In 484 A.D. an unusual council of bishops was convened by
the Vandal king Huneric (also spelled Huniric and Hunirix) in Carthage North Africa. The
Germanic Vandals had conquered most of North Africa west of Alexandria, taking control of the region from the
Roman empire, and establishing Carthage as its capital in 439 A.D. The
Vandals had converted to Christianity before leaving Hispania (i.e. the Iberian
Peninsula) in 429 A.D for North Africa, though the form of Christianity they
had embraced was Homoianism, not Catholic Homoousianism.
By 484 A.D. this region of North Africa had been under Homoian Vandal rule for over four decades, but the majority of Christians remained Catholic. As such, of the hundreds of bishops that attended the 484 A.D. council, the vast majority—461 according to Heffle*—were Catholic bishops.
Recently, I was able to obtain John Moorheads’s English translation of an extensive historical document that provides the proceedings of this council, and the events leading up to it—Victor of Vita’s, History of the Vandal Persecution (Google Books; Scribd pdf).
The first book of Victor's tome is a chronicle of the Vandal invasion of North Africa under the leadership of their king Geiseric.
The second book begins with the death of Geiseric and succession to the throne by his eldest son, Huniric. Concerning Huniric's rule, Victor writes:
First of all the tyrant decreed, in a dreadful command, that no-one could hold an office in his palace or carry out public duties without becoming an Arian. (Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution, English translation John Moorhead - Liverpool University Press, 1992, Book II, chapter 23, p. 32)
In chapter 26 he relates the following:
But with what floods of tears shall I proceed? He sent bishops, priests, deacons and other members of the church, to the number of 4,966, to exile in the desert Among them were very many who had gout, and others who had lost their worldly sight through age. Among their number was the blessed Felix, bishop of Abbir (Henchir el-Khandaq), who had then been a bishop for 44 years; having been struck with the disease of paralysis he did not feel anything, nor was he capable of speech. (Ibid. p.33)
An edict from Huniric/Hunirix is provided in chapter 39:
"Hunirix, king of the Vandals and Alans, to all the homousian bishops. It is well known that not once but quite often your priests have been forbidden to celebrate any liturgies at all in the territory of the Vandals, in case they seduce Christian souls and destroy them. Many of them have despised this and, contrary to the prohibition, have been discovered to have said mass in the territories of the Vandals, claiming that they hold to the rule of the Christian faith in its fullness. And because we do not wish for scandal in the provinces granted us by God, therefore know that by the providence of God and with the consent of our holy bishops we have decreed this: that on the first of February next you are all to come to Carthage, making no excuse that you are frightened, so that you will be able to debate concerning the principles of faith with our venerable bishops and establish the propriety of the faith of the Homousians, which you defend, from the divine scriptures. From this it will be clear whether you hold the faith in its fullness. We have sent a copy of this edict to all your fellow bishops throughout Africa. Given on 20 May 483 in the seventh year of Hunirix." (Ibid. pp. 37-38)
From the above edict we learn that Hunirix [Huniric] has decreed that “all the homousian bishops” are to meet on February 1, 484 A.D. in Carthage “to debate concerning the principles of faith with our venerable bishops and establish the propriety of the faith of the Homousians, which you defend, from the divine scriptures.”
A few chapters later, Victor penned the following:
52 That day of treachery which the king had appointed, 1 February, was now drawing near. There came together not only the bishops of the whole of Africa, but also those of many of the islands, worn out with suffering and grief. Silence was observed for many days, until he separated every skilled and learned man from among them, so that they could be put to death on the basis of false charges. For he committed to the flames one of that choir of the learned, whose name was Laetus. a vigorous and most learned man, after he had long endured a squalid imprisonment. He thought that making an example of him would strike fear into the others and enable him to wear them down.
53 Finally the debate took place, needless to say at a place their enemies had selected. Our people chose to avoid the disturbances which loud voices would have caused, in case the Arians were later to say that they had been overpowered by weight of numbers, and chose ten of their number who would answer on behalf of them all. Cyrila, with his lackeys, most arrogantly placed a throne for himself in a high place, while our people were standing. And our bishops said: "It is always pleasant to be at a meeting at which the exaltation of power does not proudly hold sway, but general consent is arrived at, so that the truth is recognized from what the judges decree, in accordance with the actions of the parties. But who is to be the judge on this occasion, who will weigh the evidence so that the scales of justice may confirm what has been argued well or show unsound propositions to be false?"
54 While these and other things were being said, the king's notary answered: "The patriarch Cyrila has named some people." Our people, abominating the proud and unlawful title which he had usurped, said: "Read out to us who gave permission for Cyrila to take this title for himself!" At this our enemies made a loud clamour and began to bring false accusations. And because our people had sought that, if the throng of sensible people were not allowed to ask questions, they could at least look on, the order was given that all the children of the catholic church who were present were to be beaten with a hundred blows each. Then blessed Eugenius began to cry out: "May God see the violence we endure, let him know the affliction we suffer from the persecutors!"
55 Our people turned round and said to Cyrila: "Say what you intend to do." Cyrila said: "I do not know Latin." Our bishops said: "We know very well that you have always spoken Latin; you should not excuse yourself now, especially since you have set this fire going." And, seeing that the catholic bishops were better prepared for the debate, he flatly refused to give them a hearing, relying on various quibbles. But our people had foreseen this and written a short work concerning the faith, composed quite fittingly and with the necessary detail. They said: "If you wish to know our faith, this is the truth we hold."
THE BOOK OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH
56 We are enjoined by a royal command to provide an account of the catholic faith which we hold. So we are setting out to indicate briefly the things which we believe and proclaim, aware of our lack of ability but supported by divine assistance. We recognize, then, that the first thing we must do is give an explanation of the unity of the substance of the Father and the Son, which the Greeks call homousion.
Therefore: we acknowledge the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the unity of the divine nature in such a way that we can say with a faithful confession that the Father subsists as a distinct person, and the Son equally exists in his own person, and that the Holy Spirit retains the distinctiveness of his own person, not asserting that the Father is the same as the Son, nor confessing that the Son is the same as the Father or the Holy Spirit, nor understanding the Holy Spirit in such a way that he is the Father or the Son; but we believe the unbegotten Father and the Son begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father to be of one substance and essence, because the unbegotten Father and the begotten Son and the Holy Spirit who proceeds have one divine nature in common; nevertheless, there are three distinct persons.
57 A heresy arose and brought forth something new against this catholic and apostolic faith. It maintained that the Son was not born of the substance of the Father but came into being from no existing things, that is, out of nothing. To refute and completely destroy this wicked profession which had come forth against the faith, a Greek word, homousion, was coined. This means 'of one substance and essence,' and signifies that the Son was not born from no existing things nor from any substance, but of the Father. Therefore, whoever thinks that the word homousion is to be laid aside wishes to assert that the Son came to exist out of nothing. But if the Son is not 'of nothing,' he is without doubt of the Father, and rightly homousion, that is, of one substance with the Father.
58 That he is of the Father, that is, of one substance with the Father, is demonstrated by these testimonies. The apostle says: 'who, while he is the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance, also upholds all things by the word of his power.' (Heb 1:3) [Ibid. pp. 43-45]
This apologia for the Catholic Faith continues for another 43 chapters (pp. 45-63). It contains dozens of supporting Scriptural quotes, including the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7,8. Note the following:
82 And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for setvitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: 'There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.' Surely he does he not say 'three separated by a difference in quality' or 'divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them?' No, he says that the 'three are one.' (Ibid. p. 56)
THE BOOK OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH ends with:
101 This is our faith, confirmed by evangelical and apostolic traditions and authority, and founded on the association of all the catholic churches which are in this world; in which faith we trust and hope we shall remain, by the grace of almighty God, until the end of this life. Amen.
This is the end of the book sent on 20 April by Januarius of Zattara (Kef Benzioune) and Villaticus of Casae Medianae, bishops of Numidia, and Boniface of Foratiana and Boniface of Gratiana, bishops of Byzacena. (Ibid. p. 63)
And with the ending the Catholic defense, I shall end this post…
Grace and peace,
David
*Charles Joseph Heffle, History of the Councils - Vol. IV, A.D. 451 to A.D. 680, 1895, p. 36.
17 comments:
Today, I found another online source for a PDF of Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution, English translation John Moorhead - Liverpool University Press, 1992:
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/a02b795d-cac0-4284-8834-8635ae2df782/downloads/97dfc538-9218-4d5b-9eb5-7c3d4a2e4613/Victor%20of%20Vita.%20History%20of%20the%20Vandal%20Persecut.pdf?ver=1745859930491
Really an interesting look into the controversy in Vandal Africa.
Both sides consider themselves catholics, and are probably about equally tolerant of each other (let's not forget that in the Roman Empire homoians would have endured similar treatment to the homousians in Vandal lands). The consistent homoian interest in having proof for everything from the scriptures and letting that be the metric for the debate is something I always find striking, as the rest of catholicism seems to pursue further theological development with a much freer hand in terms of how speculative they are willing to get, and how far beyond scriptural language they are willing to go. The homoian emphasis on scriptural grounding is an attitude that reminds me of protestantism.
I wonder at the narrative presented here regarding the cancelling of the debate for fear of the homousians, as we have record of other debates between homoian and homousian bishops, like Augustine vs Maximinus, and personally it has always seemed to me the homoians had an easier time and made a better showing.
Hi Andrew,
Longtime no chat; thanks much for taking the time to comment.
Would like to share some thoughts on the following you wrote:
>>The consistent homoian interest in having proof for everything from the scriptures and letting that be the metric for the debate is something I always find striking, as the rest of catholicism seems to pursue further theological development with a much freer hand in terms of how speculative they are willing to get, and how far beyond scriptural language they are willing to go.>>
Your above assessment is spot-on. But with that said, it seems to me that the homoian principle of "proof for everything from the scriptures", has left too many theological issues unresolved.
>>The homoian emphasis on scriptural grounding is an attitude that reminds me of protestantism.>>
Agreed. But my primary caveate against the homoian/protestant principle of sola scriptura is that it leads to countless divisions amongst it adherents.
Grace and peace,
David
Indeed. The history of Protestantism is a rebuke of the perspicuity of scripture. But, what's an alternative that has worked? Competing claims to magisterial authority have also divided the churches of ancient catholicism between East, West, and others. Any sect can of course claim that they alone are the true church and 'no true scotsman' all others who at least academically qualify as 'Christians', but this becomes especially odd when competing groups recognize a degree of validity in each other.
There never was a time it was all united, since Paul and the followers of James had their spat. If death is the dissolution of the body then the last two thousand years have witnessed a prolonged second passion of Christ.
I think it's an interesting thought experiment to speculate what might have happened had the homoian criterion for faith prevailed; is there a degree to which preventing further speculation and development in doctrine might have preserved the unity of catholic churches that existed in the fourth century? One can make the case that most splits that came later are the result of different churches independently developing incompatible doctrines. Had such developments been banned, might the outcome have been a conservation of what was shared up to that point?
Hello again Andrew,
My friend Rory has been trying to post at AF, but for reasons unknown, Blogger has not been cooperating. I am posting the following email he sent me:
Rory McKenzie
10:55 AM (3 hours ago)
to me
Andrew, hi.
I concur about perspicuity of Scripture. I have often used a saying that goes like this: "Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy." There are a lot of clever and thoughtful interpretations of Scripture including the Arian interpretation.
I cannot deny that it is lamentable that significant numbers among the Apostolic churches who still have valid sacraments have torn themselves away from the unity of the Church. But the doors are open. The wound can heal. The Roman Catholic Church under the pope is united with other Apostolic churches all over the globe who don't even celebrate the Sacraments according to the Roman Rite. She does everything to help the separated churches with valid Sacraments to come home. Rome allows recitation of the Nicene Creed without the filioque while encouraging them to retain all of their customs and traditions. There isn't much to keep most of us apart.
Maybe this is why those searching for the one true church don't usually join one of the separated Apostolic churches unless they are geographically accessible. To be Catholic, is to be universal, to be established and available to more than just a national or regional boundary.
Can you name a Protestant Church that claims to be "the one true church? I cannot. For me, recognizing the folly of sola scriptura, I joined the Catholic Church in 1995. Aside from the Orthodox, who are mostly attached to a region, there were the different Mormon branches, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, and a few other "Restoration movements" that teach that the Catholic Church fell into apostasy while mostly accepting that the original Reformers were right about one thing, that the Catholic Church was false.
In seeking the one true Church in which to worship, it comes to this for me: Can the Catholic Church defend herself against the charges of apostasy. Did apostasy lead to the Christianization of a once pagan and persecuting Roman Empire? What about 1.4 Billion faithful "apostates" today? How did that happen? In recent centuries there have been many prominent individual converts to the Catholic faith from all of these sects which claim to be one and true, as well as Protestant. Some Anglican and Orthodox churches have succeeded in returning to Rome as whole communities.
It doesn't seem to work the other way around at all. I am trying not to be sarcastic, but academically minded Catholics rarely become Orthodox, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or just plain Protestant. The mere sound of the idea strikes me as unthinkable. Nor to my knowledge have Catholic dioceses or parishes sought to align themselves with any other churches. Why might this be? Because no apostasy theory has been put forward to force a thoughtful Catholic or an entire parish to conclude that they must leave their home, and make the painful choice to undergo conversion.
Rory McKenzie
I woke up this morning, Andrew, pondering your interesting thought experiment. My interest on the idea of the defeat of homouisian theology goes to the subsequent development of Christian spirituality, ascetic theology, and norms for the interior life.
It seems more difficult to speculate on ramifications for Christian unity. But in my opinion, a gulf of difference would have occurred to subsequent spiritual thought. I suggest that the sublime teaching of the doctors of the interior life would have been radically altered. There is no doubt in my mind that the teaching of the doctors springs from pondering the infinite mysteries posed to them by pondering the Nicene teaching that the Son is 100% ontological equal with the Father. Catholic spiritual theology depends on the success of homouision, and the Council of Nicea.
Hi Rory,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your question regarding apostasy of the Roman Catholic church is an interesting one, and as with everything, the answer will depend on the metric we use to judge it. Modern protestants would quickly jump to say that apostasy occurred when Pauline soteriology was not upheld in the early centuries of catholic Christianity- although a survey of church fathers will find some interesting variation on this point, most fathers echo Jesus and James rather than Paul on the role of works in salvation. More academic Protestants might identify the council of Trent as the point of true apostasy due to that being the point where Protestant distinctives were really formally banished from the Roman church.
But what is apostasy? Is it getting soteriology wrong? Is it doing the sacraments badly? Is it a departure from correct theology on some point? And for any of these metrics, what then is the correct soteriology, what constitutes valid sacraments, and what is the metric by which we establish correct from incorrect theology? I think so much of the division within Christianity comes from different churches and traditions having very different answers to these questions.
I think that if we use significant departure from prior normative theology and christology as our metric for apostasy, we can make the case that this occurred in 381 with Theodosius deciding that the homousian view would be orthodoxy. Interpretations vary, of course- but on my reading, the people who hold essentially the same theology and christology as Justin, Irenaeus, and Origen in the ante-nicene period are the homoians in the post-nicene period, and the homousian interpretation of the unity between Father and Son, and their equality, represents a substantial break with what was normative previously. So by one metric the fourth century would be the point of Roman apostasy, and 'true Christianity' died quietly sometime in the 7th or 8th century when the last homoian germanic tribes in Europe converted to Roman catholicism.
Of course, that interpretation does not serve the interests of any modern Christian group, especially since despite the homoian christology fitting better with a 'sola scriptura' starting point, Protestantism has mostly rejected any serious reexamination of christology.
Rory,
I also find your comment on how an alternate timeline where the homoian view prevailed would have effected spirituality interesting. I agree it probably would have evolved differently. Less profoundly though? I don't know. Does the homoian emphasis on a difference between Father and Son serve to elevate God (the Father)? Is there something lost in the blending of Father and Son as equals, or for many, as fundamentally the same personal deity? But then, if part of the value for spiritualism of orthodox trinitarianism is supposed to be its mystery and incomprehensibility, perhaps a system that makes more sense would have provided less value for interior life.
Hi Andrew,
I appreciate and share your concerns about Christian unity. I completely agree with your first paragraph. I am thinking that you will agree that none of those suggested metrics work. I am hoping that you will agree with me that we should be uncomfortable with the idea that Christ’s prayer to His Father for our unity, both with Them, and all of those who love Them together with the Holy Ghost has not been answered. (some Catholics might be put off by my saying “Them” instead of Him. After two millenia Catholics in the West still tend to be uncomfortable with God’s Threeness. God is Three and God is One! Let us recognize Him and Them!)
Okay…so the prayers of the faithful who can petition the Father in Jesus’ name are assuredly granted by Jesus’ Father. How much more when Jesus Himself requests unity for those who believe and love Him!
Therefore, it is an article of faith with Catholics that the Church is one in unity. The Catholic Church claims that one of the Church’s marks is Oneness. The Church doesn’t lack Oneness. Nobody is saved apart from Jesus Christ and His Church. That sounds like unity (and exclusivity) to me. Nulla salas extra ecclesia (bad Latin for all but retired Catholic truck drivers/factory hands. I am surprised I remembered the expression even with wrong tenses!)
We kind of talked about the third mark of the Church above. It was when we touched on it needing to be catholic (universal).
Maybe we will cover the other marks of the Church. I don’t know. But where I am going if the discussion continues is the critical necessity of identifying the true Church with the Good Shepherd, whose voice the sheep recognize…Humble and submissive sheep recognize their Shepherd even if they can’t explain to those who are not of the flock why they are so happy, hopeful, and full of faith.
I am for a religion that I obey because I trust it, not because I analyze and agree with all of its teachings and disciplines. I take those on faith. I believe the Church in order to understand. There is an institution to which Christ gave keys, that caused to Him to say that “whatsoever you bind one earth shall be bound in Heaven”. Once we identify the Church with those Keys, we should meditate on the developing truths She proclaims and the prudent practices and disciplines She commands at different times and places. But the heavy thinking is over. Praise God. Praise God. Praise God. All glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
I am so sorry. I have to write my post on Word-something and then paste. But it doesn't seem to be able to keep my paragraphs in order. I am going to try one more time. If no success, I will delete one of them and hope you can understand me.
Unreadable...God's will, God's Providence. Its okay. All things work together for good to them that love God!
Hi Rory,
If you can be comfortable with that leap of faith and it's beneficial for you, then I am sincerely happy for you. For me personally, maybe I've found myself being gullible one too many times to feel comfortable with that approach. But that does seem to be at the heart of the matter so that's where I'll engage.
You said you believe the (Roman Catholic) Church in order to understand. For me the honest question is what would be the epistemic difference if we replaced "the Church" there with something else? Do you see a meaningful distinction between your fundamental approach and that of a sincere Muslim who believes the Qua-ran in order to understand? I want to be intellectually honest in my approach to this and that means I have to ask why "I believe _____ to understand" is appropriate in one case, but inappropriate in all others?
Your logic that there must be unity or else Jesus's prayer would not have been answered seems reasonable, but it can be turned to another conclusion, the implications of which do not lead to any church's door...
Thank you Andrew. In the end we are all searching for peace and happiness. I do not think I have been hasty or imprudent. My conscience has not accused me of taking the easy way out intellectually.
I think you will know I was paraphrasing St. Augustine when discussing the seemingly impossible or paradoxical claims of the faith. An impossible claim from all appearance is when Jesus told the disciples that they needed to eat his flesh. I don't know how God does it. But I see wonderful foreshadowing of the Lamb of God which is sacrificed and then eaten in the Jewish Passover. I also look at the feeding of the five thousand in Jn. 6 also. Jesus was being asked for manna that fell from heaven daily. Then we learn that God will give us the "the true Bread" from heaven in the "the true Passover".
The Catholic interpretation seems plausible and I want to believe it. I think St. Peter was believing "the hard saying" before understanding when the Lord asked the twelve if they would follow the incredulous among His disciples, when Peter replied, "Lord to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."
Peter believed on the authority of His faith in the Son of God. Peter spoke for the twelve. I am persuaded that "leap of faith" though it might be, it is a reasonable leap. As a Catholic I am taught that Peter still speaks in the Church founded on the Rock, AND where else do I go?
When I say I believe, it means that I believe the propositions which the Church teaches me from Scripture and the Tradition which seems necessary if we would find the Apostolic teaching. I look at the Church as a mother who is teaching her children how to understand God's revelation.
The sincere Muslim can believe in the Koran in order to understand. But he still has to choose among interpretations what he thinks it means. Will he do that alone, or with an authoritative community, in which he will ultimately place his faith. If he is doing it in an an authoritative community, I would see us as having much common ground. I would be pleased to agree with him about "how" he arrives at his beliefs, like me, with lack of confidence in my intellect alone, and faith in a collective body of fellow believers who we believe have their keys of authority from God.
I think that would an excellent place for beginning a discussion with the sincere Muslim. Presumably, we would review together why we say our mutual leaps of faith are under the circumstances, reasonable. It might be fun comparing miracles!
Rory
"We are bound to believe the word of God: but this word is accompanied with every proof of its really coming from God. When Jesus told men that he was the Son of God, he gave ample proof of his being such: in the same manner he insists on our believing what he reveals, but he gives us a guarantee of its being the truth. What is this guarantee? Miracles."
---Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 8, p. 201, St. Bonaventure Publications, Great Falls, MT (year 2,000)
After describing how our Lord had explained to those who heard Him that they were not required to believe his words on the basis of his persuasive personality. Rather, Gueranger quotes Christ affirming that His miracles should not be ignored: "The works I do give testimony of me." "If you will not believe me, believe my works." ---Jn. 5:36 and 10:38 respectively.
Gueranger then goes on to argue from the words of our Lord in Mk. 16, that Jesus intended for signs and wonders to be a perpetual gift to His Church to help souls of good will to accept the divine authority of the Church founded on Christ and His apostles.
"If we carefully weigh his words, we shall see that he does not intend the gift of miracles to cease with his first disciples. It is true that history proves how faithfully Jesus fulfilled his promise, and that, when the Apostles went forth commanding the world to believe what they preached, they gave testimony of their divine mission by countless miracles; but out Risen Lord promised more than this. He said not; 'These are the signs which follow my Apostles;' but: These are the signs which shall follow them that believe. (that sentence is italicized for emphasis, I cannot do that function in my present circumstances). By these words he perpetuated in His Church the gift of miracles; he made it one of her chief characteristics, and one of the grounds of our faith."
---ibid. pp. 203, 204
Written in the 19th Century, rationalism on the rise, with the 20th and 21st the perpetuity of miracles in the Church of Pope Francis, and now of Leo XIV, makes me feel my leap of faith more than reasonable, a demand from heaven.
I am aware that these demands are not widely known and examined. It is not blameworthy in those who are unfamiliar with modern miracles to be deaf to what I call "a demand from heaven." But I could contend that it would be blameworthy for me.
Thanks for your consideration.
Hopefully not gullible, your friend and neighbor in Jesus,
Rory
Rory
Hi Andrew (and Rory),
I would like to begin my reply by thanking both you and Rory for the informative and respectful dialogue that has been taking place in this thread. As one who is currently an ecclesiastical agnostic--trying to discern which church/denomination has the full approval of our Lord and best represents the oneness He pleaded for in his prayer to His Father in John 17--I have a keen interest in your assessments and thoughts.
This ongoing discussion has sent me back to your website CONTRA MODALISM in an attempt to better understand your doctrinal and ecclesiastical position.
Correct me if I am in error, but it seems that you have embraced the doctrinal view termed Homoianism.
From the Homoian Creed you posted on CM we read:
>>We believe in one God, Father Almighty, from whom are all things.
And in the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from God before all ages and before every beginning, by whom all things were made, visible and invisible, and begotten as only-begotten, only from the Father only, God from God, like to the Father that begat Him according to the Scriptures; whose origin no one knows, except the Father alone who begat Him.>>
The above raises two important questions for me:
1. Since the begetting of the Son from God the Father is "before all ages and before every beginning"--understanding that time as we know it has a beginning--do you believe that this begetting is timeless?
2. Homoianism as I understand it, adamantly denies that that the Son was created ex nihilo, and firmly affirms the Son is "God from God"; as such, is the Son's essence from the Father's essence?
Looking forward to thoughts...
Grace and peace,
David
Rory,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I see your point that a 'leap of faith' that is still waiting on fleshed-out understanding is biblical. I can also see the logic of saying that miracles provide evidence for claims. You said that with a Muslim in a parallel position to you, you'd be inclined to compare miracles. I wonder what that would look like?
For myself, Roman Catholics were always the "others" of the Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Restorationist churches I was in and inclined to, so I've honestly never looked very closely at their claims to miracles. I am more familiar with various Protestant or "cult" groups who claim miracles, and I've generally found myself having a hard time accepting their claims. I think the way I've generally approached it is that many groups claim miracles, and how can I know if they are real? So I tended to put faith in any proposed miracles as something that would come from believing (for other reasons) in the validity of the given group, rather than itself a reason to believe in the group.
Do you think I'm missing something in drawing a parallel between the miracles other groups claim and those of the Roman Catholic church? Again, I do see the basic logic so it would interest me if there were a case to be made for a qualitative difference between the Roman Catholic miracle claims and those of other groups.
When Jesus is reported to have done miracles and appealed to them as evidence, I wonder if a key element of the logic employed in that case was that his hearers ostensibly witnessed the miracles. It gave them something personal and direct to bank on. That seems quite a bit different than believing other peoples' claims to having witnessed/experienced miracles, without the direct experience.
Best,
Andrew
Hi David,
Alas, the interest in your post that sparked my comment is purely academic at this point, as I no longer consider myself a Christian. My old website still exists and I hope that others trying to sift through church history and the evolution theology might gain some benefit from it.
In retrospect, I do see the ante-nicene catholics and post-nicene homoians as the purest continuation of the religion of the New Testament. Personally, the fact that this version of Christianity is now extinct strikes me as (another) reason why Christianity is invalid. I think there are other more fundamental flaws that would lead me to land outside of Christianity, but the fact that (in my view) the New Testament and ante-nicene (original catholic?) theology proper and christology were allowed to die out is another assurance that I need not worry that the religion really takes its origins from a higher power. Justin Martyr, who died for his faith, would be excommunicated from almost every church I can think of today if he stood by the theological and christological positions he represents in his preserved works. What does that say about the modern version of the religion?
Contemplation of the prayer of Christ in John 17 does not move me further toward faith either... the logic that surely God would have answered his Son's prayer seems cogent to me, and combined with the apparent lack of that request for unity being granted, for me points away from the truth of the Christian faith.
Now to engage with your interesting questions (but from the standpoint of my understanding of how homoian christians historically would have responded):
1. I think the answer would be 'yes' in the sense that it is before created time, but there was still a sense of believing that the Father was before the Son in some sense; in the "Arian" (homoian) tract that Augustine responds to, the Homoian author sites 1 Peter 1:20 as saying that God foreknew the Son. It's hard to know exactly how they viewed time but I think there's some sense, alternate to the "ages" they view as created by God through the Son, that they view God as being chronologically prior to his Son.
2. Yes! A point that seems totally missed (or ignored) about the Homoians is that they did not claim (like true Arians) that the Son was made ex nihilo, but that he was "God from God". Again I see a continuity between the Homoians and the ante-nicenes: Justin was happy to analogize the generation of the logos as 'fire kindled from fire', and Tertullian was happy to present the Son as a being sprung forth from the internal logos (reason) of God, now external, and another person (personal [external] reason generated from impersonal [internal] reason). Yet both these authors, and so many others, happily argued for the very existence of the Son prior to the human Jesus from there being a "deuteros theos" in the Old Testament who did not share all the attributes of the Most High. Justin, Tatian, Tertullian, Irenaeus and others all cite the "god" of the Old Testament theophanies exhibiting qualities that could not fittingly belong to the Supreme God (such as being in a location, being visible, lack of omniscience, etc) as reason to believe that there was a "second God" revealed in the Old Testament who was then the Son and Christ of the Christian religion.
The homoousian arguments of (for instance) those written of by Victor of Vita seem to be that either the Son is from nothing, or, if from the Father, equal to the Father. I think this falls prey to a fallacy of limited choice; why can the Son not be from the "essence" of the Father, yet not totally equal, totally identical in all attributes, and in degree, to him? To refer all the way back to Justin's 'fire from fire' analogy, why can a much larger, brighter, hotter fire (so hot and so bright as to be unapproachable) not kindle another fire much less bright, much less hot, that is the image of that from which it was generated, yet approachable? Herein perhaps lies the Homoian preference for "like" rather than "equal".
Best,
Andrew
Post a Comment