Sunday, February 17, 2013

A Reflection on the Holy Spirit: A Guest Post by Jamie Donald


Disclaimer:  This article was written by Jamie Donald, a friend who asked me to allow him to post his article on my blog.  By doing so, I am not indicating that I necessarily agree with the contents of the post or that I believe it accurately reflects Catholic teaching.  ~PRH

 

I am a regular reader of David Waltz’ blog, http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/ , and have noted that he has a frequent interest in the nature of the Trinity along with what he refers to as “the Monarchy of God the Father” (or “the Monarchy of the Father” for short).  According to his site index, he has 17 articles on The Monarchy of the Father and 49 articles on the Trinity.  While there is some overlap in these categories (making the total less than 66), this is an awful lot of writing on the topic(s)!  By my estimate, the comments sections to these articles accumulate to well over 1000 comments, with many of these comments being very lengthy and detailed.  Much of the recent (within the past year or so) activity over at David’s blog has motivated me to record my own reflection on the Holy Trinity.

I had considered responding in a comment on one of David’s articles, but chose to write here instead (thank you, Paul!).  I did this for the following reasons; 1) while I am motivated by David’s blog and will interact with some of his thoughts, this article stands on its own; 2) the length of this piece will be much longer than the 4096 character limit in a blog comment, and breaking it into small enough chunks is not feasible; and 3) while David writes rather charitably, not all of his readers are – there has been a significant level of ad hominem attacks in the comments to these articles.  I am hopeful that a “change of scenery” (along with this gentle reminder) will keep the discourse at a respectable level.

A Way to Look at Things

Before I get too deep into any discussion on the Trinity, I’d like to present a couple of examples which show how I look at how people express themselves and at analogies.  For the first example, consider someone who exclaims, “Jesus Christ is Lord!”  Is this person a Trinitarian?  a Modalist?  a Gnostic?  an Arian?  Based on this statement alone, you can’t say.  There’s not enough information given.  As a result, I try to acknowledge what is affirmed while avoiding becoming too critical of what is not said.  That doesn’t mean that you can’t ever be critical of what is left unstated.  But first you need to realize why the concept is left unexpressed.  Is it a true omission (meant to avoid dealing with the concept)?  Is it out of context for what is affirmed?  Or is it simply unvoiced?  In the first case a critical approach is required, but not in the second case.  In the third case, probing questions should be asked in order to fully comprehend the person’s ideas.  (“Yes, Jesus is Lord.  But what of the Father and the Holy Spirit?” in our example above.)  I try to use this method so that I can truly understand and interact with the ideas expressed by others – their true ideas, not ones I’ve generated for them.

My next example is somewhat more complex.  I ask you, dear reader, to indulge me for a moment.  If you stay with me all the way through the example and its implications, things will fall in place and make sense.

Consider the proposition of multiple dimensions – more than the standard 3-D that we experience and understand.  I can work (and have worked) math problems in four, five, and more dimensions.  But while I can work the equations, I can’t draw you a picture of what they look like.  The best I could do is show what’s called a “projection” of these higher dimensions into our 3-D capability to perceive.

In order to better understand projections, I’d like to move from 4-, 5-, more-D to something a little more familiar.  As I write the first draft of this paper, I’m watching Notre Dame play Alabama in the BCS Championship Game.  The players, coaches, fans, stadium, football, goal posts, Jumbotron, and cheerleaders are all 3-D entities.  But I’m watching the game on my flat-screen TV which is a 2-D surface.  What I see on the TV is a projection of the 3-D world onto 2-D.

Now, what if I were a creature who could only comprehend and experience the world in 2-D?  In that case, I’d see the players going through a sea of green – the concept of them running over the field would be incomprehensible to me as it would require that third dimension that I can’t experience.  Since the receivers try to stay in bounds when catching a pass, I might wonder if the thick white lines at the edge of the sea of green exert some force on the players.  On any given play, a running back may carry the ball such that I can’t see it.  I might conclude that he absorbed it into his body to transport it down the field, or I might think the football disappeared and magically reappeared later.  Most likely, I’d get a general concept of the game, but become somewhat confused on a lot of the details.  When the camera switched from overhead in order to view a field goal kick, I would have a hard time placing the new view into perspective from the old view, and become very confused.  At best, I would miss out on a lot of detail, and my understanding would definitely depend on the camera angle – the particular projection – that I’m able to see.

If you disagree with me, I have just one question for you.  Have you ever changed your mind on the result of a play after seeing the instant replay from a different angle?  If so, then your understanding of the reality of the play changed based on which projection you were able to see.  And you have the advantage of understanding the world in 3-D!

How does this relate to the topic at hand?  Just as 3-D is above 2-D, God’s ways are above us.  I could say, For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways—oracle of the LORD.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts.  (Is 55:8-9)  Or, At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face.  At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.  (1 Cor 13:12)

While God’s “higher ways” are reality, our own ability to perceive them is limited by how we experience reality.  Thus, in addition to raw facts, the deposit of faith includes allegory and analogy, such as Jesus being the rock upon whom our faith is built or the Old Testament Church being referred to as God’s bride in some places and His daughter in other places.  The analogies take the higher reality of the divine experience and projects it into something we can understand (at least to some extent) in our own experiences.

It is important to remember that analogies have limitations.  They are bound by context and they are one-directional.  That is they flow from a higher level to a lower level.  The higher or more accurate reality explains itself in terms of the lower and less accurate experience.  But the lower experience does not explain the higher.  Extrapolations from lower to higher are in accurate.  For example, building faith on the foundation of Jesus is likened to building a house on a firm, rocky foundation.  The house and the rock help us to understand our faith and Jesus – the true thing we want to understand, or the higher reality.  But to then take the experience we understand: house building – the lower experience – and say that laying out roofs, studs, windows, etc, describe our faith would be in accurate.  It would be going backwards.

When defending the Council of Nicea in De Decretis, St Athanasius put it this way, As then men create not as God creates, as their being is not such as God's being, so men's generation is in one way, and the Son is from the Father in another. For the offspring of men are portions of their fathers, since the very nature of bodies is not uncompounded, but in a state of flux, and composed of parts; and men lose their substance in begetting, and again they gain substance from the accession of food. And on this account men in their time become fathers of many children; but God, being without parts, is Father of the Son without partition or passion; for there is neither effluence of the Immaterial, nor influx from without, as among men; and being uncompounded in nature, He is Father of One Only Son. 

Nicene Monarchism

Now that I’ve explained how I look at things, I can begin interacting with some of the items from David’s blog.  It should be noted that concepts fleshed out over 50+ articles, accompanied by 1000+ comments, cannot be easily summarized in a few short paragraphs.  I shall do my best to adequately and fairly represent the thoughts written over there.  If a nuance is missed, it is not intentional.

The position advocated at Articuli Fidei strives to be true to Scripture and the early Church Fathers.  It argues against the same heresies that Nicea argued against, maintains monotheism, and holds that the Father alone is autotheos – the uncreated God who is, by Himself, the source of divinity; making the Father the monarch of the Trinity.  With these qualities in place, the adherents are referring to this concept as Nicene Monarchism. 

Nicene Monarchism can be summarized as follows.  The Godhead consists of the Father, who is also called the “one God;” the Son, who is also the Word; and the Holy Spirit.  The Father, Son, and Spirit are each of the divine essence.  This makes them consubstantial in Nicene Creed terms.  The Father is autotheos, uncreated, God because He is God.  The Son and the Spirit derive their essence or substance from the Father; the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit by procession from the Father.  Neither the Son nor the Spirit are created (as you and I are created).  This makes them divine along with the Father.  Their begetting/procession is before time began, hence while they are not autotheos, there has never been a time when they did not exist.  In other words, even though the Father begets the Son and the verb “beget” implies a chronological order, we cannot say there was ever a time in which the Father was without His Son.  The same goes for the Spirit.

This avoids Arianism.  Clearly, the Son has existed since before eternity began and is not a creature.  He is divine by the nature of being begotten, not “promoted” or adopted into divinity.  He is also definitely of the same substance or essence of the Father, not a similar one.  To avoid Sabellianism (or Modalism), the Nicene Monarchist notes Scripture such as Luke 22:42 or Matt 24:36 to show that the entities of the Trinity have different minds and wills.  They are not simply various modes of display or understanding of a single entity.

I think it is the assertions which flow out of the defense against Modalism which seem to generate the most feedback from those who support either classical western Trintarianism and the eastern view of the Trinity.  The Nicene Monarchists maintain that since the Father, Son, and Spirit each have their own separate views, the Godhead is not composed of just three persons, but also of three distinct beings.  If the Godhead were composed of three persons, but only one being, then the believer would be forced into Modalism and would not even be able to support a belief in three persons.  Thus, three persons, three beings, one common substance or nature.  The analogy used goes as follows.  You and I (and each separate reader of my thoughts here) are of the nature/essence/substance of humanity.  We each have separate minds and wills, and we are each separate beings but of the same substance: humanity.  No one would ever think to call us the same single being.

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.

At this point, those who don’t adhere to the concept of Nicene Monarchism will state that those who do have set it up so that there is God and two lesser beings.  This results in the accusation of Unitarianism as Jesus is no longer defined as “true God.”  The answer is that all members of the Trinity are divine, thus Unitarianism does not apply.

While this explanation of Nicene Monarchism may miss on some nuances, I think I’ve given a fair treatment of it.  And I’ve described some of the answers to objections that are given to support the concept.  I’ll let the reader wade through the volumes at David Waltz’ blog to determine whether I’m being as fair as I claim to be.  With this summary completed, I can now interact with Nicene Monarchism.

An Interaction

Reviewing the Scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), and writings of the early church fathers, I see a distinct primacy of the First Person of the Trinity: the Father.  In Scripture the Father Creates.  Even though creation is through the Word or the Son, it is the Father who creates.  (John 1:1-4)  There are things known only to the Father, not to the Son (Matt 24:36/Mark 13/32) and the Son submits His will to the Father’s will (Matt 26:39/Luke 22:42).  And the Father sends the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17).

CCC:248 specifically claims the Father as Principle without principle, the First Origin of the Spirit, and the Father of the Son.  (Note: for full disclosure, this paragraph speaks to the filioque and attempts to reconcile it with Eastern thought.  My intent here is not to discuss the filioque, but simply to point out that the CCC shows the Father as having a primacy over both the Son and the Spirit.  The subject of the paragraph does not change the fact that this paragraph does, indeed, show that primacy.)  In CCC:239 we see that the Father is First Origin of everything, and paragraph 240 includes the relationship of the Father to the Son. 

These examples are not exhaustive, but are sufficient to show some form of primacy of the Father.  (For early Church father quotes, please review David’s blog.  He has well documented many, many quotes.)  Since God has His kingdom, I would find it very difficult to object to the term, “Monarchy of the Father.”

However, I find it much easier to object to concept of three separate beings in the Godhead.  Even with the substitution of “God” only for the Father, and “divinity” (or “divine being”) for the Son and Spirit there are many difficulties which are not resolved and ambiguities created.  One of my first questions would be; what is a being that is neither God nor created creature?  It should be noted that at least one of the Nicene Monarchists has stated that these lesser divine being should neither be worshipped nor prayed to.  I have not noted any of the other adherents to this form of the Trinity showing an alternate belief; either by correction of by a differing nuance in interpretation.

One of the more common objections to the one God, two other divine beings, comprising the Godhead is that this description does not do justice to the unity of God that is found in the Scripture.  I repeat this objection because it is one with which I agree.  The response given by the Nicene Monarchists is two-fold and it deserves attention.  They assert that the classical western view of the Godhead subsisting of three persons, but one being, results in mono-ousious.  Their view of three beings, each with its own – but the same – essence, homo-ousious.  The other response is to point out the distinction between generic unity and numeric unity.  They maintain a form of unity in both cases.  God the Father, as the One God, is numeric unity (with Himself) and preserves monotheism.  Generic unity comes from each person of the Trinity being of the same substance or essence.  Again, the analogy of mankind is used.  Each of us, while being distinct individuals, has a certain level of unity in the generic sense.  We are all of the substance, or essence, of humanity.

However, both of these responses contain errors which I cannot ignore.

The distinction between mono- and homo-ousious – at least the way it is being presented – is a false dilemma.  By definition, something that is mono-ousious cannot by poly-ousious.  Therefore, it is still homo-ousious.  It is the same essence or substance as itself.  The distinction which was important in early Christianity (and still important today), is that Christ’s divinity is the same as the Father’s.  It is not a similar divinity which would then require multiple divine substances, or poly-ousious.  The bottom line is that even if the classical view can be defined as being “mono-ousious,” that definition still does not deny homo-ousious.

As far as asking about generic vs numeric unity goes, that question applies the analogy in a backwards fashion.  I am certain that the Nicene Monarchists neither intend to nor think they are applying it in the wrong direction, but I ask the reader to bear with me for a moment.  In using the analogy of many humans (numeric disunity) but one humanity (generic unity), the unspoken assumption is that God experiences unity in the same fashion as we do.  This ends up forgetting that His ways are well above our own ways.  We are the limited creature trying to explain the infinite God as an extrapolation of our own experiences.  We cannot expect any more success than the 2-D creatures would have when trying to explain the 3-D game of football.

In fact, Scripture shows that God experiences unity differently than we do.  In Matthew 25, when Jesus prophesies the division of the sheep from the goats on Judgment Day, He claims a particular unity with each individual human being.  The good which we do to others is personally experienced by Him, and the bad which we do to others are also personally hurtful to Him.  Christ experiences a level of unity with humanity which we do not experience with ourselves.  Let me use a very personal example.  Over the past six years, my wife and I have taken in eight people who found themselves temporarily homeless.  For these people we housed them, fed them, and clothed them.  As a Christian, I can do no less; so I do not ask any accolades or reward.  But I do ask how many reading this experienced the good which we did to these people?  Yet Christ did.  A year ago, when one of these individuals (after moving on) chose to break into our house and rob us, how many of you felt the pain and hurt that we experienced?  Again, Jesus did.  How could any of you experience the good or bad in these cases?  You never knew of them until now.  But the Son of God – united to us – knew and experienced it with us.

If Jesus experiences a unity with us that we do not experience ourselves, then why assume that the unity he experiences with His Father and the Spirit in the divine realm would be any less intimate?  The unity of the Son with the Father, detailed in John 14, is of this very intimate form.  Seeing the Son means seeing the Father.  It is an actual seeing; not a case of “see one divine being and you’ve seen them all.”

For another example, look to John 14.  Here, as Jesus prays during the Last Supper, he asks that His disciples obtain unity; and he specifies that it be the form of unity He experiences with His Father.  This is noteworthy for two reasons.  First, anyone would admit that Christ’s disciples (including those who have come to believe through the testimony of His original disciples) is but a subset of the total of humanity.  This means that even if Christians obtain a unity akin to that which occurs for the Father and the Son, humanity in general does not.  Second, Jesus’ prayer is a request for a future state of His disciples.  I do not know anyone who claims we have been blessed with that particular gift as of yet.  Either way, both points demonstrate that the “generic unity” of humanity is not the unity of the Godhead.  To use our understanding, coming from our experience, is backwards and inadequate.

To explore the unity of the Godhead a little further, I’d like to take a quick look into the Old Testament.  The Exodus narrative includes a column of fire and smoke leading the Israelites, a strong wind parting the sea, manna, and water flowing from a rock.  Throughout the Old Testament, God reminds Israel and Judah (especially when they had gone astray) of the fact that their escape from Egypt and survival in the desert was His doing.  And His reminders frequently include these particular elements.  (For a few examples, see Num 9, Dt 5, Dt 8, Judge 2, Judge 6, 1 King 8, 1 King 9, 1 Chron 17, Neh 9, Ps 78, Ezek 20, Dan 9, Hos 11, Hag 2.)

But if we recall that the term for Spirit used in Gen 1:2 is the same as wind, and add to that John the Baptizer’s prophecy that the Son would baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit – followed by the Spirit descending as tongues of fire on Pentecost; then we come to realize that the Spirit was responsible for the parting of the sea and the directional leadership of the column of fire.  Psalm 78 identifies the rock which provided water as the Redeemer.  1 Cor 10:4 tells us that the Redeemer in Ps 78 is Christ Himself.  In John 6 we learn that the manna is also Christ.  The feeding and sustenance of the Israelites was from the Son.  But it is a unified God who reminds the Israelites that He has done this for them in the various passages I referenced above.

In developing his thoughts on the monarchy of the Father, David Waltz (in one of his more recent articles) referenced De Decretis by St Athanasius.  St Athanasius is an excellent source for understanding the thoughts and theology behind the Council at Nicea.  Not only was he present at the Council, but he also had a “speaking role,” defending the faith and proposing ideas which would be used by the bishops present in formulating their creed.  Additionally, he is revered as a “Doctor of the Church” by both Catholics and Orthodox.  De Decretis is a letter he wrote after the Council which is a very strong defense of the Creed coming out of Nicea.  Thus, this letter, in particular, is one of the best sources, contemporary to the Council, to understand the issues which were addressed and answered at Nicea.

David is correct in his assessment that De Decretis speaks to a primacy of the Father as Creator of the universe, as Father of the Son.  This is a primacy denied to both the Son and the Spirit.  As I noted above, the CCC does not dispute, but in fact endorses, this primacy.  So there is no argument in this arena.  But a careful read of De Decretis, specifically written to explain and defend Nicea, will show a unity in the Godhead which is not a generic unity as some of the Nicene Monarchists advocate.

The translation of De Decretis which I use can be found here.  This edition is divided into 7 chapters and 32 paragraphs.  The paragraphs are numbered sequentially.  That is, the last numbered paragraph in Chapter 1 is paragraph 2.  The first numbered paragraph in Chapter 2 is paragraph 3.  For the most part, I will simply refer to paragraph numbers and omit the chapter numbers unless doing so results in ambiguity or confusion.  (For example, there is an un-numbered paragraph in Chapter 2.  This paragraph is sandwiched after the chapter heading, but before paragraph 3.)

When reading De Decretis, I count at least five times where Athanasius tells us that the Son is begotten “of the Essence” (of the Father) and exists “in the Essence” or They are “one in Essence.”  The terms are either used in the same sentence or in adjacent sentences.  He shows that the terms can be compared and contrasted with each other and complement each other.  “Of the Essence” is not merely synonymous with “in the Essence.”  Paragraph 20 is a good example as it contains three instances of these terms together.

This starts creating an image that suggests the Son cannot be held separately from the Father; neither in time of existence, nor in substance.  I have already quoted from paragraph 11, where Athanasius suggests that trying to understand the divine Father/Son relationship by use of the human experience (alone) is insufficient.  I will quote it again, with emphasis added, to show that Athanasius is consistent in painting a picture where the Son cannot be held separate from the Father.

As then men create not as God creates, as their being is not such as God's being, so men's generation is in one way, and the Son is from the Father in another. For the offspring of men are portions of their fathers, since the very nature of bodies is not uncompounded, but in a state of flux, and composed of parts; and men lose their substance in begetting, and again they gain substance from the accession of food. And on this account men in their time become fathers of many children; but God, being without parts, is Father of the Son without partition or passion; for there is neither effluence of the Immaterial, nor influx from without, as among men; and being uncompounded in nature, He is Father of One Only Son.

In Athanasius’ mind, if Christ were to be a unique instance of the divine substance, then something would have to flow out of the Father and out of His essence and existence to form the unique, separate instance essence of the Son.  But this would mean that the Father could be divisible.  The Father would not be One, but would consist of divisions which could create another copy of the divine substance.

Lest anyone think that this thought process is unique to this particular quote, I will go to paragraph 15 where Athanasius confronts the natural conclusion of the Arian concept by saying, But if they agree with us that the sayings of Scripture are divinely inspired, let them dare to say openly what they think in secret that God was once wordless and wisdomless….  Let’s take a closer look at this response and it’s implications.  If the Arians were correct and the Son was created and they agree that the Son is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, then there would have been some time when the Father was without Word and Wisdom.  He would have been an incomplete god.  But this applies too if one will assert three numerically unique divine substances.  The Son being Word and Wisdom, and uniquely separated from the Father, would make the Father incomplete as He would not have either of these.  Again, the picture painted is one where, while the Persons of the Trinity are unique, their existence cannot be separated from each other.

Finally, in chapter 17, Athanasius identifies the Son as the Hand of God the Father.  This is the same Hand that in chapters 7, 8 & 9 creates and manipulates the universe.  The imagery of a hand is that of an integral part of the body.  It cannot be separated.  When we combine all of these very robust analogies, the thought that the Godhead’s unity subsists in a generic unity of substance/essence, but not of existence or being, becomes unsustainable.  The Son is of the Father and in the Father.  And the Father and the Son are one.  He who has seen the Son has seen the Father.

Interestingly enough, Athanasius also quotes three (relatively contemporary) bishops who wrote prior to the Council of Nicea; Theognostus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Dionysius of Rome.  (paragraphs 25 & 26).  Paragraph 26 of De Decretis contains a lengthy quote of the Bishop of Rome’s tract which was contra the Sabellians.  I find almost no difference between this paragraph and the view of the Trinity which I have been taught throughout my life.  Since Athanasius quotes him approvingly and without qualification, we can only assume that he is in agreement with what Dionysius has outlined.  Athanasius quotes these three to show that this was the view of orthodox Christians prior to Nicea.  Finally, he quotes Origen (paragraph 27) to demonstrate this view – as outlined by the Nicene Creed and his tract, De Decretis – is the understanding the Church has had from its formation.  In short, the age-old belief is not that of three instances of the divine essences as outlined by the concept of Nicene Monarchy, but is a belief in the divine persons of the Godhead, the Son and the Spirit, being of the Essence and in the Essence of the Father.  The Father is One because His Essence cannot be divided nor distributed.  Thus, while not unoriginate like the Father, by being both of and in His Essence, the Son and Spirit are also one in the Godhead.

Further Reflections

While researching and meditating over the topic of this article, I was struck by the amount of the Trinity which can be seen in the Old Testament.  I’ve already alluded to the totality of the Godhead; Father, Son, and Spirit united; leading the nation of Israel out of Egypt.  If we look to the first two verses in Genesis – many translations having this be the first sentence – we also see the totality of the Trinity.  The Father who creates through the Son (per John 1) and the Spirit (some translations state that it is a wind which sweeps across the formless void in Gen 1:2, but the Hebrew word for wind, ruah, also means spirit).  So from the very beginning (yes, I’m aware of the pun on the word for “genesis”) we have the Trinity involved in the story of mankind.

When man is created, again it is by the Father and through the Son.  And God breathes life into Adam.  But the wind, the breath of God, is the Spirit.  We are literally alive because the Spirit of God in some way animates our souls.  This is not the Grace of the Spirit received in baptism, but it does make our lives a true gift from God.  As we know, later the Son will go beyond mere creation of men and become flesh Himself.  Is it any wonder that with the Spirit breathing life into our souls, that the Son would experience such a profound unity with mankind as he describes in Matthew 25?

Throughout the Old Testament, Israel and Judah frequently turn away from the Lord.  When they do, God the Father disciplines them with exile and through being subjugated.  But He still encourages them to turn back to Him, and He – through the prophets – tells them just how to accomplish that return.  We know that all revelation is from the Spirit (2 Tim 3, 2 Pet 1).  And we will find that it is the Son who provides for them in their deepest needs; with examples being the rock providing water, manna from Heaven, and the fourth person in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.  Again, a unified God is active in all aspects of the life of His people; discipline, encouragement, guidance, and sustenance.

Finally, we will recall that the Spirit is associated with fire and smoke; and Revelation 8 tells us that in religious ceremony, smoke carries the prayers of the faithful to God.  When the Israelites would offer burnt sacrifices to God, it was the Holy Spirit (through the smoke of the fire) carrying their offering to the Father’s Heavenly altar.  It makes no sense that non-burnt sacrifices (such as a wave offering) would be carried to God any differently.  Thus, it is the Spirit who carries all sacrifices to the Father.

It is important to remember that the priest offers the sacrifice to God, but that sacrifice is from the person or family who worships.  In the ultimate sacrifice on the Cross, it is the Father who gives his Son as a sacrifice (see John 3:16).  Christ voluntarily gave Himself (see Matt 16:21-23).  But the Son is also both the sacrifice and the priest officiating over the offering.  Finally, the Spirit carries the sacrifice to the Father.  The unified Godhead – on our behalf – provides the sacrifice, offers the sacrifice, is the sacrifice, carries the sacrifice, and accepts the sacrifice that gives us life everlasting.  Because this action saves our souls, it is an infinitely more profound and intimate act of the Godhead disciplining, encouraging, guiding, and sustaining our existence.  Can we be anything other than completely awestruck?

80 comments:

Steve said...

Has David Waltz been made aware of this post? I'm surprised there have been no comments here yet given the substantive nature (no pun intended) of the article. Thanks for the effort, BTW.

Jamie Donald said...

Steve,

I sent David a copy via e-mail prior to Paul posting. I also let David know when Paul was able to publish the essay for me.

And while no pun was intended, it was a good one anyway! :)

In our Lord's Name,
Jamie

David Waltz said...

Hi Jamie,

Forgive my somewhat tardy response to your informative thread, but I have been on a self-imposed hiatus of sorts from the internet (except for emails and Starcraft 2).

Earlier today, I posted a new thread at Articuli Fidei (HERE), which references, links to, and adds some clarifications/corrections to your article. I am reposting those clarifications/corrections below:

>> 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).>>



I hope to very soon (Friday, the Lord willing), offer a few of my thoughts on the critical portion of your post.


Grace and peace,

David

Strider said...

May I commend to you my three-part article on St Gregory the Theologian and the One God. St Gregory was a strong proponent of the monarchy of the Father, yet he does not fit your description of Nicene Monarchianism in a couple of respects. He certainly would not have hesitated, for example, to name either Christ or the Spirit as God.

David Waltz said...

Hi Fr. Kimel,

Appreciate the link. Fr. Behr and Dr. Beeley are two excellent patristic scholars (IMHO), and I highly recommend that the works you referenced in your link be read by all.

Now, moving on to the following you wrote:

==St Gregory was a strong proponent of the monarchy of the Father, yet he does not fit your description of Nicene Monarchianism in a couple of respects. He certainly would not have hesitated, for example, to name either Christ or the Spirit as God.==

I too, do not hesitate in naming Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Holy Spirit "as God"; and in my response to Jamie's post (both above and on my blog), I stated:

>>...I would never say that the Son and the Spirit are "not God">>


Grace and peace,

David

Jamie Donald said...

David,

Thanks for the clarification.

I'd like to say that I find the adherents to "Nicene Monarchism" (NH) seem to fall in a spectrum. I discern your own particular view to be somewhat more nuanced than the others. So I'm aware that the section you quoted does not represent your personal viewpoint. I was trying to represent more of a median/consensus view: median as in the middle of the extremes, and consensus as cases where one adherent to NH agrees with what another adherent has stated (and done so with little to no qualification/correction attached to that agreement). I still think that I meet that middle ground. After all, you did refer those who hold more classical views to the particular quote that states "God" is not being used in the same fashion.

You have to remember that in addition to terms being redefined, there were several times when NH-ists would contradict themselves or each other. You will recall that in a private communication I stated this particular contradiction (often by the same person on the same day) created a large degree of confusion.

For the Greek in John 1:1, there seems to be many who feel that the final "Theos" contains, by grammatical construct, an unvoiced (unwritten) "ho" attached. Historically, being overly dogmatic that the article "ho" is present has led to Sabellianism, while being overly dogmatic that it is absolutely absent led to Arianism. This seems to indicate that the question concerning the "one God" is more ancient than you allude to in your writing.

I strongly recommend that if you have not yet, please read Fr Kimel's article referenced above. He beat me to the punch in the Hebrew use of "Lord" (Adonai [Kyrios in Greek]) for YHWH, the "Unpronounceable Name of God." Thus, when the early Church Fathers say something along the lines of We believe in one God, the Father, and in one Lord, His Son, there is a symmetry which identifies the Son as also YHWH of the Old Testament. This is a unified Godhead, not three separate instances a divine substance.

Jamie Donald said...

Fr Kimel,

Thank you for pointing me to your blog article. I've read parts 1 and 2, but life (things like water heater deciding to empty itself all over the basement floor) has prevented me from reading part 3. As you can see from my response to David above, I was already wanting to point out the YHWH/Kyrios relationship. Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church also quotes St Gregory. While you quote Oratio 20, the CCC authors quoted Oratio 40, 41. But they say much the same thing about the Trinity.

Additionally, the way you phrased your comment above makes me wonder if you think I agree with Nicene Monarchism. For the record, I do not agree with it. In specific, I absolutely reject the characterization that the Godhead consists of three separate, unique instances of the divine substance/essence/nature.

But when I wrote the section which describes the concept, I tried to write it from the point of view of one of its adherents -- basically, trying to understand it as they do so as to make an accurate description and avoid criticizing a strawman. As I re-read how I wrote the section, I see that I was not clear in stating that I do not hold this particular belief. My apologies if I caused any confusion.

Jamie Donald said...

A few notes.

1. The title was supposed to be, "A Reflection on the Holy Trinity." I'm not certain if I accidentally retitled the piece prior to asking Paul to post it or not. I hope that this correction makes the title a little less confusing and more appropriate to the subject matter.

2. The last time my wife and I had all 4 of our adult children together was about 3 years ago. We're departing on a vacation for about 10 days where we'll again have all 4 of the kids together. (In other words, this is one very excited dad.) Additionally, when they arrive, we are expecting to greet my son's girlfriend as his newly "ringed" finace'. (Did I mention that I'm one very excited dad?). Please indulge me if I don't answer comments for a couple of weeks.

Strider said...

Thanks for your response, Jamie.

I am somewhat confused about your comment that you do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are instantiations of deity. When you return from your holiday, perhaps you could explain what you mean by this. What theologians do you have in mind? And why precisely do you object to the word?

My guess is that you connect "instance" with the idea of separation? Am I on target? But if the divine essence is understood as infinite being, as it is in the Cappadocian Fathers, then there really cannot be separated instantiations of infinite Godhead, as separation requires boundaries and infinite being has no boundaries. Thus St Gregory Nazianzen speaks of the Holy Trinity as "an infinite coalescence of three infinities" (40.41). There's just no escaping paradoxical language when speaking of the Holy Trinity, is there? :)

Personally, I probably would not use the word "instance" or "instantiation" to speak of the divine persons; but I think I can see how it might be used with an orthodox meaning, as long as it is remembered that the divine ousia is always hypostasized--there is no bare essence. There is no God hiding behind the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.




Strider said...

If I may, I'd like to commend to the brethren this helpful essay on the trinitarian theology of St Gregory the Theologian: Perceiving Light from Light in Light by John McGuckin.

David Waltz said...

Hi Jamie,

Hope that you and your family have a wonderful vacation !

I think I will hold off from posting any substantive response/s to your critiques until your return. One request for now though: could you provide examples of your charge that NMs have "redefined" terms.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Waltz said...

Hello again Jamie,

One more post before your return. Fr. Behr's position on the Trinity is very close to my own, such that it a very rare occasion where I find that I disagree with him—this holds true concerning the use of kurios) (Lord) for YHWH in the NT—note the following from Fr. Behr (from Fr. Kimel's link):

>>The Father alone is the one true God. This keeps to the structure of the New Testament language about God, where with only a few exceptions, the word “God” (theos) with an article (and so being used, in Greek, as a proper noun) is only applied to the one whom Jesus calls Father, the God spoken of in the scriptures. This same fact is preserved in all ancient creeds, which begin: “I believe in one God, the Father …”

“For us there is one God, the Father … and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 8:6). The proclamation of the divinity of Jesus Christ is made not so much by describing Him as “God” (theos used, in Greek, without an article is as a predicate, and so can be used of creatures; cf. John 10:34-35), but by recognizing Him as “Lord” (Kyrios). Beside being a common title (“sir”), this word had come to be used, in speech, for the unpronounceable, divine, name of God Himself, YHWH. When Paul states that God bestowed upon the crucified and risen Christ the “name above ever name” (Phil 2:9), this is an affirmation that this one is all that YHWH Himself is, without being YHWH. This is again affirmed in the creeds. “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God … true God of true God.
”>>

Do not overlook, "this one is all that YHWH Himself is, without being YHWH"; an extremely important distinction, IMHO.


Grace and peace,

David

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

Though you are more fair than any critic I have had I think you are unfair at some points.

“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.”

>>>I am the one who wrote that paragraph. I think you are not being fair. The Nicene Creed did not use the word God. The Nicene Creed was written in Greek not English. When English speakers, influenced by Christianity, use the word God, they are thinking of something personal and particular. They are not thinking of a nature. So to translate the Nicene Greek in the confusing and alien way that we have is stealth.

“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.”

>>>This is also unfair and again ignores the transition from Greek to English. The “Theos” with whom the Word is with has an article before it in the original Greek, but not as it is applied to the Logos.

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

Jamie,

“However, I find it much easier to object to concept of three separate beings in the Godhead.”

>>>I never stated they were separate and neither has David. This is the continuing fascination I have with the way people under the influence of Anchorism think. There are so many conflations that it boggles me how you guys make sense of reality and your prayer life. You think that the way the divine persons relate defines their being, thus conflating the genus of relation with the genus of being. On your paradigm of knowledge, everything gains meaning only as it relates to physical phenomenon and I think that is indicative of the Pantheism from which Christian Anchoretic theology sprung (Not to forget Aristotle). You think that if two subjects are inseparable that they are really only one subject because you can see or feel no spatial separation between the two PHYSICAL SUBSTANCES. But wait…we are not talking about physical substances we are talking about rational persons. Thus in order to even begin to start talking about inseparability between two incorporeal rational persons we must first consider at least two beings. One being is not inseparable from itself. It is itself. Thus there must be a plurality of subjects as a prerequisite to even consider inseparability.


“Even with the substitution of “God” only for the Father, and “divinity” (or “divine being”) for the Son and Spirit there are many difficulties which are not resolved and ambiguities created. One of my first questions would be; what is a being that is neither God nor created creature?”

>>>You think the word God pertains to nature. This conflating generic with numeric nature. The Son and Spirit are emanations from the father: Eternal persons always at the father's side -John 1:18.

“It should be noted that at least one of the Nicene Monarchists has stated that these lesser divine being should neither be worshipped nor prayed to.”

>>>The former is false. The latter is true, at least of me. Christ cannot be worshiped ABSOLUTELY as considered an end in itself but instrumentally to glorify the father.

John 14:13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

“One of the more common objections to the one God, two other divine beings, comprising the Godhead is that this description does not do justice to the unity of God that is found in the Scripture.”

>>>Or maybe you should have said your Sabellian interpretation of Scripture.

“I repeat this objection because it is one with which I agree. The response given by the Nicene Monarchists is two-fold and it deserves attention. They assert that the classical western view of the Godhead subsisting of three persons, but one being, results in mono-ousious. Their view of three beings, each with its own – but the same – essence, homo-ousious. The other response is to point out the distinction between generic unity and numeric unity.”

>>>True but actually my first response is the fact that the Scriptures used to prove the Triune interpretation were already systematically used by the Sabellians. The Triune system is the same system as the Sabellian system making the same arguments from the same scriptures.

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/?s=sabellian

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“They maintain a form of unity in both cases. God the Father, as the One God, is numeric unity (with Himself) and preserves monotheism. Generic unity comes from each person of the Trinity being of the same substance or essence. Again, the analogy of mankind is used. Each of us, while being distinct individuals, has a certain level of unity in the generic sense. We are all of the substance, or essence, of humanity.”

>>>Do you know how relieved I am to know I don’t have to go through all of that with you? Not to be too rude here, though many Christian deserve it, thank you for not being stupid. I actually feel like this is going to be a respectable and beneficial conversation. My goodness I actually have respect for the person I am talking to. Give me a moment to gather myself, this is a new experience for me.

“However, both of these responses contain errors which I cannot ignore.

The distinction between mono- and homo-ousious – at least the way it is being presented – is a false dilemma. By definition, something that is mono-ousious cannot by poly-ousious. Therefore, it is still homo-ousious. It is the same essence or substance as itself.”

>>>That is exactly the idea that the Nicene Creed rejected:

Leo Donald. Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 61; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg. 234-235: The sense of the Nicene Fathers is said by Davis to mean “two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals” and by Kelly as “common to several individuals of a class”. This is in direct contrast to the sense they were rejecting which sense Davis describes as “numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being” and Kelly describes as “an individual thing as such”.

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/homoouiosgeneric-or-numeric/

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/jnd-kelly-on-homoouios-generic-or-numeric/


“The distinction which was important in early Christianity (and still important today), is that Christ’s divinity is the same as the Father’s.”

>>>Numerically? No way! That is precisely what the Nicene Creed rejected.

Tertullian Against Praxeas C 12,

“If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness;" Genesis 1:26 whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man has become as one of us," Genesis 3:22 He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? [That is your position Jamie and brace yourself…] ******Nay*****, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make;" and, "in our image;" and, "become as one of us."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm

What you are teaching is exactly what the Sabellians taught and what the Orthodox rejected as heresy.

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“It is not a similar divinity which would then require multiple divine substances, or poly-ousious. The bottom line is that even if the classical view can be defined as being “mono-ousious,” that definition still does not deny homo-ousious.”

>>>Sure it does. 1 does not equal 3 and generic does not equal particular.

“As far as asking about generic vs numeric unity goes, that question applies the analogy in a backwards fashion. I am certain that the Nicene Monarchists neither intend to nor think they are applying it in the wrong direction, but I ask the reader to bear with me for a moment. In using the analogy of many humans (numeric disunity) but one humanity (generic unity), the unspoken assumption is that God experiences unity in the same fashion as we do.”

>>>Not absolutely. Only proportionally. I hold to the analogy of proportion with respect to predication between the human and the divine. The univocal proportion is that when we are talking about a divine or a human person we are speaking about a particular mind and will. The way these people relate is different. Thus again, I think you are fundamentally conflating the genus of relation with the genus of being.

“This ends up forgetting that His ways are well above our own ways.”

>>>Absolutely? Then tell me, if the categories of divine and human are mutually exclusive, does this not preclude a hypostatic union?

“We are the limited creature trying to explain the infinite God as an extrapolation of our own experiences.”

>>>I have had this conversation probably a hundred times. God is not finite. You need to think about what you are saying.

If God is infinite which is merely a negation of an already existing finite reality, isn't then the infinite therefore dependent on a rejection of creation ex nihilo, and the existence of finite objects, thus making the finite supreme and the infinite subordinate to the dependency it has on the finite?

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/divine-infinity-the-pagan-dialectic-denial-of-creation-ex-nihilo-and-idolatry-connected/

“We cannot expect any more success than the 2-D creatures would have when trying to explain the 3-D game of football.”

>>>Wo that is damning. The same analogy would rule out the hypostatic union.

“In Matthew 25, when Jesus prophesies the division of the sheep from the goats on Judgment Day, He claims a particular unity with each individual human being. The good which we do to others is personally experienced by Him, and the bad which we do to others are also personally hurtful to Him.”

>>>Thus the genus of relation = the genus of being on your paradigm. I simply cannot follow you there. Secondly Christ is omnipresent. I never stated that the categories were jointly exhaustive. I hold to the analogy of proportion.

“Christ experiences a level of unity with humanity which we do not experience with ourselves. Let me use a very personal example. Over the past six years, my wife and I have taken in eight people who found themselves temporarily homeless. For these people we housed them, fed them, and clothed them. As a Christian, I can do no less; so I do not ask any accolades or reward. But I do ask how many reading this experienced the good which we did to these people? Yet Christ did.”


>>>Sure. Christ’s divine nature is omnipresent. Second, you are using an example that presupposes multiple subjects-multiple beings.

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“A year ago, when one of these individuals (after moving on) chose to break into our house and rob us, how many of you felt the pain and hurt that we experienced? Again, Jesus did. How could any of you experience the good or bad in these cases? You never knew of them until now. But the Son of God – united to us – knew and experienced it with us.”

>>>This is very weak.

“If Jesus experiences a unity with us that we do not experience ourselves”

>>>So we don’t experience unity with Christ? Your example here is very weak.

“then why assume that the unity he experiences with His Father and the Spirit in the divine realm would be any less intimate?”

>>>Because the genus of relation is not the same thing as the genus of being. That is why.

“The unity of the Son with the Father, detailed in John 14, is of this very intimate form. Seeing the Son means seeing the Father. It is an actual seeing; not a case of “see one divine being and you’ve seen them all.”

>>>Sabellian argument.

Tertullian Against Praxeas, C 20:

“For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, "I am God, and beside me there is no God;" Isaiah 45:5 so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord's answer to Philip, "I and my Father are one;" John 10:30 and, "He that has seen me has seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me." John 14:9-10 They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many. But in their contention they only act on the principle of all heretics.”

All he is saying is what Col 1:15 says, he “is the image of the invisible God -”

“Either way, both points demonstrate that the “generic unity” of humanity is not the unity of the Godhead.”

>>>I never said that generic unity is the unity of the godhead. I actually remember rejecting that idea. The Father is the principle of unity in the Godhead. You are conflating nature and person.

I think you are operating off a misrepresentation that I received last year:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/2321/

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“But if we recall that the term for Spirit used in Gen 1:2 is the same as wind, and add to that John the Baptizer’s prophecy that the Son would baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit – followed by the Spirit descending as tongues of fire on Pentecost; then we come to realize that the Spirit was responsible for the parting of the sea and the directional leadership of the column of fire. Psalm 78 identifies the rock which provided water as the Redeemer. 1 Cor 10:4 tells us that the Redeemer in Ps 78 is Christ Himself. In John 6 we learn that the manna is also Christ. The feeding and sustenance of the Israelites was from the Son. But it is a unified God who reminds the Israelites that He has done this for them in the various passages I referenced above.”

>>>The divine persons act differently pertaining to the personal properties but not separately. The will of the Son and spirit is submissive and cooperative with the Father’s will as he is the monarch, the boss, so to speak.

“In developing his thoughts on the monarchy of the Father, David Waltz (in one of his more recent articles) referenced De Decretis by St Athanasius. St Athanasius is an excellent source for understanding the thoughts and theology behind the Council at Nicea.”

>>>I disagree. Jnorm and I strained this gnat out for months. Athanasius is terribly confusing and unstable.

From Leo Donald Davis’s work above, pg. 90-91

“G. L. Prestige brings out very clearly how Athanasius went even *****beyond Nicaea.******* “Though Father and Son are not one but two objects as seen in relation to each other — the names denote ****distinct presentations of the divine being***** —yet their `substance’ is identical; if you analyze the meaning connoted by the word God, in whatever connection, you arrive in every case at exactly the same result, whether you are thinking of the Father or of the Son or of the Spirit. That is the point at which the creed was directed: the word God connotes precisely the same truth when you speak of God the Father as it does when you speak of God the Son. It connotes the same truth. So much the Council affirmed. But Athanasius went further. It must imply, he perceived, not only the same truth about God, but the same actual God, the same being. If you contemplate *****the Father, who is one distinct presentation of the deity********”

You can also read in Davis’ book on page 91 that Being and hypostasis were not clear with Athanasius’ construction all the way up to the end of his ministry.

“This starts creating an image that suggests the Son cannot be held separately from the Father; neither in time of existence, nor in substance.”

>>>I never said he was separate from the Father. I simply cannot make the huge conflation you are making between the genus of relation and the genus of being.

“I have already quoted from paragraph 11, where Athanasius suggests that trying to understand the divine Father/Son relationship by use of the human experience (alone) is insufficient.”

>>>Jnorm and I already strained out this gnat as well. Here was my reply,

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

....

“30. You quoted Athanasius, “For the offspring of men are portions of their fathers, since the very nature of bodies is not uncompounded, but in a state of flux, and composed of parts; and men lose their substance in begetting”

>>> I replied to this here: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/2321/

If the Son emanates out of the Father, did the Father lose a part of himself that subsequently (whether pertaining to logical or temporal sequence is irrelevant here) constituted the Son?

As a Scripturalist, I follow Dr. Clark’s system of Philosophy and Theology Proper which adhered to a form of Christian Platonism, where the Divine Ideas of Plato become the Ideas and Attributes of God and subsist within him. These Ideas then constitute his being at a fundamental level. They are not created representations of God or his individual attributes. They are God at some fundamental level. Dr. Clark said in expositing Plato: “A single body cannot be in several places at once, but any number of men throughout the world can have the same thought at the same time; and if, as is surely the case, the Ideas are more of the nature of thought than of body, the objection is convicted of a false analogy.” Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Unicoi, Tennesse.: The Trinity Foundation, 1957, Fourth edition 2000), 78.

Here then is my Clarkian solution to the Eternal Generation: When I communicate an idea that I affirm myself as constitutive of my own personhood, to another person, and the other person believes it and therefore becomes personally constituted by this thought as well, I lose nothing of myself or my thought in doing so. This is the nature of thought (two people can have the same thought at the same time without losing anything of themselves, per Clark) as opposed to the nature of physical composition and the transference of physical substance from one subject to another. This is analogous (And the analogy that I am appealing to is the analogy of proportion, not the analogy of proportionality) to the eternal generation of the Son. Thus eternal generation is defended and yet again the materialism of Jnorm is exposed.”

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-orthodoxy/68-theses-against-jnorm-s-eastern-orthodox-theology-proper









“In short, the age-old belief is not that of three instances of the divine essences as outlined by the concept of Nicene Monarchy, but is a belief in the divine persons of the Godhead, the Son and the Spirit, being of the Essence and in the Essence of the Father.”

>>>This statement contains both a confusion and an outright rejection of the Nicene Creed 325. that is exactly what they meant and Davis admitted it.

“The Father is One because His Essence cannot be divided nor distributed.”

>>>Which is a conflation between the genus of relation and the genus of being and really reveals an underlining materialist pantheism.

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“While researching and meditating over the topic of this article, I was struck by the amount of the Trinity which can be seen in the Old Testament. I’ve already alluded to the totality of the Godhead; Father, Son, and Spirit united; leading the nation of Israel out of Egypt. If we look to the first two verses in Genesis – many translations having this be the first sentence – we also see the totality of the Trinity.”

>>>Which was precisely the thinking of the Sabellians that Tertullian rejected as heresy. Do you not understand that you are using the exact same arguments from the exact same scriptures in outright defiance of the primitive Fathers?

“Can we be anything other than completely awestruck?”

>>>Not in the Neoplatonic and Plotinian sense that you want.

TOm said...

Hello,
I have been following these Nicene Monarchist discussions for longer than I have known the term Nicene Monarchist. Most specifically I have noted originally with a great deal of confusion the different meanings of the word “homoousian.” I believe that the bulk of the Fathers at Nicea likely meant the word in its generic sense (which does not mean to me necessarily that the NM advocates have won the day).
To me it is absolutely clear that scripture speaks of ONE God. It is also quite clear that Christ and the Holy Spirit are spoken of in a way that makes thinking of them as God reasonable and defendable leading to a Three that consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


First, let me offer a critic of Jamie. He said:
“While God’s “higher ways” are reality, our own ability to perceive them is limited by how we experience reality.”
Surely there is truth in this statement, but I generally shy away from any logical argument that starts with such a caveat. 3=1 you just do not understand how God’s ways are higher than our ways! An appeal to “mystery” that excuses us from the use of human logic and understanding is fine for one’s individual theology, but in the market place of ideas I do not believe it commands any more strength than any other explanation of any subject. I do not accuse Jamie of abandoning reason, but I fear that poking on his ideas in all directions would result in an appeal to “God’s ways are higher than our ways and we just cannot understand that.” (used to excuse a violation of non-contradiction or basic logic).
I do not claim I know how God knows everything, but I lean towards explanation that recognize my ignorance but do not result in logical contradictions.



Now to Drake. I am not sure what authority you believe the council of Nicea possessed, but clearly the developed position of the Catholic Church is not the position you embrace. I applaud Jamie for his absence from this discussion so he can spend time with his family. I know I have erred in the past because I read and posted on the Internet when I should have been doing things to advance God’s kingdom (often within the walls of my home). How important is your position of Nicene Monarchism. If it really matters, how am I (or anyone who works 9-5 and has a family) to embrace it when it has taken so much time and learning to understand it. There is a strength IMO possessed by the idea of being like a child and embracing an authority like the Catholic Church. Folks like Jamie can engage in these discussions from a faithful Catholic point of view and folks who have felt God’s presence in the mass and are committed Catholics can worship God as best they understand Him through the authority of the Catholic Church. But, for you it seems to me that either you adopt a position that these nuances of theology are not salvific and as such are about truth not salvation (making them of little importance to most Christians). Or your position is that a select few arrive at the correct and important understanding of God you possess. What are your thoughts on this?



Finally, let me offer something that I think should have an impact of both of your positions. If scripture teaches there are three who are God and there is one who is God, what does it offer as a way to reconcile this? I have thought the most clear scriptural teaching on how to reconcile this is contained here:
John 17:22
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one

As I read this Jesus is saying that the disciples should be one as He and the Father are one. What does that do for and against Jamie’s position AND for and against Drake’s position?

Are there other scriptures that are better suited to help us know HOW the Trinity is one?
Charity, TOm

Drake Shelton said...

Tom,

"How important is your position of Nicene Monarchism. If it really matters, how am I (or anyone who works 9-5 and has a family) to embrace it when it has taken so much time and learning to understand it."

>>>Our view is the most simple view. There is one God, the Father and eternally with the one God is his Son and his Spirit. Done.

It is the Latin view that is the metaphysical paradox. Is it that it has taken so much learning to know my view, or that it has taken so much learning to unlearn the Latin view? Methinks the latter.


"There is a strength IMO possessed by the idea of being like a child and embracing an authority like the Catholic Church."

>>>That disgusts me, but I commend you for your consistency here. I speak with hundreds of Protestants who have the exact same view of Revelation that you are taking and they refuse to make the consistent step to submit to a Hierarchical organization that has power over their conscience.

"What are your thoughts on this?"

>>>I think you are hitting on something that I inevitably bring up with hundreds of Protestants and they just refuse to be consistent. Maybe hearing it from a Catholic and how the Catholic system works will help them make an honest decision.

David Waltz said...

Hi Drake,

In your response to Tom, you wrote:

==I speak with hundreds of Protestants who have the exact same view of Revelation that you are taking and they refuse to make the consistent step to submit to a Hierarchical organization that has power over their conscience.==

Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by "have the exact same view of Revelation that you are taking"; clarity is avoiding me at present.


Grace and peace,

David

Drake Shelton said...

David,

In the Van Til-Clark controversy we see that the Church has taken a few positions on exactly what knowledge we get from God. I have spoken to this in detail here:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/analogy-of-proportionality-refuted-univocal-predication-defended/

The idea of Anchorism is the same idea in Gnosticism and Neoplatonism. The idea is that propositions are inherently imperfect due to the inherent distinctions required between subject and predicate. One-ness is always supreme in Paganism and thus all propositional knowledge must bear an inherent deceit. Thus "knowledge" actually becomes a relation to a hierarchy of being. At each level of the hierarchy is an intermediary who bestows the secret interpretation of the anagogy (the hierarchy's version of knowledge). You see the anagogy is unknowable, as it is the divine mystery, the vibration of the infinite nature; thus the intermediary bestows upon you secret knowledge. Climb enough levels and you will reach the One. At this point the cognitive faculty is suspended and suppressed into the filthy uselessness it bears when face to face with the One that is neither mind nor will but and infinite singularity. Having the cognitive faculty suspended the soul sees the One in an immediate perception upon which simultaneously the soul is engulfed in mindless Ecstasy before having its disgusting individuality dissolved into the Void.

Thus one's view of knowledge and especially knowledge of God is intimately related to one's view of authority, hierarchy, metaphysics and the ultimate principle. It is all a package deal.

Drake Shelton said...

Tom has made the consistent decision to submit himself to such a Neoplatonic Hierarchy developed by that Neoplatonic deceiver Pseudo Dionysius. He thinks that knowledge is not something for him to find out as his church has fully convinced him that Biblical revelation cannot be understood prepositionally and univocally but anagogically and thus must be related to by way of a hierarchy who alone possess the secret interpretation of the Scriptture via the Viva Voce, per Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 2)
“The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.” (Christian Classics Ethereal Library Site)

This is the exact language used by the Papacy.

TOm said...

Drake,
Thank you for your response.
I am actually not Catholic.
That being said, I think the argument I offered was first presented by a Catholic on David’s blog and I am only repeating it (if that helps). It is still a good argument regardless of its source (this is somewhat of a mantra for me). And, I do not think that my real question hinges upon it so I will rephrase it below.

I have thought in the past that the “disgust” with religious hierarchy is more American (and to a lesser extent modern/western) than it is Biblical. I see in your response to David that it has some more complex roots than that.

I agree with you that the Latin view is more complex than NM, but that does not answer the question I MEANT to ask. For many decades if not forever NM will be a view held ONLY by intellectuals who have really considered this question. But for the folks who have not considered it thoroughly Catholics or Protestants, what is the impact on their salvation of accepting the “Latin” Trinity without learning that Nicea probably didn’t teach this Trinity? Without learning that the Bible may be said not to teach this Trinity?

I can offer a little of my thought on the answers from my perspective.
Option #1: God looks down and sees that Drake has correctly discerned the Biblical and early church information and discovered that NM is true and the Latin Trinity is false. Jamie has errantly concluded through similar effort and learning that the Latin view is true. This is a positive (or even a necessary) aspect of Drake’s salvation and a negative (or even disqualifying) aspect of Jamie’s salvation.

Option #2: God looks down and sees Drake and Jamie’s sincere efforts to understand truth about Him through the resources they have available to them. TOm’s friend Drew has not devoted effort to this understanding. This is a positive (or even a necessary) aspect of Drake and Jamie’s salvation and a negative (or even disqualifying) aspect of Drew’s salvation.

Option #3: God looks down and knows that TOm’s devotion to his church has blocked him from understanding the truth of NM or the Trinity or ???. TOm has tried to remove this barrier from his salvation, but it is a stumbling block for him. This is a negative (or even disqualifying) aspect of TOm’s salvation.

Option #4: There are things much important than right theology concerning God. These things are typically described as Faith, Grace, and ??? (perhaps the process of sanctification that occurs after justification or in conjunction with justification). Pursuit of correct theology can positively impact ones “faith life,” but correct theology is not very important on its own especially on subjects like the inner workings of the Triune God. There may be some important beliefs that could be aided or corrupted by theology (I must work my way into Heaven vs. I must recognize that Christ saves me).


Of the above I think Option #1 is almost all false. I see some aspects of Option 2-4 as having some application to the reality of our salvation.

Finally, you may have considered my last question boring, but I will ask it again so you can say it is boring rather than leave me thinking that you just missed it. What of John 17’s (there are couple of places not just what I quoted) teachings on HOW the three are one. How does that impact NM and how does it impact the “Latin” Trinity? Are there other Biblical passages that shed more light on HOW the three-ness and one-ness should be resolved?
Charity, TOm

Drake Shelton said...

Tom,


“Are there other Biblical passages that shed more light on HOW the three-ness and one-ness should be resolved?”

>>>Nothing needs to be resolved. There are no real contradictions. The only contradictions are those seen through Latin glasses. The issue is a relation is not the same thing as a subject. Understand that, and all the clouds of mystery and paradox are blown away.

Steve said...

Fr. Kimel said:

But if the divine essence is understood as infinite being, as it is in the Cappadocian Fathers, then there really cannot be separated instantiations of infinite Godhead, as separation requires boundaries and infinite being has no boundaries.

This statement left me wondering; what exactly is the Eastern Orthodox view of the Aristotelian-Thomistic formulation of divine simplicity? How does one reconcile the above statement, which seems to me, entails absolute non-contigency with respect to the nature of the immanent Trinity without invoking divine simplicity? IOW, how do the EO account for distinctions within the infinite Godhead...assuming you agree that infinite being can be neither divided, nor multiplied?

I realize that response may take more space than what's available here, so if you happen to have link to a paper that you endorse I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

I would also be interested in hearing David Waltz's responses to the same questions from his perspective as opposed to the EO's (assuming there are differences). Hopefully this will help me have a better understanding of where people are coming from when Jamie returns and the dialogue (hopefully) commences. Thanks again!

Drake Shelton said...

Steve,

"what exactly is the Eastern Orthodox view of the Aristotelian-Thomistic formulation of divine simplicity?"

I have given that issue some attention here:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/the-essence-and-energies-distinction-in-david-bradshaw-refuted/


"how do the EO account for distinctions within the infinite Godhead...assuming you agree that infinite being can be neither divided, nor multiplied?"


>>>I dealt with that here, number 56: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/why-i-am-not-eastern-orthodox-reasons-55-57/

Fr Aidan Kimel said...

"How do the EO account for distinctions within the infinite Godhead...assuming you agree that infinite being can be neither divided, nor multiplied?"

I imagine that different EO theologians offer different accounts, but I suspect that most do not believe that a philosophical account is even necessary. We do not begin with a philosophical understanding of divine simplicity: we begin, as do most theologians of any Christian tradition, with the data of revelation.

Steve said...

I imagine that different EO theologians offer different accounts, but I suspect that most do not believe that a philosophical account is even necessary. We do not begin with a philosophical understanding of divine simplicity: we begin, as do most theologians of any Christian tradition, with the data of revelation.

I didn't ask if EO begin with divine simplicity when thinking about God. I can't think of anyone who would, but it is an obvious important principle of God's essence to theologians of the west. Where divine simplicity falls into one's chain of thinking about God is irrelevant; however, whether it is there at all is. I take your response as suggesting that divine simplicity just isn't relevant to EO theologians, even though your original statement that I quoted implies that it is.

Fr Aidan Kimel said...

"I take your response as suggesting that divine simplicity just isn't relevant to EO theologians, even though your original statement that I quoted implies that it is."

All EO theologians of course affirm divine simplicity, which I simply take as an expression of negative theology (the uncreated Deity is not subject to composition as creatures are). They just aren't going to run with it on its own. One could, for example, argue that the hypostatic distinctions are incompatible with divine simplicity or that creaturely participation in the divine being is ontologically incompatible with divine simplicity, etc. Orthodox theology would reject any such inferences.

Steve said...

One could, for example, argue that the hypostatic distinctions are incompatible with divine simplicity or that creaturely participation in the divine being is ontologically incompatible with divine simplicity, etc. Orthodox theology would reject any such inferences.

That's kinda what I took away from the Bradshaw paper that Drake references in one of the links he provided (although I was watching a basketball and trying to read the paper at the same time, so...). It seems to me that the EO do not want to admit of an absolute divine simplicity where God is not even a composite of essence and existence, because of perceived incompatibility with hypostatic distinctions , interaction with the created order, and God's freedom to will what He wills. Aquinas would object that absolute divine simplicity necessarily entails such incompatibilities, but book chapters and academic papers have been written on that, and I don't want to go into that here. What I am interested in wrapping my around is whether it is the case that the EO really do accept divine simplicity in an absolute sense where God's essence is His existence (I think the Cappadocians could be read this way based on your quote that I originally asked about), but are unwilling to accept what seems to follow from that proposition, or do they think of divine simplicity in some qualified way, so as to avoid what seems to follow from that proposition? I'm not trying to be contentious; I really am interested in learning how the EO interact with the concept of divine simplicity, because I think it is critical to how both the east and the west think about the Trinity. Thanks for being patient with me.

Steve said...

watching a basketball "game"...I wasn't just staring at a basketball :)

Fr Aidan Kimel said...

An example from St Gregory the Theologian:

"This I give you as a companion and protector for all your life, the one divinity and power, found in unity in the three, and gathering together the three as distinct; neither uneven in essences or natures, nor increased or decreased by superiorities or inferiorities; from every perspective equal, from every perspective the same, as the beauty and greatness of heaven is one; an infinite coalescence of three infinities; each God when considered in himself; as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Spirit; each preserving his properties. The three are God when known together, each God because of the consubstantiality, one God because of the monarchy. When I first know the one I am also illumined from all sides by the three; when I first distinguish the three I am also carried back to the one. When I picture one of the three I consider the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part has escaped me. I cannot grasp the greatness of that one so as to grant something greater to the rest. When I bring the three together in contemplation, I see one torch and am unable to divide or measure the united light." (40.41)

I have been immersed in St Gregory for the past eight months or so. He is not terribly interested in binding the Church to a specific construal of "substance," "hypostasis," "energy," etc. His terminological usage is pretty fluid. What he is interested in establishing a consensual way to speak of the one God who is Father, Son, and Spirit. He advances a clear grammar of the Trinity but allows a lot of flexibility within that grammatical structure.

All Eastern Orthodox theologians confess the incomprehensibility of the divine essence. Given that, it's hard to imagine an Orthodox theologian constructing a particular view of what it means to say that that God is simple and then building a theology of the Trinity upon that.

Is this a global East/West issue? I seriously doubt it. Maybe it is or was for specific theologians; but I certainly would not want to make any generalizations regarding contemporary Catholic or Protestant theology. I have read Bradshaw's book and have learned a great deal from him; but it seems to me that he has confused theologoumena with dogma. If, for example, you were to confront St Thomas Aquinas with an absolutely convincing argument that his understanding of divine simplicity logically entails the conclusion that God _must_ create the universe, Aquinas would quickly have responded, "Then my formulation of divine simplicity must be wrong."

Regarding the Cappadocians, you might want to take a look at *Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Transformation of Divine Simplicity* by Radde-Gallwitz, which I have not yet read but which is sitting here on my desk.

Steve said...

...Aquinas would quickly have responded, "Then my formulation of divine simplicity must be wrong."

I'm not so sure. For Aquinas, divine simplicity is an absolute principle. It is not a matter of degrees, or possible formulations. That is, it is necessary of God to be absolutely simple for God to be God at all. Anything else would in some way introduce contingency in God. I think Aquinas would rather live with God necessarily creating the world than with God not being God. That being said, he does put in quite an effort to demonstrate God's freedom of will, anyway.

The reason why I think divine simplicity is so central is because it seems to inform the way both the east and west want to talk about the Trinity. It is because of divine simplicity that Aquinas cannot distinguish between the persons of the Trinity except by way of subsistent relation. If relation is the only way to distinguish between the persons of the Trinity then if the Son and the Spirit proceed from the Father, the Son and Spirit would be indistinguishable.

You also wrote: "One could, for example, argue that the hypostatic distinctions are incompatible with divine simplicity"
This is another way that divine simplicity informs the way we think about the Trinity. So it seems to me that the notion of divine simplicity has the conceptual power of framing the way in which we talk about the Trinity, and that's why I think it is central to the topic.

I think that's about all I want to say until Jamie returns I don't want him to have to sift through too much stuff before responding.

Thanks for the book reference. I'll add it to the list...right now I have quite a few of my own unread books.

TOm said...

Drake,
I received an email for a first response and the one here is a second response. It appears to me that the first response has vanished. I could reply to it, but if you intended for it to vanish, I will assume you do not want a response.

What I call you second response above says:
“>>>Nothing needs to be resolved. There are no real contradictions. The only contradictions are those seen through Latin glasses. The issue is a relation is not the same thing as a subject. Understand that, and all the clouds of mystery and paradox are blown away.”

I really think overstate your case here. Isaiah tells us there is ONE God and that God knows of no other God. The New Testament speaks of Christ in ways that strongly indicate Christ in some sense is divine, is God, is a God, or ....
Your solution as I read it is that when the Bible speaks of the one God, it means the Father and it means the Father because the Father is the Fount of Divinity. When the Bible speaks of the Son as divine we might call the Son, “God the Son,” but that is confusing. Still what is important is that the Son is divine (or called “God the Son”) because He is of the nature of the Father. As such, the Son is God, but not “the one God.”
If I understand your position, I do not think it is NOT a “resolved” “contradiction.” Instead it is precisely something done to resolve the apparent contradiction. I have agreed with you that it is a simpler solution than numeric unity that is declared “not modalism,” but it is a solution.
Do you disagree?

Also, if you want to repost your other post, I can reply to that (or I can repost it if you have lost it). Otherwise I will let it rest in the ether.
Charity, TOm

TOm said...

Father Kimble said:
“Aquinas would quickly have responded, ‘Then my formulation of divine simplicity must be wrong.’”

TOm:
Maybe he would have said, “Everything I have written is straw.”

My interaction with EO thought has left me with the impression that they do not believe revealed truth can be used in dialectic reasoning to find greater truth in an absolute way.
If God revealed that His favorite number was an Integer between 2 and 4, Aquinas would say that God’s favorite number is “3” and is less than the circle constant “pi.” An EO theologian would not draw the certain conclusion from the revealed truth.
Would you agree with this generally Father Kimble?

A direction I think I have more frequently gone is towards recognizing that if the revealed “truth” leads logically to contradictions, perhaps what we thought was revealed was not really the content of the message. If “divine simplicity” leads to “divine immutability” and “divine immutability” leads to a problem with the revelation concerning God’s love for us, then maybe God isn’t simple in that way, maybe God does not love as we think when we hear that he loves, maybe ...

More applicable to this thread would be a willingness to not resolve the revealed “One God” with the also revealed “God the Son.”

Let me finish by saying that I have probably waded too deep into the big boy pool so I am sorry if the above is quite off base.
Charity, TOm

Fr Aidan Kimel said...

"My interaction with EO thought has left me with the impression that they do not believe revealed truth can be used in dialectic reasoning to find greater truth in an absolute way."

TOm, I think this sounds right. EO theology wants to stay close to Scripture and the living experience of God in the Church. Hence it is quite comfortable with paradox and antinomy, as evidenced by the quotation from St Gregory above. This doesn't mean that philosophical reflection has no place, but it refuses to subject revelation to our "logic." Again, I refer to St Gregory's Theological Orations. The Church's debate with Eunomius in the 4th century is instructive here.

Steve said...

Maybe he would have said, “Everything I have written is straw.”

I think we would all say that a direct mystical experience with the Creator would trump anything we could write about the Creator. This is what St. Thomas is referring to; not the quality of some argument.

A direction I think I have more frequently gone is towards recognizing that if the revealed “truth” leads logically to contradictions, perhaps what we thought was revealed was not really the content of the message.

I agree. But of course we have to use our God given capacity of reason when interacting with the data of revelation in order to get there in the first place. After all, logical contradictions are by nature conceptual.

If “divine simplicity” leads to “divine immutability” and “divine immutability” leads to a problem with the revelation concerning God’s love for us, then maybe God isn’t simple in that way, maybe God does not love as we think when we hear that he loves, maybe ...

Perhaps...or perhaps there was an improper inference somewhere in the chain of reasoning. Either way, if left unsatisfied with the arguments we could keep looking for new ones, get comfortable with paradox like St. Gregory, or erase the whole thing and start over like Joseph Smith.

More applicable to this thread would be a willingness to not resolve the revealed “One God” with the also revealed “God the Son.”

Why so?

Thanks for sucking me back in, BTW. I really was trying to not post again until Jamie gets back:)





Drake Shelton said...

Tom,

"The New Testament speaks of Christ in ways that strongly indicate Christ in some sense is divine, is God, is a God, or ...."

>>>That is Sabellian to the core.

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/tertullian-exposes-our-sabellian-triunist-opponents/

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/the-orthodox-vs-the-sabellian-use-of-romans-95/

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/hilary-of-poitiers-distinguishes-the-orthodox-vs-the-sabellian-use-of-romans-95/

Jamie Donald said...

I "survived" vacation! Actually, it was a good break, and I was so very happy to have all four kids together for a little

bit. It's difficult when two of them live out of state. But at least I can report that we'll have them all together again

TWICE in 2014 -- we have two weddings in the Donald Family future!

I appreciate everyone's patience in my absence. I have read each of the comments and am now taking the time to provide my

thoughts in reply. Actually, I've taken the past several days to collect and write out my thoughts. I want to post all of

my replies at the same time. My fear is that if I don't, then we may start a back-and-forth on one of the first topics of

response and never get to important points that were made later.

Please note that we all have different styles. A common style in this form of internet blog dialog is to do the line-by-

line critique/interaction. This is the style that Drake is using. I have no problem with that, but it is not my own

style. I tend to think more topically and so my answers come in topics as well.

I've made a short not to each commenter (thus far), but as most of the critique/interaction has come from Drake, most of

the topics in reply interact with what he's written. However, there may be something in a reply to his thoughts that

answers a question asked by someone else (due to my thinking and replying in topics, rather than line-by-line). So I ask

that everyone read all of my replies and consider them in whole before making more comments.

Some of the replies have titles prior to the salutation. This was so that I could keep the topics straight in my mind. No

offense was intended by not having the salutation at the very beginning. Additionally, some of the replies are written in

the third person (not to anyone in particular) -- even if the response was heavily involved with one person's interaction.

This is because I felt that my answers in those areas would be of interest to everyone and may pertain to all.

Finally, I use the html coding to bold, italicize or bold italicize when i'm making emphasis or

quoting. If you read the blog comments on an e-mail account that does not support these html codes, I recommend you read

directly from Paul's blog on a web browser.

Again, thank you everyone for your comments! -- Jamie

Jamie Donald said...

Fr Kimel,

You had asked if it was a sense of separation which was the root of my objection to the formulation of Nicene Monarchism. In short, the answer is yes. The insistence on identifying three distinct (numeric, cardinal) beings/essences/natures leads to the concept of uniqueness, and unique items are separate from each other. (I have more on this in my other responses below). Like you, I do not like the idea of the term "instances" when expressing the Godhead. But I find no other word that describes Nicene Monarchism's distinct counting of being.

As far as paradoxical language goes, I'm fine with that. For example, the concept of infinities within infinity does not provide the same sense of distance in my mind. Let me put it this way. I know that any number divided by itself equals one. But zero divided by zero equals infinity, and infinity divided by infinity equals infinity. Yet infinity is neither one nor zero. In the last equation, I see infinities within infinity, but without separation from nor losing infinity.

I also note that each of the references Drake provided (whether ancient like Early Church Fathers, or more recent such as Davis or Kelly) avoided descriptions leading to three distinct, unique beings; while maintaining separation in the Persons constituting the Trinity.

Jamie Donald said...

David,

You had asked me to provide examples where I think Nicene Monarchism redefines common terms. First, please be aware that particular phrase is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I find it humorous to read that this concept is to be called Nicene Monarchism, followed by the quote, ... I am not using it like the Nicene Creed .... I understand that the intent was to express differences in context. But this particular expression is a very poor way of saying it, and the expression adds to the confusion in usage of terms. My main intent was to say that unless the communicator is very clear in context, then confusion should be expected. I feel the presentation added to that confusion.

It is this confusion that allows Drake to criticize me for not thinking of "God" as a nature, then turn around and later criticize me for thinking of "God" as a nature. Instead of receiving a context, I received criticism. Wouldn't you say that if the definition relies on context and no context is given, then at a minimum, the definition is ambiguous?

However, while there is reasonable basis to see "God" (Theos or ho Theos) as applying to either Nature or the Father based on context, there is other data. For example, Origen calls the Father "Light" much in the same way we call the Son "the Word." He also says that "The God" (ho Theos) is "True God." Both of these are references to a person and not a nature. With this in mind, the phrase, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, can be referring to generation of a person and not a nature. To simply put forth that the particular meaning is of necessity pertaining to a nature is begging the question.

Additionally, when Drake (more than once) calls the more traditional view of the Trinity "pantheism," the "theism" root is pertaining to a nature. When we say that ancient Greeks were "polytheists," again the root "theism" is associated with those beings believed to be of a divine nature. Yet the Nicene Monarchism concept maintains "monotheism" because the only God is God the Father. But this is not defined as by nature, but because of the person. The root "theism" has been redefined.

In my responses below, I further expand on this and show that there is yet a third, but unvoiced contextual definition of "God" based on context.

Finally, Drake does redefine "Sabellianism/Modalism" from its historical context. While this is not a part of the description of Nicene Monarchism, it is used in defending NM by attacking other belief sets and is a redefinition.

You also noted that Fr Behr said that the Lord was all that YHWH is, but without being YHWH. Perhaps I am reading too much into his statement, but I see that as pertaining to person.

You had said you'd wait for my return to ask further questions or make other comments. Though I suspect that Drake made many of the same points that you were intending. I hope my answers to his thoughts are helpful.

Jamie Donald said...

TOm,

Thank you for attempting to ask questions from the Catholic perspective even though you are not Catholic. I find that I understand a topic best when I'm able to express it from a vantage point that differs from my own.

Like you, I have wondered if my beliefs and those of Nicene Monarchism (the term was coined by Drake, so the name credit goes to him) can be reconciled. I think that most points can be held in common. As I pointed out in the original article, per the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), the Father is the Principle who is without principle. He is also the First Principle of both the Son and the Spirit. I think this squares OK with referring to the Father as the "Monarch" of the Trinity. Additionally, both the Early Church Fathers and the CCC give the sense that when we say "God" generically, we are referring to the Father. A specific naming of the other Persons or a specific context can refer to either the Son or the Spirit as appropriate. The Nature of all Three is of the same substance or essence. These points we agree on.

The difference comes in whether or not the Divine Nature is divisible and counted as three distinct Beings, or if it is to be counted as a unified Being. That is the center of the dialog.

What does it mean for the 9-to-5 guy? I'm not certain. I don't think most 9-to-5 Christians ever get to this depth. As for me (and I am a 9-to-5 guy, a family guy [though not a cartoon], and all sorts of "other" guy), I provided input because it interests me. However, I have a lot going on and I don't know how long I can keep up with the conversation. I'm pretty sure that I can't match Drake for volume of output. I'm not sure where he finds the time!

As far as your specific criticism/critique goes (you suggested I be careful in using "God's ways are much higher than our own" as a defense, otherwise I may end up saying something like, "It's a mystery!"), my intent was not to avoid providing reasoning, but to say that we must be very careful when trying to describe God.

Finally, you had some questions on the beliefs of the Orthodox Church. I think that Fr Kimel has answered them, and I'm glad for that. I would have deferred to him on that topic anyway. He has much more expertise than I do.

Jamie Donald said...

Steve,

I'm glad to hear that you don't spend all day watching a basketball! ;) And I hope you're able to enjoy as much "March Madness" as you can stand.

It seems that most of your questions/comments so far have been directed to Fr Kimel and have been concerning the Orthodox Churches. I'll let Fr Kimel answer them. He has much more expertise than I do on that topic.

Jamie Donald said...

Drake,

Thank you for your detailed response. I think that through each of the links (and links within links) you gave me more to read than my original essay! I can't say that I read every link (or link within a link), but I did review/reread most of them. As I stated above, my answers will be more topical than line-by-line against what you wrote.

Before I move to direct replies, I have a few things to say in general.

You wrote, Not to be too rude here. Then don't. Don't be rude. I understand frustration at having to repeat a concept over and over again. But you have admitted yourself that if you are correct (the best-case scenario for you), then there are 1500 - 2000 years of tradition to overcome. You should be expecting repetition. Besides, while people may deserve firmness, no one deserves rudeness -- especially not fellow Christians. Are we not called to turn the other cheek?

While I'm pleased that you feel like we will have respectable and beneficial conversation, I am somewhat disheartened that this is only based on my (going-in) level of understanding of your concepts -- not on my attempt to honestly represent you and your position and interact where I see problem areas. Would you be able to work with a person who had a lesser understanding (than I do), but was still trying to accurately portray and come to grips with what you write? Do you realize, that the way you phrased it, you called every reader of this blog who does not have my level of understanding, "stupid?" Your attempt to compliment me is an ad hominem against them.

I'm taking "fair/unfair" in your statement, Though you are more fair than any critic I have had I think you are unfair at some points, as accurate/inaccurate. My only comment is that "unfair" usually contains connotations of deliberateness. I assure you that I made every attempt to accurately describe and assess Nicene Monarchism. I did my absolute best to describe it from your point of view and to answer the common objections as you would. I appreciate that in spite of this attempt, you find areas where I may have slightly missed the mark. However, in light of the indirect ad hominem above, I ask you to refrain from using terms that may have emotional baggage associated with them (such as "unfair").

Finally, I do not appreciate the way you throw around names such as "Sabellianism" or tell me what I am thinking. As you will see in my answers below, I am not thinking in the terms or methods you ascribe to me. Please interact with what I communicate. If I'm not clear enough (and sadly, sometimes I am not), then ask for a clarification. I'll gladly provide one.

However, since I took the time and effort to understand and express your concepts from your point of view before offering criticism, I would appreciate the same courtesy from you. For example, you are defining Modalism/Sabellianism differently than any of the Church Fathers whom you reference, then apply that term to me as though it is through them. This is the same as if I were to accuse you of not accepting any tradition in any form because you believe in Sola Scriptura. But, even though you hold Scripture as the sole infallible truth, you do rely on and use the tradition of the early Church in informing that view. If I were to deny it, I would be incorrectly describing your beliefs. Calling me "Sabellian" is the same form of using a strawman to poison the well.

Again, thank you for your interaction.

Jamie Donald said...

Analogy of Proportion vs Analogy of Proportionality

In reading Drake's interaction with others, I am not convinced that everyone who dialogs with him understands what he means when he says that he holds to the Analogy of Proportion, but rejects the Analogy of Proportionality. Based on the way he writes, I take holding/rejecting to be absolute for all analogies. But as I've only seen him apply it when discussing knowledge of God, I could be mistaken in this assessment. I'll let Drake confirm this, or correct me. But as we're talking about knowledge of God and he has stated this holding/rejecting on this particular topic, whether he has this position absolutely is not critical to this discussion here. In order to set a level field, let me explain. For those who already understand this, I hope I don't waste too much of your time.

The concept of Analogy of Proportion states that if A is analogous to B, then there is some element which is true for both A and B, and this truth is the same truth when talking about both A and B. So the truth is said to be "univocal" or says the same thing about both topics. When A is a known topic and B is unknown, then the truth which is common to both in the analogy reveals an actual and absolute truth about B. Thus, knowledge of this truth for A leads directly to knowldege of B through the analogy; B is no longer completely unknown. Because this truth is univocal, the understanding for B is not a "sort of" understanding, but an actual, absolute truth which applies to B.

The concept of Analogy of Proportionality is different. Here there is no direct relation between A and B; no truth which applies equally to both. Instead, there is some third, external (to both A and B) agent or agency which describes the relation in the analogy. In this case, when A is known and B is unknown, applying the analogy does not lead to any direct knowledge of B. At best, only a "sort of" knowledge -- which is not an actual truth -- can be gained via the external agent or agency.

It was in response to my admonishment that I thought Nicene Monarchists were applying the human father/son - divine Father/Son analogy backwards that he first mentioned holding the Analogy of Proportion. At first blush it appears as if I'm saying that you should apply the analogy from unknown to known (from divine to human) and Drake is saying that this is both confusing and impossible. I suspect he may have thought I was attempting an Analogy of Proportionality. However, I wasn't speaking in terms of either form of analogy. Nor was I necessarily denying an Analogy of Proportion. So the apparent conflict and confusion stems from a misunderstanding.

[continued]

Jamie Donald said...

[cont. from above]

I will attempt to clarify. In terms of an Analogy of Proportion, I was saying that we must be careful in identifying the particular item which is univocally true for both elements of the analogy. If the univocal truth is of small magnitude, then the knowledge gained through the analogy will be equally small. If we incorrectly identify an item as being univocally true, then we gain no knowledge and end up generating error when applying the analogy. If the analogy leads us to an understanding which is in conflict with something we know to be true of God, then there was a problem in selecting the correct univocal truth for the analogy.

I still think that the particular analogy utilized (in short: all humans are of the substance humanity, humans generate by begetting, humans are unique beings; therefore God is of the divine substance, He generates the Son by begetting, means that the Father and Son must be unique Beings - as opposed to unique Persons in a single Being) creates a conflict with the Truth of unity in the Godhead as identified in Scripture. But as the purpose of this particular comment is to get everyone level-set on analogies in general, I will develop my thoughts on the conflict in another comment. (For purposes of clarity, please do not comment here on whether or not you think my assessment of this particular analogy is correct).

Jamie Donald said...

Drake,

You stated that I think materialistically (you applied "materialism" to JNorm and said that I could only come to my conclusion by thinking of multiple "physical substances"), advised me to think of noncorporeal persons/beings, and used the concept of an idea as something that exists immaterially. I cannot speak for JNorm, but for me, you are incorrect in your assessment of how I think and how I arrived at my conclusions.

You will recall that in the original essay, I stated that I have worked some pretty complex math problems. What that means is that I can (and do) think of reality in both material and immaterial terms. For example, numbers are immaterial. You can show me two pennies, two inches, two pictures. But you cannot show me "two." It (two) is not material for you to show it to me. Yet, I can manipulate numbers and I can abstract them so that I can use numbers to describe both material items and immaterial items. A more in-depth explanation follows.

You said, You think that if two subjects are inseparable that they are really only one subject because you can see or feel no spatial separation between the two PHYSICAL SUBSTANCES. To be honest, I do not look for a "spatial separation" in order to show separation. That's because the term "space" means something different in mathematics than it does in the material world. Rather the separation between items is distance. Distance is simply the difference between the two items. If they're shown on a graph, then it could be as simple as taking a ruler to measure between the two points. However, I say "could be" because there are other methods to determine distance.

We can apply this concept of distance beyond graphing and to immaterial examples. Let's use your example of ideas (ideas in general, not your specific example of generation via idea). You and I may read something that talks about horses in a barn. This will generate an idea in each of our minds. The distance beween these unique ideas is the difference between the ideas in our minds. One of us may have thought of a traditional red-painted/white-trimmed wood barn, complete with hay loft; while the other may have considered the more southwestern pole barn. With this description, you should be able to see that comparing differences between items leads to a distance between them.

If two items have no distance (at all) between them, then they are said to be equal. But this is a stronger meaning than saying they are "alike." It means they are so alike that they are no longer unique. They are the same item. For example, I might say 2x - 4 = 0 and 3 + y = 5. In both examples, x and y equal 2. They are not unique. They are simply different ways of representing the same exact thing (2). Essentially, this is modalism.

If two items are exactly the same, except for location; then they are equivalent. In other words, the only distance between the two of them is in locality. For a non-material example, I will use your example of ideas again. Say that two angels (noncorporeal beings) have the same exact idea. Then the only difference between those two ideas is in location. The ideas are equivalent. This equates well to Analogy of Proportion with a large amount of truth. Anything you know about the idea in Angel A's mind, you also know about the idea in Angel B's mind -- except location. (For example, you may not know which angel is Angel B -- just that the idea also resides elsewhere).

If the distance between two items is in both locality and scale, then they are said to be congruent. To translate between two congruencies, you must apply the locality difference and the scale factor.

[continued]

Jamie Donald said...

[cont. from above]
If two items are equivalent, then they are also congruent (with a scale factor of one). However, two items being congruent does not guarantee that they are equivalent. Likewise, if two items are said to be equal, then they are equivalent (with a locality difference of zero) and congruent (again with a scale factor of one); and they are not unique, but are singularly the same item. But neither congruency nor equivalency necessarily imply equality.

On 10 and 11 September 2012, over at David's blog, you stated four times some form of the analogy which I paraphrased (in my original article) as They maintain a form of unity in both cases. God the Father, as the One God, is numeric unity (with Himself) and preserves monotheism. Generic unity comes from each person of the Trinity being of the same substance or essence. Again, the analogy of mankind is used. Each of us, while being distinct individuals, has a certain level of unity in the generic sense. We are all of the substance, or essence, of humanity. Your response was that I understood your point correctly. I think that stating this analogy four times in such a short time span gives it a very high level of importance in your thought process.

But applying this analogy means that the persons in the Godhead are unique beings; because you assert three numeric essences which, while equivalent, have some distance and are not equal. By definition, if they are not equal, there is distance between them and they are separate. So you are in conflict with the results of your own analogy when you claim, I never stated they were separate.

Now let's take a closer look at your particular analogy on ideas. Using it as a starting point, I will demonstrate another way to look at it. First, I will repeat your analogy. You said, When I communicate an idea that I affirm myself as constitutive of my own personhood, to another person, and the other person believes it and therefore becomes personally constituted by this thought as well, I lose nothing of myself or my thought in doing so. This is the nature of thought (two people can have the same thought at the same time without losing anything of themselves, per Clark). Now assume you successfully communicate an idea to me and I receive that idea exactly as you hold it. What is to say that you necessarily generated substance in me, rather than modifying my already existing substance? Because once the idea is in my mind, I have the abiliy to change it (my copy), but you no longer hold any sway over my copy, can you even say they are the same substance? I ask these questions to get you to take a closer look. Perhaps your analogy is merely an assertion.

However, you actually gave a clue as to the proper means to use ideas as an analogy of the immaterial. You said, This is the nature of thought. Thought is the nature and ideas are the various relations of thought. So you have one idea and it leads to a second idea in your thought process. The second idea is generated from the first. The first idea is the principle of the second idea. Both ideas are relations of thought, but they are distinct and separate relations -- not simply differing modes of each other. Yet they subsit in the same essence, your thought, yet no substance is gained or lost. This is a very nice Analogy of Proportion for the First Person of the Trinity generating the the Second Person, both relations, the Father being the Principle of the Son, both different as persons, yet the same in essence or being. Please also note that this representation is nearly identical to what Tertullian says in Chapter 5 of Against Praxeas.

Jamie Donald said...

Sabellianism and Ancient Witnesses

Drake,

I find your use of Tertullian to be interesting. I do not object to Tertullian as a witness on this topic, but it must be noted that he wrote Against Praxeas after falling into the heresy of Montanism. In chapter 1, he references the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla and later says that it is through being better instructed by the Paraclete -- a code for him for on-going inspiration through these two "prophetesses (see On Humility) -- that he has true knowledge of God. Full disclosure should be made to ensure the reader takes care to discern Tertullian's heterodoxy at this point of his career and keep it separate from a presentation of orthodox thought.

Second, Tertullian defines Sabellianism as maintaining that there is one only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this doctrine of the unity ... that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ. This quote comes from the 2nd and 3rd sentences of Against Praxeus. Since I do not maintain a single person in a single being as constituting God, your charge that I say is exactly what the Sabellians taught is inaccurate. With the difference between my concept and Modalism being highlighted literally at the very beginning of the reference you chose, I am somewhat surprised you made this particular charge. If you believe that my view devolves to Modalism, you have not made the case in your response to me. You have simply asserted, and from your assertion concluded that I am a Modalist or Sabellian.

You would have difficulty using Tertullian if you tried to use him to show that the classical western view automatically devolves to Modalism. In chapter 2 (again very early in Against Praxeus) he rather than seeing the Father, Son, and Spirit as the "selfsame Person," we should see, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. Notice that he is stating a commonality of substance with a multiple of persons, and that this is the theme Tertullian develops throughout the tract. In fact, he goes on in chapter 3 to identify this as Three in One -- which is my position.

When Tertullian gets to chapter 12, starting out with, If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, you have to remember what he has been arguing for and against. Putting it in that context, he is asking if you do not hold to the Three in One construct, but instead hold to the Modalists' "One in One" concept, then how to they account in the Scriptures a plurality of Persons in the Godhead? However, since I do not hold "One in One," but instead believe Tertullian's Three in One this question is not directed against my belief. To attempt to do so is to take the paragraph out of context of the treatise.
[continued]

Jamie Donald said...

[cont from above]
Athanasius

I know you are not a fan of Athanasius, asserting that he maintained a "confused" definition of "person" throughout his career. However, the quote you provided from Davis -- as presented in your reply -- is nothing more than the assertion of an opinion. It is not a proof. While it does demonstrate that both Davis and Prestige may agree with your position, it does not prove that the position is correct nor that it is the actual position taken at Nicea. Additionally, I can provide those who do not think that Athanasius went too far. Furthermore, you have stated on at least two occassions at David's blog that you don't think Nicea had a fully developed definition for "person." It's pretty difficult to quote someone who says, "Nicea definitely meant A, so Athanasius went too far;" then come back to those providing critical analysis and say that Nicea didn't have a definite meaning established. Those are contradictory statements.

What is not disputed is 1) Athanasius was at the Nicene Council, 2) Athanasius provided input to the drafting of the Nicene Creed, 3) post-council, Athanasius defended the council which he participated in and the creed it established, 4) David felt that the use of De Decretis was justified in supporting/explaining what you are calling Nicene Monarchism. My use of the same document to show that maybe it doesn't support your position is justified from point 4 alone. But if you require more, then remember that I appeal to a witness who was at the council. The witness of a participant is a good place to look when discerning what happened and why.

Davis and Kelly Assessments of These Ancient Witnesses

I reviewed your links for the articles, Homoousios;Generic or Numeric? (Davis) and JND Kelly on Homoouios; Generic or Numeric? You misrepresent Davis when you say that his claim was that Nicea specifically taught against my interpretation. In fact, you quote him as saying, But implicit in their statement was numerical identity, that Father and Son are of a single divine substance, an aspect brought out by Athanasius in the course of the long struggle following the Council. That you call him "desperate" in this assessment does not change the fact that he states a particular belief that the council taught a single substance. To say otherwise is a misrepresentation.

You also misrepresent Kelly. I also reviewed the book link that you provided in your article which was inspired by him. His conclusion is that the fathers of the council could have viewed "homo-oussious" as I am, or as you do. He cannot be certain, but he does note that at least some of them (mostly westerners) begain preaching single substance almost immediately after the council and this preaching set off Eusebius of Caesarea to reassert Arianism.

Furthermore, when you quote Kelly as saying that the Father and Son are what Kelly describes as “an individual thing as such”, you leave out the the very next sentences, There can be no doubt that, as applied to the Godhead, homo-ousios is susceptible of, and in the last resort requires, the latter meaning. [JD: "latter meaning" is "individual thing"] As later theologians perceived, since the divine nature is immaterial and indivisible, it follows that the Persons of the Godhead Who share it must have, or rather be, one identical substance. The way your phrased it, pulled the Kelly's phrase out context to make it appear to support your position. He does not. This is a misrepresentation.

Jamie Donald said...

[cont from above]

Scripture Usage

You argue that 1) I use Scripture to argue exactly as the Modalists did, and 2) I use the same scriptures the Modalists did. I've already shown that (1) is false. My interpretation does not match the Modalist interpretation. As far as which Scripture to use to support my views, you must be aware that both orthodox and heterodox will use the same Scripture passages, but arrive a different conclusions. In fact, Tertullian made this same point in Against Praxeas. If my conclusions are different than the Modalists, then -- like Tertullian -- I am justified in using the same Scriptures. This in fact highlights the error of their interpretation.

Jamie Donald said...

Use of the Term "God" in the Nicene Creed

Both David and Drake state that "God" is used with two distinctly different meanings in the Nicene Creed. Specifically, when the Creed reads, I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, "God" has a personal meaning. It refers directly to the Father. But the Creed's phrase, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God uses "God" in a nature or essence sense. This allows them to divide essences to number three Beings, while maintaining a single personal God. Going to the Greek they point out that in the New Testament, God the Father -- when being referred to in a personal manner -- is always called "the God" or "ho Theos." But when the Divine Nature is referenced the simple form "Theos" is used. Their observation is that the early Church Fathers used the same convention in reference, therefore this convention must also be in place at Nicea.

Make no mistake. This is a strong set of data. Drake, David, know that I take this very seriously and do not assert that you are necessarily incorrect in this assessment. In fact, you may be entirely correct that the phrase God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God is entirely about nature. However, I would like you to consider, with an open mind, a possible alternative.

Starting from scratch, there are three potentials for the phrase; 1) it refers to nature alone as David and Drake maintain, 2) it serves as a bridge to the next phrase where the Son is identified as consubstantial with the Father (in this bridge, the personal and nature meanings become mixed), and 3) it is a personal usage to emphasize that the Son is God, with the nature or essence being identified in the consubstantial phrase.

In these three potentials, both (2) and (3) serve as a bridge to consubstantiality. Before someone objects to the personal and natural uses of the word "God" being mixed, please recall that a) at this point in time terms were still being defined, and b) Drake holds that the definition of "person" was still ambiguous. That implies a mixed usage is possible.

Now I'd like to go to a very ancient source, Origen. In De Decretis Athanasius references Origen to show that the council used language and meanings that go to the beginning of Christianity. He quotes Origen as saying, that God, who, according to John, is called Light (for 'God is Light'). Just as we use "Word" to name the Son in a personal sense, the context is that "Light" is a personal form for "God," not natural or essences. If we explore Origen further, we will find that in his Commentary on John (Book II, chapter 2) he makes the same point about "ho Theos" and "Theos" in Scripture that David and Drake make. (I did admit their reasoning is very strong on this point.) Origen then concludes, The true God, then, is The God (ho theos). Again, a personal, not nature/essence to the meaning of the word "God."

The members of the Nicene Council had to be aware of Origen's references -- Athanasius says they were. So now the phrase, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God could be a reference to the generation/begetting of a Person, not another nature or essence.

[continued]

Jamie Donald said...

[cont from above]
Another point to consider comes from the law of unintended consequences. Regardless of usage of "Theos" in the Nicene Creed, Drake and David are correct that it has two meanings; one personal and one in regard to essence. Now if we consider Greek mythology, we do not say that the Greeks were monotheists because they held to a single Zeus. In referring to their gods, the term "god" didn't ever identify a single being. Rather it identified those the Greeks believed to have the divine nature. In this usage, "theos" refers to nature or essence and when talking of the Greeks being polytheists, the "theist" root refers to nature/essence/beings, not to individual personalities. This follows directly from the definitions the Nicene Monarchists are using. Since they believe in three distinct beings/natures/"theos's" in the Godhead, their argument that they are not tri-theists rests on an out-of-context usage of "theos" in the personal, rather than nature/essence, manner. This is ad hoc.

In re-reading some of the back-and-forth on David's blog, I came across this statement from Drake, I am not saying that the One God is a platonic idea that the divine persons participate in as in that God-ness is something that all three persons participate in. On my view God-ness is not the same thing as divinity. Only one person is God and that is the Father. God-ness is not something abstract as a divine attribute. God-ness is a hypostatic property of the Father alone. Note something very subtle here. We now have a third, but not formally declared, definition for the word "God" or "theos." It now can mean a) God the Father, b) the Divine Nature/Essence, or c) a property of God the Father (but not of any other Divine Being) in the Nicene Monarchist construct.

This is where Drake repeatedly tells me that I am conflating genus of relation (the specific Relation [Person] God the Father) and genus of nature (or existence or being). Now look at the confusion created. A genus can have properties. One genus is translated as "God," a particular element of another genus is called "God," and there is a property which is also "God." Now there are three things in play which add to the misunderstanding. First, even though I attempt to understand and explain Nicene Monarchism fully in its own terms, I most likely missed a particular context and may have made a reference in one context while thinking I was in another.

[continued]

Jamie Donald said...

[cont from above]
Second, Drake adds to the confusion by not clearly establishing context and by providing conflicting statements. When I showed that theos could refer to either God the Father in particular or to the Divine Nature or Essence, based on context, Drake agreed and thanked me for not being stupid. But he also said, When English speakers ... use the word God, they are thinking of something personal and particular. They are not thinking of a nature. Basically, he criticizes English speakers for not thinking of "God" as a nature. But when I do think of "God" as a nature, he criticizes me by saying, You think the word God pertains to nature. Wouldn't it be less confusing to simply point out that he was using the term in a different context?

Finally, Drake is imposing his thought process on my questions. He knows that I do not come from the same vantage point as he does. For him to sway me to his position, he knows he has to overcome certain differences which are normally called objections. He should not assume that my questions will be asked as if he has already overcome those objections. After all, why ask questions of I have no objections on which to base the questions? Since part of the dialog really does concern what is "God-ness" (to use his rendering) and my vantage point is different, I may apply "God" in a different context than he does. So saying that I'm conflating -- without walking through it -- is really just for him to say that he's right and I'm wrong. It's asserting the conclusion.

Jamie Donald said...

Philosophy and Logic

Drake,

You objected to me saying that God is infinity by replying, God is not finite. You need to think about what you are saying. If God is infinite which is merely a negation of an already existing finite reality, isn't then the infinite therefore dependent on a rejection of creation ex nihilo, and the existence of finite objects, thus making the finite supreme and the infinite subordinate to the dependency it has on the finite?

My initial comment is that in your response, you first tell me what God is: "not finite." I should point out that "not finite" is merely a negation of an already existing finite reality ... which leads to your own objection applying to your own description.

Additionally, you define Divine Persons as being "incorporeal rational persons." But "incorporeal" is merely a negation of "corporeal." By the same logic, you have the incorporeal God being subordinate to the dependency it has on the corporeal.

If your own objection goes against your own views, then perhaps the objection isn't so valid.

Separable and Inseparable

When you say, One being is not inseparable from itself, you employ a double negative. Essentially, you say that one being is separable from itself. However, it seems to me that you are creating three distinctions; 1) separable, 2) inseparable, and 3) singularities. However, I will show that singularities are a subset of inseparable items. When you say, there must be a plurality of subjects as a prerequisite to even consider inseparability, you are confusing the action of doing with the action of considering. Just because you can't do something, that does not mean you can't consider it. Many proofs are accomplished by first considering something, then showing that particular consideration leads to a contradiction. Thus, the thing considered cannot actually be accomplished.

In the case of single items being inseparable, the proof goes like this.

LEMMA: A singular item is inseparable.
PROOF:
1) Consider the singular item to be separable
2) By definition of separable, the singular item can be split into a minimum of 2 parts
3) But the singular item is 1 part
4) This means that 1 = 2 which is a contradiction.
Therefore, the first consideration must be false and singular items are not separable. They are inseparable. QED.

The proof that mono-ousious is also homo-ousious is almost identical.

Jamie Donald said...

Unity

Drake,

Your responses to my thoughts on the very intimate unity of the Persons in the Godhead show that you missed my point. I said that God (each of the 3 Persons) experiences unity differently than you and I do. A difference is not a negation. It does not mean that one side of the comparison does not exist. Nor does it mean that two things being different (i.e. not identical) equates to them being mutually exclusive. A difference does not necessarily make the distance between them infinite.

Further, you do realize that saying, The univocal proportion is that when we are talking about a divine or a human person we are speaking about a particular mind and will. The way these people relate is different. is merely an assertion? In one of your responses to TOm, you referenced (via your blog) both Hippolytus' Against Noetus and Hilary of Poitiers' On the Trinity Book VIII. But Hippolytus says that For the Son is the one mind of the Father, in direct contrast to you claiming multiple minds and wills. This is in chapter 7 where he still maintains that They are separate Persons (but still one mind).

In chapter 54 of On the Trinity, Hilary writes, within the Godhead there is no difference or dissimilarity. In chapter 55 he says that the fullness of the Godhead is in Christ and it neither solitary nor separable meaning that the divine nature in the Son is not numerically unique nor apart from the nature of the Father. This is evident as Hilary follows with, this fullness must be held one in nature with Christ. He continues in chapter 56 telling us that this is a concept of "whole of whole," meaning that the Nature of the Son is the entirety of the Godhead (as is of the Father and the Spirit). Not three distinct natures. He concludes with, Two are one, and so one, that the One Who is God does not differ from the Other Who is God: Both so equally divine, as a perfect birth engendered perfect God. And the birth exists thus in its perfection, because the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in God born of God.

There are other examples from On the Trinity (the document you referenced), such as chapter 39, He Who is not one person cannot multiply into two Gods, nor on the other hand can They Who are not two Gods be understood to be one single person. The Modalist argument was that there must be one god, one person; and that the Trinitarians were really saying there were a multiple of gods, or tritheism. Hilary's answer was that the plural references to God preclude a singular person (first half of the quote), while a multiple of persons still is not a multiple of dieties -- the Two are One.

That he is not arguing against my position of 3 Persons in 1 God is clear. From chapter 41, So then the one faith is, to confess the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father through the unity of an indivisible nature, not confused but inseparable, not intermingled but identical, not conjoined but coexisting, not incomplete but perfect. For there is birth not separation, there is a Son not an adoption; and He is God, not a creature. Neither is He a God of a different kind, but the Father and Son are one.

Jamie Donald said...

I'm done with replies to comments that came during my vacation. Again, thank you for your patience. -- Jamie

PS Please forgive any typos.

Fr Aidan Kimel said...

Wow! I'm sure glad I don't have a dog in this hunt.

Just a couple thoughts and I will quickly disappear.

First, I doubt that one can determine a dogmatically binding meaning of homoousios based on the 325 Council of Nicaea. After all, both Marcellus of Ancyra and Eusebius of Caesarea attended the council and subscribed to its creed. The one thing we can confidently say is that Nicaea effectively excluded the views of Arius.

Second, whatever it means to speak of three divine persons or subsistences, it does not mean the dividing up of the divine ousia. All of the Church Fathers affirmed the divine simplicity (though they probably did not understand that simplicity as it later came to be understood in the Latin scholastic tradition). As G. L. Prestige writes, "Yet the whole unvaried common substance, being incomposite, is identical with the whole unvaried being of each Person; there is no question of accidents attaching to it; the entire substance of the Son is the same as the entire substance of the Father: the individuality is only the manner in which the identical substance is objectively presented in each several Person" (*God in Patristic Thought*, p. 244).

In any case, this is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be lived. The dogmatic definitions do not explain the trinitarian mystery; they assert the mystery and set the boundaries for theological speculation.

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

In my second reply I would like to begin by pointing out a typo. Above I said, “>>>I have had this conversation probably a hundred times. God is not finite. You need to think about what you are saying.” That was supposed to say God is not ***In***finite. My apologies.
In summary:

You have still failed to grasp your conflation of the genus of relation with the genus of being.

You have failed to escape the materialism of Aristotle.

You still do not understand your conflation of generic and numeric nature.

You have failed to prove that the Triune position does not use the same arguments from the same scriptures as the Sabellians. You merely tried to escape with an ad hoc use of the word person.

Your treatment of Davis and Kelly on Homoousios was inexcusable.

You went into left field on the analogy of proportion issue and merely claimed that my definition of univocality was an assertion which I refuted from Prov 23:7.

You completely avoided the hypostatic union issue. Tell me, if the categories of divine and human are mutually exclusive, does this not preclude a hypostatic union?

You also avoided the infinity problem. (Yes I replied to the incorporeal counter below)

You ignored this statement, “I never said that generic unity is the unity of the godhead. I actually remember rejecting that idea. The Father is the principle of unity in the Godhead. You are conflating nature and person.

I think you are operating off a misrepresentation that I received last year:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/2321/”


Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“I also note that each of the references Drake provided (whether ancient like Early Church Fathers, or more recent such as Davis or Kelly) avoided descriptions leading to three distinct, unique beings; while maintaining separation in the Persons constituting the Trinity.”

>>>I never stated that the three persons were unique beings. I have always maintained that they are homoousios.

“I find it humorous to read that this concept is to be called Nicene Monarchism, followed by the quote, ... I am not using it like the Nicene Creed .... I understand that the intent was to express differences in context. But this particular expression is a very poor way of saying it, and the expression adds to the confusion in usage of terms. ”

>>>And I already clarified it. By Nicene Creed I meant the modern English translation of the Nicene Creed.

“It is this confusion that allows Drake to criticize me for not thinking of "God" as a nature”

>>>I did not say that you do not think of God as a nature. I said you **do** think of God as a nature and not a person. So far you have misrepresented every statement you have replied to.

“For example, Origen calls the Father "Light" much in the same way we call the Son "the Word." He also says that "The God" (ho Theos) is "True God." Both of these are references to a person and not a nature. With this in mind, the phrase, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, can be referring to generation of a person and not a nature. To simply put forth that the particular meaning is of necessity pertaining to a nature is begging the question.”

>>>Quoting Origen is diversionary. Origen is not my opponent here. You are.

“Additionally, when Drake (more than once) calls the more traditional view of the Trinity "pantheism,"

>>>I did not say that the more traditional doctrine of the Trinity is Pantheism. I said and I quote,
“On your paradigm of knowledge, everything gains meaning only as it relates to physical phenomenon and I think that is indicative of the Pantheism from which Christian Anchoretic theology sprung”

and again

“Which is a conflation between the genus of relation and the genus of being and really reveals an underlining materialist pantheism.”

My point is that pantheism is historically the philosophy from which Neoplatonic Christians defined many terms. This then adds to the confusions of the Triune construction. I have openly argued that the traditional trinity doctrine is inconsistent in taking the monad of Neoplatonism and not following through with full out pantheism.

“I further expand on this and show that there is yet a third, but unvoiced contextual definition of "God" based on context.”

>>>I have publicly acknowledged that there are 6 different definitions of God. I stated,
“I have found that the word “God” can mean at least 6 things in this discussion: 1. The Father/Monarchy; Concreted person; 2. The Divine Nature; abstract substance; or that an uncreated person possesses a divine nature 3. Godhead 4.Source of operation; 5. Auto-theos: that is uncaused 6. An indirect sense in that the Logos and the Holy Spirit are called God as they inter-dwell (perichoresis) and are consubstantial with the Father.”

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/full-refutation-of-steve-hays-theology-proper

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“Finally, Drake does redefine "Sabellianism/Modalism" from its historical context. While this is not a part of the description of Nicene Monarchism, it is used in defending NM by attacking other belief sets and is a redefinition.”

>>>Assertion, not an argument or an explanation.

“Additionally, both the Early Church Fathers and the CCC give the sense that when we say "God" generically, we are referring to the Father.”

>>>I would despair of finding a better example of how you just conflated generic with numeric nature.

“Would you be able to work with a person who had a lesser understanding (than I do), but was still trying to accurately portray and come to grips with what you write?”

>>>Everyday.

“Do you realize, that the way you phrased it, you called every reader of this blog who does not have my level of understanding, "stupid?"”

>>>No, just every apologist that has tried to criticize me on this issue and never grasped the difference between generic and numeric unity while publicly prying into my personal life and trying to publicly humiliate me. Case in point Sean Gerety. Yes, I admit and will openly affirm without apology that Sean Gerety is in fact stupid.

“I can (and do) think of reality in both material and immaterial terms. ”

>>>But my question concerns an account. How can you give an account of that without abandoning Aristotle’s metaphysics and epistemology? In order for abstract numbers to be given an account, you must be able to distinguish numeric substances with your sensations. That has been shown to be impossible.

See here: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/the-failure-of-secular-philosophy-to-the-university-of-louisville/

“That's because the term "space" means something different in mathematics than it does in the material world.”

>>>Which proves you can give no account of numerical abstract objects.

“You and I may read something that talks about horses in a barn. This will generate an idea in each of our minds.”

>>>So then images are the root of abstraction? My problem with that is Francis Galton showed that not all men have images and the assumption is solipsism.

“If two items have no distance (at all) between them, then they are said to be equal”

>>>I don’t say that. This is your conflation between the genus of relation and the genus of being.

“Then the only difference between those two ideas is in location.”

>>>Wrong: There are distinct mental faculties that make those ideas possible and there are other ideas in those minds. I can attest that I have more than one idea in my mind.

“But applying this analogy means that the persons in the Godhead are unique beings; because you assert three numeric essences which, while equivalent, have some distance and are not equal”

>>>The word distance is just another word for space which is a word that has failed to be defined. I have always stated that the natures, the attributes are generically equal but the properties distinct. You will have to weed through the preceding problems before I reply more.

“What is to say that you necessarily generated substance in me”

>>>I did not say that the human example was jointly exhaustive with the divine constitution. I understand and believe that all activity in the economia is not necessary to the divine nature.

“rather than modifying my already existing substance?”

>>>The analogy was not intended to prove a generation at the level of nature but at the level of hypostasis.

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“Because once the idea is in my mind, I have the abiliy to change it (my copy)”

>>>That is because it pertains to hypostasis.

“but you no longer hold any sway over my copy, can you even say they are the same substance? I ask these questions to get you to take a closer look. Perhaps your analogy is merely an assertion.”

>>>Perhaps you misrepresented my words just like you have done many times already.

“Thought is the nature and ideas are the various relations of thought.”

>>>No. Thought is the activity of the being/The mind. The ideas are not relations but objects which relate to each other. I would think omniscience would be the relation between the ideas.

“So you have one idea and it leads to a second idea in your thought process. The second idea is generated from the first. ”

>>>I never said that. You are getting way off topic now

“I find your use of Tertullian to
be interesting. I do not object to Tertullian as a witness on this topic, but it must be noted that he wrote Against Praxeas after falling into the heresy of Montanism”

>>>Let’s see if that point is shown to be necessarily relevant to our discussion or just a diversion to try and confuse your opponent.

“Second, Tertullian defines Sabellianism as maintaining that there is one only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this doctrine of the unity ... that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ. This quote comes from the 2nd and 3rd sentences of Against Praxeus. ”

>>>That is more of a denotation than a connotation.

“Since I do not maintain a single person in a single being as constituting God, your charge that I say is exactly what the Sabellians taught is inaccurate. ”

>>>You have not connotatively proved that. Typing out the words
“three persons” does not prove to me that you have a different meaning than the Sabellians.

“Notice that he is stating a commonality of substance with a multiple of persons”

>>>Can you show me where he distinguishes generic from numeric substance and denies that the Godhead contains three minds and wills? I am not saying that the pre-nicene fathers have it absolutely right. I just think they are better than the Cappadocians.

Again he states in C 25

“These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of ****unity**** of substance not singularity of number.”

Notice the issue is relation not numeric nature.

You say,

“However, since I do not hold "One in One," but instead believe Tertullian's Three in One”

>>>Tertullian just told you he does not believe that one pertains to number but to relation of unity. So you do not hold to Tertullian and I am not saying I do fully either. But his opponent is a Sabellian and the sabellian made all the same arguments from the same scriptures as every triunist apologist I have met and since you mentioned the 9 to 5 guy this is my primary concern, not all the confusing metaphysical language.

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“I know you are not a fan of Athanasius, asserting that he maintained a "confused" definition of "person" throughout his career. However, the quote you provided from Davis -- as presented in your reply -- is nothing more than the assertion of an opinion. It is not a proof. While it does demonstrate that both Davis and Prestige may agree with your position, it does not prove that the position is correct nor that it is the actual position taken at Nicea.”

>>>I have shown that Athanasius is confused here:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/eternal-generation-is-the-hypostasis-of-the-son-alone-generated-or-was-the-sons-being-generated-as-well-in-athanasius/

stating,

“For as the Beginning is one Essence, so Its Word is one,essential, and subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as He is God from God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so is He from Subsistence Subsistent, and from Essence Essential and Substantive, and *****Being from Being******.”

Two beings! Yet I know he says contradictory things in other places. I have also shown from the Davis and Kelly quotations that the word Homoousios meant generic unity of multiple things not one thing.

“Nicea definitely meant A, so Athanasius went too far;" then come back to those providing critical analysis and say that Nicea didn't have a definite meaning established.”

>>>I never said Nicea did not have a definite meaning established.
They did, per Davis and Kelly, it meant generic unity, sourced in the Father.

“You misrepresent Davis when you say that his claim was that Nicea specifically taught against my interpretation. In fact, you quote him as saying, But implicit in their statement was numerical identity, that Father and Son are of a single divine substance, an aspect brought out by Athanasius in the course of the long struggle following the Council. That you call him "desperate" in this assessment does not change the fact that he states a particular belief that the council taught a single substance. To say otherwise is a misrepresentation.”

>>>The fact that you admitted that I added his own interpretation only supplements the fact that I ****didn’t**** misrepresent Davis!

He added his interpretation and it was contradictory to what he admitted they meant. I added his interpretation so no one could accuse me of butchering his quotes and here you are doing that exact thing. You have shown yourself to have a reputation for misrepresenting me in this thread.

“You also misrepresent Kelly. ”

>>>Show it. Can you show that I butchered the quotation or took it out of context? No you cannot. I added no commentary on that blog. I simply quoted him.

“His conclusion is that the fathers of the council could have viewed "homo-oussious" as I am, or as you do.”

>>>That flatly contradicts what he said in the book.

“Furthermore, when you quote Kelly as saying that the Father and Son are what Kelly describes as “an individual thing as such, you leave out the the very next sentences, There can be no doubt that, as applied to the Godhead, homo-ousios is susceptible of, and in the last resort requires, the latter meaning. [JD: "latter meaning" is "individual thing"] As later theologians perceived, since the divine nature is immaterial and indivisible, it follows that the Persons of the Godhead Who share it must have, or rather be, one identical substance. The way your phrased it, pulled the Kelly's phrase out context to make it appear to support your position. He does not. This is a misrepresentation.”

>>>You are a dishonest man. He was giving his view not what the Nicene Fathers taught. Let’s see the very next statement after what you quoted:

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“Furthermore, when you quote Kelly as saying that the Father and Son are what Kelly describes as “an individual thing as such, you leave out the the very next sentences, There can be no doubt that, as applied to the Godhead, homo-ousios is susceptible of, and in the last resort requires, the latter meaning. [JD: "latter meaning" is "individual thing"] As later theologians perceived, since the divine nature is immaterial and indivisible, it follows that the Persons of the Godhead Who share it must have, or rather be, one identical substance. The way your phrased it, pulled the Kelly's phrase out context to make it appear to support your position. He does not. This is a misrepresentation.”

>>>You are a dishonest man. He was giving his view not what the Nicene Fathers taught. Let’s see the very next statement after what you quoted:

“But the question is whether this idea was prominent in the minds of the Nicene Fathers, or rather of that group among them whose influence may be presumed to lie behind the creed. The great majority of scholars have answered unhesitatingly in the affirmative. Indeed, the doctrine of numerical identity of substance has been widely assumed to have been the specific teaching of the Nicene council. Nevertheless there are the strongest possible reasons for doubting this.”

I seriously considered ending our dialogue after proving your dishonest character here but I will strive forward.

“You argue that 1) I use Scripture to argue exactly as the Modalists did, and 2) I use the same scriptures the Modalists did. I've already shown that (1) is false. ”

>>>Nope you just thought typing out the word person and denying it proved anything. I want to know what you mean behind the words you are using. Saying you don’t believe in the modalistic one person while yourself believing the trinity to be only one being is ad hoc.

“This is where Drake repeatedly tells me that I am conflating genus of relation (the specific Relation [Person] God the Father) and genus of nature (or existence or being).”

>>>No, you conflate the genus of relation and with the genus of being when you say that unity means one numeric thing. Here you are conflating generic and numeric nature. You think that a person is a relation not me.

“A genus can have properties. ”

>>I never said that.

“Additionally, you define Divine Persons as being "incorporeal rational persons." But "incorporeal" is merely a negation of "corporeal." By the same logic, you have the incorporeal God being subordinate to the dependency it has on the corporeal.”

>>>But that language only applies to my perspective as a creature in the economia. It is not an eternal reality. You think that God is infinite absolutely, irrespective of a creature perceiving him so, or should I say it. I could avoid the word incorporeal and say "absolutely intellectual" and my system is not affected a wit. You on the other hand know very well that God's infinitude is woven into every bit of your system.

“When you say, One being is not inseparable from itself, you employ a double negative. Essentially, you say that one being is separable from itself.”

>>>But I said that as a criticism of your view not my view.

“Further, you do realize that saying, The univocal proportion is that when we are talking about a divine or a human person we are speaking about a particular mind and will. The way these people relate is different. is merely an assertion? ”

>>>No it is not. Prov 23:7 defines a person as a thinking mind.

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“But Hippolytus says that For the Son is the one mind of the Father, in direct contrast to you claiming multiple minds and wills. This is in chapter 7 where he still maintains that They are separate Persons (but still one mind).”

>>>I never said I agreed with everything Hippolytus says. I simply said that him and Tertullian exposed that the Triunists use the same arguments from the same passages as the Sabellians.

“meaning that the divine nature in the Son is not numerically unique”

>>That is your interpretation. The rest of your Hilary statements pertains to relation not being.

Jamie Donald said...

Drake,

You and I are both passionate about the faith. So I expect some form of direct (vs passive) language. For example, we both use the term "misrepresent" (which is more active and to the point) rather than "misunderstood" (which by comparison is more gentle and passive). That's OK. We both do it, and it seems to me to stay centered on the ideas voiced.

However, I neither expect, nor can tolerate, the ad hominem. When you bring up Sean -- by name -- then malign his person, that is the very definition of ad hominem. When he is not even participating in the discussions on Paul's blog, your assassination of his character is nothing less than gratuitous. It is definitely uncalled for.

In a similar manner, your attack on my person is also wrong. Period. I have debated as to whether or not I should respond to your ad hominem. I'm sure that which ever way I decide, someone will disagree with my approach. And after much consideration, I am defending myself against your charge.

First, to be dishonest, one must knowingly communicate a falsehood with the intent to deceive. It is insufficient to show that the communication contained errors. Those errors must be coupled with the person knowing them and still taking the deliberate action to pass them on with the specific intent to hide the truth from the receiver. Even if you could show that my interpretation of Kelly is erroneous; you cannot show that I am aware of that error, nor that I intended to hide the truth from anyone. Since my communication cannot be shown to be dishonest, neither can my being or character be shown in such a light.

You must remember the context in which my criticism was given. I believe you misrepresent Kelly. My obligation is to show the areas where you missed the mark. There is no necessary obligation to provide an affirmation of the single point you got right. Furthermore, since you pointed me to Kelly's book, any attempt on my part to hide a truth which he may speak would be absolutely ridiculous. In order to show my point, I will have to provide a detailed critique of your treatment of Kelly. Once this critique is laid out, it will be obvious that I had no intent to deceive anyone.

First, you challenge me, "Show it. Can you show that I butchered the quotation or took it out of context? No you cannot. I added no commentary on that blog. I simply quoted him." Please note, that I said you "misrepresented," not "butchered." Use of this term is being emotional in an attempt to misdirect. "Out of context" is correct. To say that you added no commentary on your blog is an equivocation. Recall that you pointed my to your blog by saying, "This is in direct contrast to the sense they were rejecting which sense Davis describes as 'numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being' and Kelly describes as 'an individual thing as such'." This is a gloss which does add commentary. Further, on your blog, you have an ellipsis that deletes four sentences. This deletion of content, and consequently putting two disjointed concepts together as though they were connected, can and does change the meaning of the quotation. Further, Kelly addresses the topic over several pages, not simply 234-235 as you state in your blog. Your editting choices of gloss, ellipsis, and termination prior to the end of Kelly's discussion cause you to misrepresent him.

[continued]

Jamie Donald said...

[cont from above]
Now I will present a review of what Kelly says over the several pages. I will provide page numbers, but not necessarily detailed quotes. You have the ability to look them up. Kelly says,

1. When applied to the Godhead, "homoousios" must have the Persons of the Godhead be "one identical Substance." (pg 234)

2. When questioned if this is what the Fathers at Nicea meant, the majority of scholars say, "yes." (pg 234)

3. However, Kelly sees strong reasons for a disagreement, including usage before/after the council and that the purpose of the council was to outlaw Arianism (pgs 234 - 236)

4. In spite of strong reason for disagreement (with the majority of scholars), there is data that support the scholars as at least some writers (Eustathius of Antioch, Ossius of Cordoba) used it in the identical substance sense. (pg 236)

5. To promote political stability, Constantine purposely allowed almost any interpretation. It should be noted that in making this point, Kelly says, "Whatever the theology of the council was, Constantine's own overriding motive ..." The "Whatever" clause indicates that Kelly cannot definitively say one way or the other what the Council's meaning for "homooussia" was. (pgs 236 - 237)

Now let's compare how we each treat points made by Kelly.

Point 1. This is Kelly's personal view. You used ellipses and gloss to make it look like he had the opposite view. I supplied the sentences hidden via ellipses to point out your misrepresentation.

Point 2. Your ellipses missed the "majority of scholars," but you did include, "Indeed, the doctrine of numerical identity of substance has been widely assumed to have been the specific teaching of the Nicene Council." So you have included a weak reference. I did not cover this as it appeared to me that we agreed, most scholars believe Kelly's personal belief that is outlined in point 1.

Point 3. This is what you believe and you quoted it. I gave assent when I said that Kelly's "His conclusion is that the fathers of the council could have viewed "homo-oussious" as I am, or as you do." in the "or as you do" clause. This assent shows that I am not attempting to hide facts nor deceive.

Point 4. You never addressed. Your own editting terminated prior to this point. I addressed it saying, "he does note that at least some of them (mostly westerners) begain preaching single substance almost immediately after the council and this preaching set off Eusebius of Caesarea to reassert Arianism."

Point 5. You never addressed. Your own editting terminated prior to this point. I addressed it by saying that Kelly "cannot be certain," and that he would allow for either of our interpretations.

In short, I used the entire section to discern Kelly's views and understanding of history. You only used half of the section, omitted areas that are counter to your viewpoint, and used ellipses and gloss to make it appear that Kelly's personal belief is the same as yours; even though it is not.

If you think that using the entire context to discern someone's thoughts is "dishonest," then I think you need to relearn the definition of the word.

[continued]

Jamie Donald said...

[cont from above]
But what I find particularly fascinating is that at some level, you already knew you were misrepresenting Kelly (and Davis). In your back-and-forth with JNorm on 10 - 11 SEP 2012, he also accused you of this, saying, “I think you're misinterpreting both Leo Donald Davis as well as J.N.D. Kelly. From what I'm seeing, you look at the word 'Individual' in their writing and you insert all kinds of other stuff into it. I don't think they mean what you think they mean." Your reply started, "I may be saying things they themselves would not believe."

There is no dishonesty in interpretting these men in the same manner that you admit they would interpret themselves.

You should retract your ad hominem and offer an apology.

徐马可 said...

Jaime,

I don't think Drake argues that Kelly's personal view is generic substance, as you have shown, it is obvious Kelly holds to numeric substance not generic.

I think the point of the section Drake commonly quotes is to show 1) Kelly admits many scholars think numeric substance was intended by the Council; 2) Kelly admits there is a strong doubt for the above scholarly consensus. That being said, although he personally holds to a numeric substance, he thinks the Council may have another idea in mind. This is my reading of what Kelly is saying.

So no intent at all to trying to make people believe as if Kelly and Davis hold to generic substance, sure they don't.

Thanks,

Mark

P.S. My own humble reading of pre-Nicea fathers and Eusibius' letter to the congregation, makes numeric substance almost impossible, as the strong subordinationism in these fathers. Per Eusibius, that word "homoousios" simply means Christ is really the Son of God, or He really is begotten by God.

Jamie Donald said...

Mark,

Thank you for your thoughts. Please remember that my most recent comments were as a defense against an ad hominem. I do not have the impression that Drake would accept me simply telling him that I had no intent to deceive or mislead. So that leaves me with the option of being silent or providing a detail of my thought process. And as you have read, Drake did ask for those details.

In that light, I have provided the details and my process. I think that anyone who reads it will say that I arrived at my conclusions honestly -- that is with no intent to deceive. Having said that, I fully acknowledge that it is possible that I could be misinterpretting either Kelly or Drake. However, that does not mean that the (supposed) error was purposely put forward as a lie.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello all, I truly appreciate all of the folks who have visited my site and have taken the time to read and/or interact with Mr. Donald's post. However, I would ask that those folks who choose to leave comments here not resort to ad hominem. Unlike the Calvinist websites I sometimes participate on, I do not edit, censor or delete comments left here as a general rule and I encourage dialogue and debate whether it is arguing to consensus or merely to inquire. However, ad hominem comments do not honor Our Lord and diminish our efforts to offer the reasons for our hope as they are being offered without respect or charity for others. As a practical matter, it also diminishes the chances that you will convince others that your position has merit.

That said, while browsing the comments left here by Drake, I must ask if your views are affected at all by the fact that SS. Basil and the two Gregory redefined terms in what is sometimes known as the "Cappadocian settlement" so that ousia and hypostasis are less synonymous than they were at the time of Nicea I? Further, how are the notions of perichoresis and koinonia actualized when the Father is the "One God" and the Logos and the Holy Spirit are subordinate within the Immanent Trinity? I have no problem with recognizing that God the Father is the origin and the source of the Godhead. The Logos is eternally begotten from Him and the Spirit proceeds from Him, but does not the Logos and the Spirit both share in that attribute of the Father in the perichoresis or as we would say in the West, circumincession? The fact that the Father is the source and origin of the other two Persons does not mean that His Role within the Immanent or Economic Trinity compels one to believe that the Father has some sort of superiority over the Son and the Spirit because there was never a time when they were not the Son or the Holy Spirit. God bless!

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,


“Since my communication cannot be shown to be dishonest, neither can my being or character be shown in such a light.”

>>>You ended the quotation from Kelly right before he discussed what the Nicene Fathers meant by the use of homoousios in the Nicene creed ****which was the very point at issue.*** I stand by my accusation.


“You must remember the context in which my criticism was given. I believe you misrepresent Kelly.”

>>By Kelly, do you mean’s Kelly’s personal position or do you mean Kelly’s ACCOUNT OF THE NICENE FATHERS’ POSITION?

“Point 1. This is Kelly's personal view. You used ellipses and gloss to make it look like he had the opposite view. I supplied the sentences hidden via ellipses to point out your misrepresentation.”

>>>I have never stated that Kelly taught a generic unity. I have always admitted that Kelly’s and Davis’ view is numeric identity.

“Point 2. Your ellipses missed the "majority of scholars,"

>>>And I never stated that other scholars do not hold to that error. I never stated that all scholars agree with me. I stated that Davis and Kelly do: NOT PERSONALLY BUT IN THEIR ACCOUNT OF WHAT THE NICENE FATHERS MEANT.

“but you did include, "Indeed, the doctrine of numerical identity of substance has been widely assumed to have been the specific teaching of the Nicene Council." So you have included a weak reference.”

>>>Weak reference? The man said that there are the strongest reasons for doubting the numerical gloss of Nicea 325. I quoted Davis and Kelly to the effect that Nicea 325 meant generic unity and that they admit. I never stated or linked any quotation that said all scholars agree with generic unity so your obstinacy is inexcusable. I cannot believe I am even wasting my time with this anymore.

“Point 4. You never addressed. Your own editting terminated prior to this point. I addressed it saying, "he does note that at least some of them (mostly westerners) begain preaching single substance almost immediately after the council and this preaching set off Eusebius of Caesarea to reassert Arianism."

>>>It is irrelevant. Why should I address diversions?

“Point 5. You never addressed. Your own editting terminated prior to this point. I addressed it by saying that Kelly "cannot be certain," and that he would allow for either of our interpretations.”

>>>It is irrelevant. Why should I address diversions?


“In short, I used the entire section to discern Kelly's views and understanding of history. You only used half of the section, omitted areas that are counter to your viewpoint”


>>>You showed nothing counter to my viewpoint.

“and used ellipses and gloss to make it appear that Kelly's personal belief is the same as yours; even though it is not.”

>>>I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth. I’m done here.

Drake Shelton said...

Jamie,

“But what I find particularly fascinating is that at some level, you already knew you were misrepresenting Kelly (and Davis). In your back-and-forth with JNorm on 10 - 11 SEP 2012, he also accused you of this, saying, “I think you're misinterpreting both Leo Donald Davis as well as J.N.D. Kelly. From what I'm seeing, you look at the word 'Individual' in their writing and you insert all kinds of other stuff into it. I don't think they mean what you think they mean." Your reply started, "I may be saying things they themselves would not believe."


>>>Your reading comprehension is a burden. Just to make things very clear, I have never, ever, ever stated that Davis and Kelly personally hold to generic unity and the quotation that you provided gives even more evidence of that. You don’t want to have to face my argument that the meaning of the Nicene Creed 325 was generic and in your obstinacy you are refusing to deal honestly with what is before you and thus to protect yourself from having to deal rationally with what is before you, you are trying to strain every gnat you can to gather some personal case against me. I have seen this in one too many people and I have no time for it. I’m done here.

Jamie Donald said...

Drake,

Thank you for being clear that you maintain your ad hominem. Since you seem to be either unwilling or unable to avoid the use of ad hominem when engaging with thoughts which are alien or counter to your own, I will leave you be and cease my interaction with you.

I am saddened that this conversation has come to this abrupt close, because I had wanted to address other points you made. If in the future you should find yourself both willing and able to engage in conversation without the ad hominem, please contact me at james.donald@yahoo.com

Paul Hoffer said...

Drake, The problem as I see your argument with whether Nicea I was advocating generic unity vs. numeric unity is that it could have been appealing to both. The statements were vague enough to satisfy both as Constantine was not concerned with the theological issues but political ones-the main one was keeping the empire out of turmoil.

As for whether another person is dealing with your arguments "honestly," the comment section is better suited for parsing statements than for making general arguments. If you would like, send me by e-mail the links to any articles where you have expressed your view on generic unity vs. numerical unity so that we all have the benefit of having your argument in one (numerically) piece as opposed to being spread out over many detached comments sharing only the generic unity of being posted on this one blog.

God bless!

Jamie Donald said...

Paul,

I do not know whether or not Drake has e-mailed you (per your request above), but he has followed your request in spirit and posted a "bare bones" definition at his blog.

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/bare-bones-definition-of-nicene-monarchism/

There are a few links within the blog which provide a further definition and I suggest reading those links as well. Additionally, he links back here.

As I intimated in the original piece, there is not much in the way of disagreement with the "bare bones" definition. Rather the disagreement comes from the answers to questions such as, "What do you mean by ... ?"

I do not want to say any more at this point until I can be certain that the conversation will go without the ad hominem attacks.

Drake,
I again offer the olive branch and say that I'm willing to resume dialog -- even start fresh with this "bare bones" definition -- if you are. However, my condition is that the dialog must be about the ideas expressed and avoid ad hominem. The ball is in your court.