A charitable effort at understanding, interacting with, and critiquing "Nicene Monarchism"

A Catholic brother in Christ (Jamie Donald) has recently published an online assessment/overview of the theological position which has been labeled by some as "Nicene Monarchism"—a position which is basically the 'revival' of the pre-Nicene, Nicene and early post-Nicene teaching of the Monarchy of God the Father. The full post can be accessed at: A Reflection on the Holy Spirit. 

Jamie's treatment should be noted for its charity and sincere attempt to understand and interact with the "Nicene Monarchism" position (hereafter: NM). In contrast to the superficial browsing employed by so many other critics, Jamie has actually taken the time to read at length what the proponents of NM have actually written before offering his overview and critique. Concerning his overview, except for a couple of points (see below for examples), I found it to be accurate and balanced. As for his critique, my thoughts and reflections will be presented in a separate, upcoming thread (the Lord willing). 

Clarifications/corrections of Jamie's overview - 

Jamie posted: 

This formulation has those who adhere to the more classical view of the Trinity giving the Nicene Monarchists the label, “polytheists;” specifically tritheists. Three persons, three divine beings, three gods. In answer to this charge, they reply that only the Autotheos, God the Father, is God; the Son and the Spirit are divine, but not God. Or in the words of one adherent, How many times do we have to say this to him? When I am using the word “God” and say that the Father is the One God I am not using it like the Nicene Creed when it says that Christ is God from God. I am using it to refer to the one who is autotheos. If when the word “God” means divine with respect to nature then yes, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God. But that is very confusing to people and so for the benefit of the consciences of the saints I use the word "God' to refer to the Father and "divine" to refer to the nature of Father, Son and Spirit. 

Fair enough, in spite of the irony behind the same person who coined the term Nicene Monarchism being the same who says he’s not using terms the same way the Nicene Creed uses them, a concise definition has been tendered. But this re-defining must also be applied in various places throughout the Scripture. For example, in order to maintain continuity of thought between the Nicene Monarchist’s view of the Trinity and the Holy Writ, one should think of John 1:1 along the lines of “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was a divine being.” Of course, with description defining terms differently than the same terms are used in the source material (in this case the Bible and Nicene Creed), one should also expect confusion. 

Now, I shall, of course, only speak for myself here, but I would never say that the Son and the Spirit are "not God"; rather, I have consistently maintained that they are not the "one God" specifically mentioned as such in the Bible, pre-Nicene, Nicene and early post-Nicene Fathers—including the Nicene Creed itself—that phrase is reserved for God the Father alone. 

I would also argue that the term "God" is used in two different senses in Nicene Creed: first, with reference to a singular, distinct person—i.e. God the Father; and second, with reference to essence/nature. 

And finally, the grammar of the Greek in John 1:1 concerning ho theos and theos presents strong support for the NM position (to which I would add John 1:18). 

[Note: I have reposted my above "Clarification/corrections" in the combox of the original thread.]

I shall end here for now, hoping that others with an interest in this topic will shall their thoughts. 


Grace and peace, 

David

Early Eastern and Western creeds: the subtle, yet deeply profound differences

While rereading J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Creeds, something 'caught my eye' which did not make much of an impact during my earlier readings. On page 194, Kelly penned:

It has become, for example, common place to say that Eastern creeds differ from Western in being "more theological".

He then reflects on a few of those differences; but on the next page, he gets to the real 'meat' of the issue, writing:

But the differences between Western and Eastern formularies can be catalogued more precisely. So far as the first article is concerned [i.e. God the Father], R [the Old Roman Creed] stands apart from later creeds because of its failure to emphasize the oneness of God the Father...Almost without exception the Eastern practice is to assert belief in ONE GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, and to describe Him as MAKER OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE or something of the kind. (Page 195)

Moving on, the later, so-called Apostles Creed (which most patristic scholars believe to be an expansion/revision of the Old Roman Creed) also fails "to emphasize the oneness of God the Father".

Continuing this 'tradition', Pope Damasus I (366-384), in what has been termed the Tome of Damasus (a collection of 24 canons composed at a council held at Rome in 382 A.D.), anathematized those who, believed in the Father as the "one God".*

Now, it sure seems to me that this contradicts the Nicene Creed (both 325 and 381) which clearly states that, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty".

Perhaps I have missed something; if I have, I sincerely hope that our Catholic brothers in Christ (and anyone who thinks I have misread the data at hand) will offer their thoughts on this issue.

*Online resources concerning the Tome of Damasus:

English translation from Theodoret's, Ecclesiatical History, in - The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,  Second Series - volume III (pages 139-141)

Greek and Latin texts from Theodoret's, Ecclesiatical History, in - Migne's Patrologia Graeca, volume 82

(pages 1221-1226)

Denzinger's English translation, in - The Sources of Catholic Dogma (pages 30-32)

Denzinger's Latin text, in - Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum Et De Rebus Fidei Et Morum (pages 32-34)

Turner's critical Greek and Latin edition, in - Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima, volume I (pages 281-294)

Grace and peace,

David

Perhaps the "best" defense of Augustinian/Latin/Western Trinitarianism

Within the Reformed tradition, there have been a number of works that have been devoted to the defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some of this contributions have been monographs, some have been articles/essays, and number as chapters in larger works. While some modern Reformed folk have opted to follow John Calvin in distancing themselves from certain aspects of Nicene Trinitarianism (e.g. the Son of God being begotten from the essence and person of the Father, and eternal generation), most Reformed theologians have attempted to defend Augustinian/Latin/Western Trinitarianism while maintaining that the original Nicene Creed is in full support of this view. IMO, the most comprehensive defense of this particular trajectory of Trinitarian thought came via the pen of W.G.T Shedd.

Shedd, in the first volume of his Dogmatic Theology (first edition 1889), devotes 84 pages to the topic "Trinity in Unity" (chapter 4, pp. 249-333). Given Shedd's lucid style of writing, he was able to pack more solid material into those 84 pages than others have attempted to accomplish in hundreds of pages. Shedd's treatment in it's scope and depth is probably without equal, but in the end, falls short—this is not due to any lacking in Shedd's ability and effort, but rather, due to what Shedd was attempting to defend—i.e. the indefensible.

Now, what precisely in his cogent defense was indefensible? IMO, two key aspects which are foundational to Augustinian/Latin/Western Trinitarianism (defended by Shedd), are indefensible: first, the One God of the Bible and early catholic tradition is the Godhead/Trinity; and second, the begotteness of the Son of God is hypostatical (i.e. personal) only. The first of these two aspects directly involves the philosophical concept of absolute divine simplicity. The second aspect has its roots in thought of John Calvin, but is complicated by Shedd in his attempt to defend it while at the same defending the original language of the Nicene Creed of 325. This attempt is perhaps Shedd's weakest proposition for he speaks of the "communication" of the entire/full divine essence to the Son from the Father while at the same time denying that the Son's essence is begotten from the Father's essence !!!

Rather than trying to reproduce Shedd's extensive contribution through my own feeble efforts, I would instead like to urge those interested in this subject to read the entire treatment for themselves. An excellent PDF copy is available online for reading and/or downloading (for free):

Dogmatic Theology - Volume I

And for those who really want to 'dig deep' into this topic, Shedd has a chapter in his earlier work, History of Christian Doctrine, which he draws from in his later work, that is, of course, directly related:

History of Christian Doctrine - Volume I (see Chapter III, pages 306-375)

Looking forward to some extensive dialogue...

Grace and peace,

David

The Nicene Creed, Council of Ephesus and Cyril of Alexandria: the Son of God begotten from the Father's essence

A number of Reformed folk (including Calvin himself) are quite adamant in their doctrinal stance concerning what is meant by the concept of the Son of God being begotten from God the Father; specifically, that the Son is begotten from the Father's person ONLY, emphatically denying that it is also from the Father's essence/substance (οὐσία).

Persons following this blog are well aware that the original Nicene Creed explicitly contradicted the above denial; yet once again, from the opening of the Nicene Creed of 325 we read:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father... (NPNF - 2nd series, Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 3 - bold emphasis mine.)

The Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries who wrote on this subject were almost unanimous in their assent of the above. I have recently provided selections from some of those Church Fathers (e.g. Athanasius, Basil), and at this time would like to add Cyril of Alexander's assessment (which was officially adopted at the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431). After quoting the entire Nicene Creed of 325, Cyril continued with:

Following in all points the confessions of the Holy Fathers which they made (the Holy Ghost speaking in them), and following the scope of their opinions, and going, as it were, in the royal way, we confess that the Only begotten Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father... (Ibid.. p. 202 - bold emphasis mine.)

Now, what I find interesting is the fact that most confessional Reformed folk claim they accept the creeds and definitions of the 1st four Ecumenical councils; and yet, a number of those same folk deny that the Son of God was begotten from the essence/substance of the Father. How can this be anything but a blatant contradiction?

Grace and peace,

David

Our possible future ???

While watching the 700 Club during my workout earlier today, the following segment gave cause for reflection:

Could this be a foretaste of our nation's future ???

Grace and peace,

David

Bart Ehrman's new book

Last month, Dr. Bart Ehrman's much anticipated book, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, was released by Oxford University Press. The following is the publisher's "Description":

"Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature," writes Bart Ehrman, "is the degree to which it was forged." The Homilies and Recognitions of Clement; Paul's letters to and from Seneca; Gospels by Peter, Thomas, and Philip; Jesus' correspondence with Abgar, letters by Peter and Paul in the New Testament--all forgeries. To cite just a few examples.

Forgery and Counterforgery is the first comprehensive study of early Christian pseudepigrapha ever produced in English. In it, Ehrman argues that ancient critics--pagan, Jewish, and Christian--understood false authorial claims to be a form of literary deceit, and thus forgeries. Ehrman considers the extent of the phenomenon, the "intention" and motivations of ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish forgers, and reactions to their work once detected. He also assesses the criteria ancient critics applied to expose forgeries and the techniques forgers used to avoid detection. With the wider practices of the ancient world as backdrop, Ehrman then focuses on early Christian polemics, as various Christian authors forged documents in order to lend their ideas a veneer of authority in literary battles waged with pagans, Jews, and, most importantly, with one another in internecine disputes over doctrine and practice. In some instances a forger directed his work against views found in another forgery, creating thereby a "counter-forgery." Ehrman's evaluation of polemical forgeries starts with those of the New Testament (nearly half of whose books make a false authorial claim) up through the Pseudo-Ignatian epistles and the Apostolic Constitutions at the end of the fourth century.

Shining light on an important but overlooked feature of the early Christian world, Forgery and Counterforgery explores the possible motivations of the deceivers who produced these writings, situating their practice within ancient Christian discourses on lying and deceit. (LINK)

[Online purchasing and pricing options]

I have the book on order, but given the fact that we are in the 'holiday season', I have no idea when the book will arrive. However, even though I have yet to read Ehrman's book, a gent I have respect for (Dr. Tim Henderson) has already offered a valuable critique on one of the topics of the book. The following are the links to his three installments:

Ehrman on Justin Martyr's Use of the Gospel of Peter - Part 1

Ehrman on Justin Martyr's Use of the Gospel of Peter - Part 2

Ehrman on Justin Martyr's Use of the Gospel of Peter - Part 3

Grace and peace,

David

Questions concerning the Monarchy of God the Father

During the past couple of years, I have produced over a dozen threads focusing on the doctrine of the 'Monarchy of  God the Father' (link to germane threads).

There seems to be a growing number of Christians who are embracing this important doctrine, having discerned the early Church Fathers and councils retained the clear Biblical teaching, and that beginning in the late 4th century, there was a movement away from the established teaching of the Monarchy of God Father to the Monarchy of an essence/ousia—i.e. the 'one God' of the Bible and early Church was no longer a person, but a thing/what.

For sometime now, I have been pondering over what additional assistance could be provided to those who have taken the time to read through the threads linked to above (threads which have included links to important contributions made by others—e.g. Ryan and Drake), but have not yet embraced the important doctrine of the Monarchy of God the Father; and yesterday, the thought of a body of pointed questions came to mind. I have chosen the following questions—with relevant Biblical references—for interested persons to reflect on.

Does/is the 'One God' of the Bible:

Owe their existence to another? (John 5:26; 6:57)

Do the 'will' of another? (John 5:30; 6:38)

'Taught' by another? (John 5:19; 8:28; 12:49)

'Sent' by another? (John 5:30, 36; 12:49; 14:26)

The 'image' of another? (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3)

Have a 'God'? (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17; 1 Cor. 3:23; 11:3; Rev. 3:2, 12)
 

To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.

Grace and peace,

David