tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post7473646374423920069..comments2023-10-22T09:35:50.702-05:00Comments on Spes mea Christus!: A Reflection on the Holy Spirit: A Guest Post by Jamie DonaldPaul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-37889645457527703652013-03-29T06:08:05.419-05:002013-03-29T06:08:05.419-05:00Paul,
I do not know whether or not Drake has e-ma...Paul,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/bare-bones-definition-of-nicene-monarchism/<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 ... ?"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Drake,<br />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.Jamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-32789029827403265972013-03-23T08:57:12.225-05:002013-03-23T08:57:12.225-05:00Drake, The problem as I see your argument with whe...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-50803623177937510372013-03-23T08:52:43.783-05:002013-03-23T08:52:43.783-05:00Drake,
Thank you for being clear that you maintai...Drake,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.comJamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-31705595928643911192013-03-23T02:31:24.125-05:002013-03-23T02:31:24.125-05:00Jamie,
“But what I find particularly fascinating...Jamie, <br /><br />“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."<br /><br /><br />>>>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.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-41679904436207622802013-03-23T02:31:06.702-05:002013-03-23T02:31:06.702-05:00Jamie,
“Since my communication cannot be shown ...Jamie, <br /><br /><br />“Since my communication cannot be shown to be dishonest, neither can my being or character be shown in such a light.”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br /><br />“You must remember the context in which my criticism was given. I believe you misrepresent Kelly.”<br /><br />>>By Kelly, do you mean’s Kelly’s personal position or do you mean Kelly’s ACCOUNT OF THE NICENE FATHERS’ POSITION? <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>I have never stated that Kelly taught a generic unity. I have always admitted that Kelly’s and Davis’ view is numeric identity. <br /><br />“Point 2. Your ellipses missed the "majority of scholars,"<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“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."<br /><br />>>>It is irrelevant. Why should I address diversions?<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>It is irrelevant. Why should I address diversions?<br /><br /><br />“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”<br /><br /><br />>>>You showed nothing counter to my viewpoint. <br /><br />“and used ellipses and gloss to make it appear that Kelly's personal belief is the same as yours; even though it is not.”<br /><br />>>>I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth. I’m done here. <br /><br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-64712574076302744052013-03-22T21:54:59.219-05:002013-03-22T21:54:59.219-05:00Hello all, I truly appreciate all of the folks who...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.<br /><br />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! Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-25494560472434191732013-03-22T16:54:48.444-05:002013-03-22T16:54:48.444-05:00Mark,
Thank you for your thoughts. Please rememb...Mark,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Jamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-21355356932737383042013-03-22T14:25:56.733-05:002013-03-22T14:25:56.733-05:00Jaime,
I don't think Drake argues that Kelly&...Jaime,<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />So no intent at all to trying to make people believe as if Kelly and Davis hold to generic substance, sure they don't.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Mark<br /><br />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.徐马可https://www.blogger.com/profile/09841500062485778894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-9817800930037011942013-03-22T13:28:56.747-05:002013-03-22T13:28:56.747-05:00[cont from above]
But what I find particularly fas...[cont from above]<br />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."<br /><br />There is no dishonesty in interpretting these men in the same manner that you admit they would interpret themselves.<br /><br />You should retract your ad hominem and offer an apology.Jamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-26251122411661306572013-03-22T13:28:10.416-05:002013-03-22T13:28:10.416-05:00[cont from above]
Now I will present a review of w...[cont from above]<br />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,<br /><br />1. When applied to the Godhead, "homoousios" must have the Persons of the Godhead be "one identical Substance." (pg 234)<br /><br />2. When questioned if this is what the Fathers at Nicea meant, the majority of scholars say, "yes." (pg 234)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />Now let's compare how we each treat points made by Kelly.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />[continued]Jamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-76609465833043224002013-03-22T13:25:38.920-05:002013-03-22T13:25:38.920-05:00Drake,
You and I are both passionate about the fa...Drake,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />[continued]Jamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-89932967288906513552013-03-18T02:05:52.575-05:002013-03-18T02:05:52.575-05:00Jamie,
“But Hippolytus says that For the Son is ...Jamie, <br /><br />“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).”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“meaning that the divine nature in the Son is not numerically unique”<br /><br />>>That is your interpretation. The rest of your Hilary statements pertains to relation not being.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-67188529678866539622013-03-18T02:05:29.963-05:002013-03-18T02:05:29.963-05:00Jamie,
“Furthermore, when you quote Kelly as say...Jamie, <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>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: <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />I seriously considered ending our dialogue after proving your dishonest character here but I will strive forward. <br /> <br />“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. ”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“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).”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“A genus can have properties. ”<br /><br />>>I never said that. <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>But I said that as a criticism of your view not my view. <br /><br />“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? ”<br /><br />>>>No it is not. Prov 23:7 defines a person as a thinking mind. <br /><br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-78955503830828796822013-03-18T02:01:18.960-05:002013-03-18T02:01:18.960-05:00Jamie,
“I know you are not a fan of Athanasius, ...Jamie, <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>I have shown that Athanasius is confused here:<br /><br />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/<br /><br />stating, <br /><br />“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******.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>I never said Nicea did not have a definite meaning established. <br />They did, per Davis and Kelly, it meant generic unity, sourced in the Father. <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>The fact that you admitted that I added his own interpretation only supplements the fact that I ****didn’t**** misrepresent Davis! <br /><br />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. <br /><br />“You also misrepresent Kelly. ”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /> <br />“His conclusion is that the fathers of the council could have viewed "homo-oussious" as I am, or as you do.”<br /><br />>>>That flatly contradicts what he said in the book. <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>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: <br /><br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-56465502922241031402013-03-18T01:58:15.801-05:002013-03-18T01:58:15.801-05:00Jamie,
“Because once the idea is in my mind, I h...Jamie, <br /><br />“Because once the idea is in my mind, I have the abiliy to change it (my copy)”<br /><br />>>>That is because it pertains to hypostasis. <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>Perhaps you misrepresented my words just like you have done many times already. <br /><br />“Thought is the nature and ideas are the various relations of thought.”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“So you have one idea and it leads to a second idea in your thought process. The second idea is generated from the first. ”<br /><br />>>>I never said that. You are getting way off topic now <br /><br />“I find your use of Tertullian to <br />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”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“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. ”<br /><br />>>>That is more of a denotation than a connotation. <br /><br />“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. ”<br /><br />>>>You have not connotatively proved that. Typing out the words <br />“three persons” does not prove to me that you have a different meaning than the Sabellians. <br /><br />“Notice that he is stating a commonality of substance with a multiple of persons”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />Again he states in C 25<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />Notice the issue is relation not numeric nature. <br /><br />You say, <br /><br />“However, since I do not hold "One in One," but instead believe Tertullian's Three in One”<br /><br />>>>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. <br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-28902886198514846252013-03-18T01:55:02.446-05:002013-03-18T01:55:02.446-05:00Jamie,
“Finally, Drake does redefine "Sabel...Jamie, <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>Assertion, not an argument or an explanation. <br /><br />“Additionally, both the Early Church Fathers and the CCC give the sense that when we say "God" generically, we are referring to the Father.”<br /><br />>>>I would despair of finding a better example of how you just conflated generic with numeric nature. <br /><br />“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?”<br /><br />>>>Everyday. <br /><br />“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?"”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“I can (and do) think of reality in both material and immaterial terms. ”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />See here: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/the-failure-of-secular-philosophy-to-the-university-of-louisville/<br /><br /> “That's because the term "space" means something different in mathematics than it does in the material world.”<br /><br />>>>Which proves you can give no account of numerical abstract objects.<br /> <br /> “You and I may read something that talks about horses in a barn. This will generate an idea in each of our minds.”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“If two items have no distance (at all) between them, then they are said to be equal”<br /><br />>>>I don’t say that. This is your conflation between the genus of relation and the genus of being. <br /><br />“Then the only difference between those two ideas is in location.”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“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”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“What is to say that you necessarily generated substance in me”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“rather than modifying my already existing substance?”<br /><br />>>>The analogy was not intended to prove a generation at the level of nature but at the level of hypostasis. <br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-21042605974158936302013-03-18T01:52:43.737-05:002013-03-18T01:52:43.737-05:00Jamie,
“I also note that each of the references ...Jamie, <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>I never stated that the three persons were unique beings. I have always maintained that they are homoousios. <br /><br /> “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. ”<br /><br />>>>And I already clarified it. By Nicene Creed I meant the modern English translation of the Nicene Creed. <br /><br />“It is this confusion that allows Drake to criticize me for not thinking of "God" as a nature”<br /><br />>>>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. <br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />>>>Quoting Origen is diversionary. Origen is not my opponent here. You are. <br /><br />“Additionally, when Drake (more than once) calls the more traditional view of the Trinity "pantheism," <br /><br />>>>I did not say that the more traditional doctrine of the Trinity is Pantheism. I said and I quote, <br />“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” <br /><br />and again <br /><br />“Which is a conflation between the genus of relation and the genus of being and really reveals an underlining materialist pantheism.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />“I further expand on this and show that there is yet a third, but unvoiced contextual definition of "God" based on context.”<br /><br />>>>I have publicly acknowledged that there are 6 different definitions of God. I stated, <br />“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.”<br /><br />http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/full-refutation-of-steve-hays-theology-proper<br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-80164766714975287552013-03-18T01:50:26.873-05:002013-03-18T01:50:26.873-05:00Jamie,
In my second reply I would like to begin ...Jamie, <br /><br />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. <br />In summary:<br /> <br />You have still failed to grasp your conflation of the genus of relation with the genus of being. <br /><br />You have failed to escape the materialism of Aristotle. <br /><br />You still do not understand your conflation of generic and numeric nature. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Your treatment of Davis and Kelly on Homoousios was inexcusable.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />You also avoided the infinity problem. (Yes I replied to the incorporeal counter below)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I think you are operating off a misrepresentation that I received last year:<br /><br />http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/2321/”<br /><br /><br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-9325494258033477012013-03-17T22:02:01.824-05:002013-03-17T22:02:01.824-05:00Wow! I'm sure glad I don't have a dog in ...Wow! I'm sure glad I don't have a dog in this hunt.<br /><br />Just a couple thoughts and I will quickly disappear.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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. <br /> Fr Aidan Kimelhttp://afkimel.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-61202136255952971492013-03-17T21:37:57.000-05:002013-03-17T21:37:57.000-05:00I'm done with replies to comments that came du...I'm done with replies to comments that came during my vacation. Again, thank you for your patience. -- Jamie<br /><br />PS Please forgive any typos.Jamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-40535369452156896302013-03-17T21:37:16.248-05:002013-03-17T21:37:16.248-05:00Unity
Drake,
Your responses to my thoughts on th...Unity<br /><br />Drake,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Further, you do realize that saying, <i>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.</i> is merely an assertion? In one of your responses to TOm, you referenced (via your blog) both Hippolytus' <i>Against Noetus</i> and Hilary of Poitiers' <i>On the Trinity</i> Book VIII. But Hippolytus says that <i>For the Son is the one mind of the Father</i>, 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).<br /><br />In chapter 54 of <i>On the Trinity</i>, Hilary writes, <i>within the Godhead there is no difference or dissimilarity</i>. In chapter 55 he says that the fullness of the Godhead is in Christ and it <i>neither solitary nor separable</i> meaning that the divine <b>nature</b> in the Son is not numerically unique nor apart from the nature of the Father. This is evident as Hilary follows with, <i>this fullness must be held one in nature with Christ</i>. 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, <i>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.</i><br /><br />There are other examples from <i>On the Trinity</i> (the document you referenced), such as chapter 39, <i>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.</i> 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.<br /><br />That he is not arguing against my position of 3 Persons in 1 God is clear. From chapter 41, <i> So then the one faith is, to confess the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father through the <b>unity of an indivisible nature</b>, 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 <b>the Father and Son are one</b></i>.Jamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-73104795029864800532013-03-17T21:36:33.773-05:002013-03-17T21:36:33.773-05:00Philosophy and Logic
Drake,
You objected to me s...Philosophy and Logic<br /><br />Drake,<br /><br />You objected to me saying that God is infinity by replying, <i>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?</i><br /><br />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 <i>merely a negation of an already existing finite reality ...</i> which leads to your own objection applying to your own description.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />If your own objection goes against your own views, then perhaps the objection isn't so valid.<br /><br />Separable and Inseparable<br /><br />When you say, <i>One being is not inseparable from itself</i>, 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, <i>there must be a plurality of subjects as a prerequisite to even consider inseparability</i>, 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. <br /><br />In the case of single items being inseparable, the proof goes like this.<br /><br />LEMMA: A singular item is inseparable.<br />PROOF: <br />1) Consider the singular item to be separable<br />2) By definition of separable, the singular item can be split into a minimum of 2 parts<br />3) But the singular item is 1 part<br />4) This means that 1 = 2 which is a contradiction.<br />Therefore, the first consideration must be false and singular items are not separable. They are inseparable. QED.<br /><br />The proof that mono-ousious is also homo-ousious is almost identical.Jamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-43816425456819503122013-03-17T21:35:58.528-05:002013-03-17T21:35:58.528-05:00[cont from above]
Second, Drake adds to the confus...[cont from above]<br />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 <i>not being stupid</i>. But he also said, <i>When English speakers ... use the word God, they are thinking of something personal and particular. They are not thinking of a nature.</i> Basically, he criticizes English speakers for <b>not</b> thinking of "God" as a nature. But when I do think of "God" as a nature, he criticizes me by saying, <i>You think the word God pertains to nature.</i> Wouldn't it be less confusing to simply point out that he was using the term in a different context?<br /><br />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 Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-87848725051642052722013-03-17T21:35:25.567-05:002013-03-17T21:35:25.567-05:00[cont from above]
Another point to consider comes ...[cont from above]<br />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.<br /><br />In re-reading some of the back-and-forth on David's blog, I came across this statement from Drake, <i>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.</i> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />[continued]Jamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-2094415629523344482013-03-17T21:33:36.876-05:002013-03-17T21:33:36.876-05:00Use of the Term "God" in the Nicene Cree...Use of the Term "God" in the Nicene Creed<br /><br />Both David and Drake state that "God" is used with two distinctly different meanings in the Nicene Creed. Specifically, when the Creed reads, <i>I believe in <b>One God</b>, the Father Almighty</i>, "God" has a personal meaning. It refers directly to the Father. But the Creed's phrase, <i><b>God from God</b>, Light from Light, <b>True God from True God</b></i> 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.<br /><br />Make no mistake. This is a <b>strong</b> 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 <i>God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God</i> is entirely about nature. However, I would like you to consider, with an open mind, a possible alternative.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Now I'd like to go to a very ancient source, Origen. In <i>De Decretis</i> Athanasius references Origen to show that the council used language and meanings that go to the beginning of Christianity. He quotes Origen as saying, <i>that God, who, according to John, is called Light (for 'God is Light')</i>. 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 <i>Commentary on John</i> (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, <i>The true God, then, is The God</i> (ho theos). Again, a personal, not nature/essence to the meaning of the word "God."<br /><br />The members of the Nicene Council had to be aware of Origen's references -- Athanasius says they were. So now the phrase, <i>God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God</i> could be a reference to the generation/begetting of a Person, not another nature or essence.<br /><br />[continued]Jamie Donaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12338348714405289399noreply@blogger.com