interest to me was this bit: "‘we use the word Subsistence thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence;’ ‘But we hold that there is One, because the Son is of the Essence of the Father, and because of the identity of nature. For we believe that there is one Godhead, and that it has one nature’." Earlier instances of these words being applied interchangeably within this application is what prompted me to ask one of my teachers, Bogdan Bucur, the following question: "Is homoousios/of one essence/consubstantial synonymous with being of one nature within the
context of the Trinity? Could the Creed justly be rendered, 'of one nature'?" To which Bucur succinctly replied, "Yes." I think this sufficiently corroborates one of my earlier teachers, David Bercot, when he said in a lecture, "that’s one thing that the Creed presents, that the Father and the Son are homoousios or of the same nature." And again, "Now Jesus is a distinct person from the Father but He shares in the same nature and substance of the Father so that we can say in a sense there is only one divinity because there’s only one will."

Errol Amey said...

And this brings us to a portion of the same Bercot lecture which likewise proves to be quite contrary to Andries van Niekerk's argument:

"We are going to end on two quotations. We will look at them first and then
discuss who wrote them. The first one says:
"'He [Jesus] is equally with the Father unchangeable and immutable, lacking in nothing. He is the perfect Son, and, as we have learned, He is like the Father. In this alone is He inferior to the Father: that He is not unbegotten. For He is the very exact image of the Father and differs from Him in nothing . . . But let no one take the word 'always' in a manner that raises suspicion that He is unbegotten . . . For neither are the words, 'He was,' 'always,' or 'before all worlds,' equivalent to unbegotten. For the human mind cannot use any synonyms to signify 'unbegotten.' . . . For these words do not at all signify unbegotten. Rather, these words seem to denote simply a lengthening out of time. Still, they cannot properly signify the divinity and antiquity of the Only-Begotten. Nevertheless, they have been used by holy men, while each—according to his capacity—seeks to express this mystery, asking patients from the hearers and pleading a reasonable excuse, in saying, 'This is as far as we can come.' . . . In short, whatever word we use is not equivalent to 'unbegotten' [talking about the Father]. Therefore, to the Unbegotten Father, indeed, we should preserve His proper dignity, in confessing that no one is the cause of His being. However, to the Son must be also given His fitting honor, in assigning to Him . . . a generation [or origin] from the Father without beginning and assigning worship to Him . . . We by no means reject His Godhood, but ascribe to Him a likeness that exactly answers in The Trinity ever respect to the image and example of the Father. Still, we must say that to the Father alone belongs the property of being unbegotten. For the Savior Himself said, 'My Father is greater than I.'
"'For these words do not at all signify unbegotten.' He is referring to the words 'He was,' 'always,' or 'before all worlds.' The first time I read that to someone they thought that it was written by Arius. Actually, it was written by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria [(cf. Ante-Nicene Fathers 6:294-295)]. This was written right at the time of the Nicene Council. That’s why I say what the Nicene Creed says is what everybody had been saying up until that time. Even through that council and in the Nicene Creed they believed that the Father is greater than Jesus and that Jesus wasn’t saying that because He was on earth as a human but because the Father is the Unbegotten. Also that Jesus with all the authority and majesty given to Him is begotten from the Father and so there is an order there in the Trinity and the Father is greater than the Son."

David Waltz said...

Hi Errol,

So good to see to back at AF. Thanks much for your informative comments.

I found your question to Bucur and his definitive answer to be spot-on. I also concur with the following you provided from a lecture by David Bercot:

>>"that’s one thing that the Creed presents, that the Father and the Son are homoousios or of the same nature." And again, "Now Jesus is a distinct person from the Father but He shares in the same nature and substance of the Father so that we can say in a sense there is only one divinity because there’s only one will.">> [Is that lecture available online; if so could you provide a link?]

For decades now, I have understood the terms οὐσία, θεότητης, and φύσις to be synonyms with reference to the ontology concerning the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I also believe that the term θεός is many times used in a qualitative rather than definite sense, and when used in the qualitative sense it is a synonym with the above terms.

I am pleased that you provided Bercot’s quote from Alexander of Alexandria’s epistle to Alexander of Constantinople. I am surprised that some modern-day modalists maintain that he was a modalist. They really need to read entire epistle. [ANF 6.291-298 – LINK]

Before ending, I would like to ask a question: do you the term ‘God’ is used in a qualitative in the following Book of Mormon passages:

2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:44; and Mormon 7:7


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Ooooops...

"do you the term" should read: do you believe the term...

Errol Amey said...

Fortunately this is one of several lectures which Scroll Publishing has made available online for free:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpPmXUEK3F8

To which a Modalist attempted to give this rebuttal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqadpTUVlRQ

To which I in turn gave this rebuttal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKlnRbD-IMk

Regarding the Latter-day Saint canonical position on the subject, the first verse that comes to mind is Doctrine & Covenants 20:28: "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen." The footnote in the modern editions refers to John 17:20-22. Similarly, 2 Nephi 31:21 refers the reader to 3 Nephi 28:10 as well as Mormon 7:7. When conversing with Latter-day Saints the most common explanation to these passages has always been that the members of the Godhead are, 'one in purpose,' which essentially parallels Bercot's statement that within the Trinity, "there’s only one will." I think that the underlying basis for this oneness is that They are one in nature.

David Waltz said...

Hello again Errol,

Thanks much for the links. I enjoyed David’s lecture—had forgotten how well he is able articulate deep subjects via his videos—as well as your rebuttal.

At the end of your response to my question, you wrote:

>>I think that the underlying basis for this oneness is that They are one in nature.>>

I concur. I would add that because I believe ‘nature’, ‘essense’ and ‘Godhead’ are qualitative/ontological synonyms, all of them are accurate and useful terms when describing the oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

I published the following thread back in 2019 that I think is germane:

God, LDS Metaphysics, and the Development of Doctrine

Have you had a chance to read it?


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

Hello David and Erol (and Rory if he is about!!!),
These waters were perhaps too deep for me when I was regularly immersed in these questions, but are definitely a bit beyond me now. Of course that seldom stops me from opining on something, so …

I have not thought of Athanasius as a modalist and I don’t lean that direction currently. I would like to talk about a few of the words and then reference something that I don’t think is in David’s long Athanasius quotes, but I suspect he will recognize immediately (I hope it is from Athanasius like I remember).
Hypostasis – It has always been peculiar to me that the Council of Nicea in its anathemas declared that anyone who claims the Father and Son were two hypostasis (plural) were heretical. The response to this WORD choice I have heard is that the intent of the fathers at Nicea was not to preclude the common view of 1 ousia- and 3 hypostasis BUT instead was just another way of saying not two ousia / not two hypostasis. I have contemplated what conciliar infallibility means if the INTENT of the fathers is what is infallible (which I think is what folks say when not two hypostasis is mentioned), but that is a different thought. I was of the opinion before reading this thread that Latin speakers didn’t understand the term hypostasis as well as they needed to in order to make Nicea precise. I think I saw you, David, and Athanasius claim that hypostasis has two meanings (not that the Latin speaking folks misunderstood the Greek somewhat). Is that correct? If so, that was new to me.


Homoousian – My understanding of this term is that it has long had three meanings:
1. Of one material. This is like a metal and metal shavings are the same material and it is VERY material-centric. This is not part of the debate as nobody means this.
2. Of the same (one) nature like a human father and a human son are of one nature. One in the generic sense.
3. Of numerically one nature. One in the numeric (not generic) sense. (a modalist might say that God is of numerically one nature and this means He is one person, one hypostasis, and only expresses Himself in different modes). Indeed this was what the Sabellian heresy asserted AND it is the reason many of the fathers at Nicea were very uncomfortable with the word Homoousian. Some after and maybe during Nicea preferred Homoiosian.

So my understanding is that a MODERN Trinitarian is only different from a modalist in that the modern Trinitarian would say, “God is Homoousian (of numerically one nature) and he is three hypostasis (or three persons).” The modalist might say, “God is Homoousian (of numerically one nature) and he is one hypostasis (or one person).”

On to Athanasius –
I think there was an Athanasius quote that essentially said, that he knows that the proper understanding of Homoousian from Nicea is the numeric sense, but that Eusebius and others are not Arianomaniacs and should be dialogued with as brothers even though they embrace Homoousian in the generic sense (not the correct sense which is the numeric sense).

cont..

TOm said...

My understanding is that the idea that God the Father and God the Son are Homoousian in the NUMERIC sense is the modern Trinitarian view (and the view Athanasius embraced). It is also the ancient modalist view. I offered above how numeric homoousian Trinity believers differ from modalist in the qualifiers added to the word homoousian. If I felt I had to embrace the scholarly understanding of Trinity within Catholic and EO thought, I would fall back upon the fact that it is a MYSTERY how Father and Son are homoousian in the numeric sense AND are still 2 hypostasis.
I guess I am saying that I would not call Athanasius a modalist. But I do think he claims to embrace the numeric sense of homoousian and not embrace the generic sense of homoousian. His qualifying words that are different from modalists are different, but his understanding of homoousian is not the understanding Eusebius embraced and is the understanding that almost resulted in the rejection of the word a Nicea because it is/was modalist.
Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

So good to see you back at AF. Thanks much for taking the time to comment. You wrote:

>>Hypostasis – It has always been peculiar to me that the Council of Nicea in its anathemas declared that anyone who claims the Father and Son were two hypostasis (plural) were heretical. The response to this WORD choice I have heard is that the intent of the fathers at Nicea was not to preclude the common view of 1 ousia- and 3 hypostasis BUT instead was just another way of saying not two ousia / not two hypostasis.>>

The following are the Nicene anathemas:

>>But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change- these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.>> (LINK)

Most patristic scholars believe that hypostasis and ousia/substance in the Nicene anathemas are synonyms; but I think there are solid reasons for believing that they are not. See THIS THREAD for support.

You also penned:

>>I think there was an Athanasius quote that essentially said, that he knows that the proper understanding of Homoousian from Nicea is the numeric sense, but that Eusebius and others are not Arianomaniacs and should be dialogued with as brothers even though they embrace Homoousian in the generic sense (not the correct sense which is the numeric sense).>>

You are correct; the quote you are thinking of is from Athanasius’ Tomus ad Antiochenos - Tome to the People of Antioch, Paragraph 6 (NPNF 4.484, 485), which I provided above in my opening post (the second lengthy quote).

A bit later, you said:

>>My understanding is that the idea that God the Father and God the Son are Homoousian in the NUMERIC sense is the modern Trinitarian view (and the view Athanasius embraced).>>

The following excerpt from Athanasius suggests otherwise to me:

Those to whom we are alike [ὅμοιοι] and whose identical nature [ταυτότητα] we share, with these we are one in essence [ὁμοούσιοί]. For example, we men, because we are alike and share the same identical nature [ταυτότητα], are one in essence [ὁμοούσιοί] with each other. (The Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, trans. C. R. B. Shapland, Epistle 2, Paragraph 3, pp. 154, 155 – Greek terms provided by me are from Migne PG 26.)

Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Tom,

While wainting to get my eyes examined for some new glasses this afternoon, I checked out some articles I had on my phone. The following is germane to our discussion:

>>There is one more important point to notice here. Even though the whole Father is an ingredient in the Son, Athanasius thinks the Father is not identical to the Son. As I explained above, an ingredient cannot be identical to the product in question, and that applies in the Son’s case too. Besides, if the Father were identical to the Son, that would amount to modalism, and Athanasius explicitly rejects that (as does Arius).>> [J. T. Paasch, "Arius and Athanasius on the Production of God's Son", Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers, p. 397 - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/216991572.pdf]

Keith Norman’s thesis published by FARMS also came to mind. Will pull it off of the shelf and get back to you if I find anything of interest.

Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

David, Errol, and Tom, hi.

I want to highlight one of Errol's quotes that I really liked because there are Catholic scholars of high repute who affirm that when Christ said that the Father was greater, He was referring to his human nature:

Errol
That’s why I say what the Nicene Creed says is what everybody had been saying up until that time. Even through that council and in the Nicene Creed they believed that the Father is greater than Jesus and that Jesus wasn’t saying that because He was on earth as a human but because the Father is the Unbegotten. Also that Jesus with all the authority and majesty given to Him is begotten from the Father and so there is an order there in the Trinity and the Father is greater than the Son."

Rory
I agree with this and I am certain most of the Fathers do as well. It is not untrue to say that the Father is greater according to Christ's human nature. But when it is said just to score a point against someone who thinks John 14:28 is talking about ontology, it is dissatisfying and misleading. Here is a quote from a popular online Bible resource to explain John 14:28:

"For the Father is greater than I": It is evident, that Christ our Lord speaks here of himself as he is made man: for as God he is equal to the Father. (See Phil. 2.) Any difficulty of understanding the meaning of these words will vanish, when the relative circumstances of the text here are considered: for Christ being at this time shortly to suffer death, signified to his apostles his human nature by these very words: for as God he could not die.

https://drbo.org/chapter/50014.html

All that does is resolve a difficulty for somebody made uncomfortable with an eternal and truly sublime truth. The Father, who gives all of His Essence to His Beloved Son, is greater than the Son from all eternity. This explains why it is the Son's meat to do the will of the Father. It is why the Son was sent by the Father before He had a human nature. This is not merely a temporal truth about ontology, but an eternal truth which shines light on how there is a hierarchy of greatness in society and in the Godhead which has to do with relationships, and the obedience owed to authority, not because of ontological inferiority but because of this recognition of office in many aspects of life.

Christ teaches us how we are to obey them that have authority over us. If Christ eternally obeys His Father, because of this relationship, and we recognize that it is not because of His human inferiority, it tells us that we should copy Him, and examine our own relationship with authority. In particular, I think this can help one to see the necessity of identifying those office holders in Christ who have a position of authority over us.

Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

---Heb. 13:17

Tom, I have had to re-evaluate my last eighteen years with the Society of St. Pius X. On the First Sunday of Advent, 2023, I went to a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated by the Archbishop of Kansas City, KS, His Excellency Joseph Naumann. I have identified him as my ordinary authority, who is under the Supreme Authority of the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, who is under the authority of the Head of the Church He founded, Our Lord Jesus Christ. The hierarchy of relationships in the Godhead had something to do with my decision.

Errol Amey said...

David,

I finally got to set aside some time to read and reflect on the blog from 2019 which you referenced. Of particular interest was the citation of D&C 88, which noted that the Son is, "the light of truth" (v. 6), "Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God [the Father] to fill the immensity of space" (v. 12) also in having made the sun, moon, stars, etc., in Creation, and which Father is, "God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity" (v. 13). This, in turn, reminded me of D&C 76: "By the power of the Spirit our eyes were opened and our understandings were enlightened, so as to see and understand the things of God—Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning" (vv. 12-13). I wonder if this isn't an apt description of the same principles put forth in the early Logos Christology, holding that the Son had always existed as the Word within the Father, and then, at be beginning of Creation, came out from the Father and became the Son, and thus the generation of the Son from the Father as an eternally ongoing event.

Errol Amey said...

Rory,

I believe that limiting the subordination of the Son to the Father to the former's Incarnation was an innovation of the late 4th to mid 5th centuries which was developed in order to more effectively combat the Arians but which also contradicted the Subordinationism characteristic of Nicene and pre-Nicene orthodoxy. And thus regarding John 14:28, the earliest citation I've found in patristic writ is as follows:

“If, then, anyone asks the reason why the Father, who has all things in common with the Son, was manifested by the Lord as the only one who knew the hour and the day, [cf. Matthew 24:36] he will find no more fitting, proper, or safe answer in the present life than this, namely, that we might learn through the Lord, who alone is the truthful teacher, that the Father is above all things. Truly, he says: The Father is greater than I. [John 14:28] Thus, Our Lord proclaimed that the Father excels in regard to knowledge”
(Irenaeus, ca. 178, Against the Heresies 2:28:8, in Ancient Christian Writers 65:92)

Regarding this David, in a previous blog, once cited Manlio Simonetti noting that Subordinationism was, "the tendency, strong in the theology of the 2nd and 3rd cc., to consider Christ, as Son of God, inferior to the Father . . . . even in Irenaeus, to whom trinitarian speculations are alien, commenting on Jn 14, 28, has no difficulty in considering Christ inferior to the Father.” (Oxford Encyclopedia of the Early Church 2:797; cf. Kevin Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism, pp. 60-62)

Such is even more explicit when we look to the commentaries of Tertullian and Origen on this verse. For instance:

“But we are obedient to the Savior who says, ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I,’ [cf. John 14:28] and who, for this reason, did not permit himself to accept the title ‘good’ [cf. Mark 10:18] when it was offered to him, although it was perfectly legitimate and true. Instead, he graciously offered it up to the Father, and rebuked the one who wished to praise the Son excessively. This is why we say the Savior and the Holy Spirit transcend all created beings, not by comparison, but by their exceeding pre-eminence. The Father exceeds the Savior as much (or even more) as the Savior himself and the Holy Spirit exceed the rest. And by ‘the rest’ I do not mean ordinary beings, for how great is the praise ascribed to him who transcends thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come? And in addition to these [what must we] say also of holy angels, spirits, and just souls?
“But although the Savior transcends in his essence, rank, power, divinity (for the Word is living), and wisdom, beings that are so great and of such antiquity, nevertheless, he is not comparable with the Father in any way.”
(Origen, ca. 239, Commentary on John 13:151-152, in Fathers of the Church 89:100)

David Waltz said...

Hi Errol,

Good to see you back; you wrote:

>>I wonder if this isn't an apt description of the same principles put forth in the early Logos Christology, holding that the Son had always existed as the Word within the Father, and then, at be beginning of Creation, came out from the Father and became the Son, and thus the generation of the Son from the Father as an eternally ongoing event.>>

Very interesting interpretation of “his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning".

As you know, there were two types of ‘Logos Christology’ in pre-Nicene thought—single and two-stage. From my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong), the notion of eternal generation as formulated by Origen relied on the single-stage type of 'Logos Christology'.

I have some free time this coming Thursday to do some research in the pre-Nicene CFs to see how they understood “the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18b). Until then, I would like to provide some selections from the book The Bible, Mormon Scripture, and the Rhetoric of Allusivity by Nicholas J. Frederick—a LDS scholar—who touches on our subject at hand; note the following:

>>A prominent example of Smith’s usage of the “Only Begotten Son” can be found in D&C 76, a record of a mystical experience in which Smith and his associate Sidney Rigdon claimed to have seen, among others things, a multi-tiered heaven.[48] The description of this vision included several usages of the title "Only-Begotten Son" as well as the statement that the Son was in the "bosom of the Father."[49] Notably, this is the first occurrence in the revelations of the phrase "bosom of the Father," an allusion to John 1:18 that combines both Jesus' salvific role and his close relationship with the Father. The phrase held a significant function in John's Prologue, as it envisages "not the geographic situation of the Son rather the intimate relation between the Father and Son . . . by its use in the contexts of motherhood, sexual union, and martial fellowship."[50] In the course of the dictation of the vision, the phrase "bosom of the Father" appears twice, in both cases emphasizing the true nature of the relationship between Father and Son.[51]>> (Pages 36, 37)

>>48. Godfrey, et al., The Joseph Smith Papers: Documents, vol. 2, 179-91.

49. "Even the things which from the beginning before the word was which was ordained for the Father through his only begotten Son who was in the bosom of the father even from the beginning" (D&C 76:13).

50. Peter M. Phillips, The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 218.

51. One interesting grammatical note is the use of the verb "was" in D&C 76:13, rather that the "is" of John 1:18. John's language suggests that Jesus remains, even after his incarnation and resurrection, in the "bosom of the Father," perhaps a way of stating that the intimate relationship between the two continues to exist no matter what form the Son is in. Joseph Smith, by using the past tense, seems to imply that the "bosom of the Father" referred only to the pre-mortal Jesus, and that a resurrected and post-mortal Jesus no longer requires this imagery, suggesting that, at least on some level, Joseph may have interpreted the phrase in terms of geography rather than intimacy. This same shift in verb tense is also present in D&C 76:25 and 39, the other two places where the phrase "bosom of the Father" appears.>> (Page 53)

I noticed the difference of verbs used in connection with “bosom of the Father" between D&C 76 and John 1:18 before reading Frederick’s comments, but did not think of his take on why the difference exists. Food for thought for sure.


Grace and peace,

David