Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
March 17th, 2009

Creeds: Second Century

We are continuing our week of examining early Church creeds with two creedal statements from the 2nd Century. The below creed is from Justin Martyr (Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldon, New York: The Christian Literature Company). We know that Justin generally referred to Christ as ‘another God’ (Trypho, 56).

We worship the God of the Christians, whom we consider One from the beginning, the creator and maker of all creation, visible and invisible.

And the Lord Jesus Christ, the Servant of God, who had also been proclaimed beforehand by the prophets as about to be present with race of men, the herald of salvation and teacher of good instructions.

Justin forcefully distinguishes the Servant of God from the God of the Christians.

During Hippolytus’ schism with the Church at Rome, during the trouble Modalism, he enlisted the aid of past Elders who seemingly issued a creedal statement against Noetus

We also know in truth one God, we know Christ, we know the Son, suffering as he suffered, dying as he died, and risen on the third day, and abiding at the right hand of the Father, and coming to judge the living and the dead. And in saying this we say what has been handed down to us.

According to Hippolytus, Noetus had stated,

“When indeed, then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another’s.” (Book IX Refutation of All Heresies)

It should be remembered that while Justin had proclaimed Heraclitus as a ‘Christian’ although he lived some 600 years before Christ, Hippolytus accused the same deceased as being the progenitor of the heresy of Noetus. The heresy of Noetus is that the Father produced the Son and declared the Son the Father, creating a paradox and troublesome thought of patripassianism.

Unlike Justin in Europe, the Asians carried from God to Christ to the Son without removing Christ from God, but assigning the suffering to the Son.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Church History, Creeds, Godhead, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Theology | No Comments »

March 6th, 2009

The Doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra: His Theology (2)

We are continuing our series examining the Arian controversy from the eyes and pen of Marcellus of Ancyra. Note, I am not responding to his doctrine, or to that of the Arians, nor am I willing to back up either side with Scriptures, trying to let Marcellus speak for himself, as much as possible. I realize that not everyone like theology or Church history – (Imagine my surprise in school when I found out that 99% of my history classes hated history!) For some, this is boring, for others, it is a click through. For me, I am edified through discussions on theology, and can spend ours listening to lectures and then in turn discussing the finer points until the wee hours of the morning. As I said, I understand that I may be boring – but at least it makes you feel some compassion for my wife and children.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Athanasius, Godhead, Marcellus of Ancyra, Theology | 12 Comments »

September 30th, 2008

Hunting Heresies in the Fathers

hyperekperissou: Hunting Heresies in the Fathers.

I am a biblical fundamentalist; I am an Economist, believing that Jesus Christ is God, according to the Economy of God. I do not believe in doctrinal development past the point of the Apostles. I do not believe in new revelations, historical Tradition, or the that tradition defines and develops Doctrine. I stand with Marcellus of Ancyra in appreciating the early Church Fathers, but finding the sole source of Doctrine as the Scriptures from the Apostles and Prophets. I do not give any doctrinal significance to the Councils, nor will I call anyone a Saint, except for the broader body of the Church. I see no greatness in Rome or the so-called Apostolic Church which she leads.

To be honest, I relish the thought of being a heretic hunter, of stamping out false doctrines where they arise, with a steady word and a heavy hand. The Church has no room to allow these cancers to grow. I have no problem, as many would read this blog, of stating that this one or that one is a false prophet and a heretic.

However, in my study of the Church Fathers, I have come to a deep appreciation of their writings and their tribute to biblical studies and would rarely use the word ‘heretic’ (except for maybe Origen). I have been criticized for my use of them, however, I will continue to use them and their quotes in my own development and maturity as a Christian.

John Chrysostom has become a favorite of mine, as has Irenaeus, Tertullian, and even Cyprian. Most of these men I would have disagree with in nearly every way, yet, they have measures of Truth. I fully recognize

“So, we see Justin Martyr accused of ditheism and/or subordinationism. Or, we see Gregory Nazianzus accused of proto-Nestorianism.”

However, in doing so, I also recognize that there was not a sudden shift from what I would consider orthodox doctrine (except maybe Origen), and these men still have a measure of contribution to every self-proclaimed theologian – or otherwise – not in refuting any doctrine, or building any doctrine, but in tracing what theological development took place and when and in understanding the Christian community in a historical viewpoint.

Let me say quickly that if you believe that Christianity suddenly ceased after Peter and Paul and that Rome immediately appeared, then you have no faith in Christ or His Church. If Christianity ceased after the Apostles, then Gamaliel was right, and we have all been wrong for nearly 2000 years.

I find that Irenaeus, who is roundly despised by biblical fundamentalists, must be understood as the defender of the faith against well-learned Gnostics, versed and steeped in the Bible. He defended the Faith as one would in these circumstances, and more often than not, stayed within the pattern established by Ignatius and Polycarp. We have Justin, who I find in error as a ditheist, who has great strength in defending the Church against the Jews and further in defending the Septuagint. Tertullian provides us with a rigorous approach to Christian living while Cyprian fought for Church unity against the rising power in Rome. This is not to say that I judge them Christian, as that is in God’s hands, but even the most radical anti-Catholic (which rarely makes any sense) can see that some measure of Truth existed in this learned men.

Personally, I agree that

“Tertullian’s extreme temperament led him to rigid views about asceticism and prophecy which drove him from the orthodox church.”

Except for the part about the prophecy and his Montanist days, I find little wrong in Tertullian’s rigidness. I do however, find a great deal wrong with Origen and the entire school from Alexandria. I find it a break from Orthodoxy, no matter the century and cannot rightly see him in any positive light.

Returning to the others, however, I realize that many of them do not share the doctrines that I might hold, in total; however, it does not erase their value. We have to remember that History is rarely kind to even Inspired Writings, much less the writings and thoughts of men, albeit inspired men. (Look at the war that history as waged on the epistles from Ignatius) Interpretation of these writings is the same way. Do not take them in the light of theologians 1800 years removed from them, but attempt to understand them in the world in which they wrote. Unlike the Bible, their words are not timeless, and must be understood against the world that they fought.

I agree with the writer of the above post when he says,

A second less innocent motive is heresy hunting in the context of inter-denominational apologetics and polemics. In this kind of heresy hunt, we see writers (often, but not always Protestant) search the Fathers in order to find something wrong in what they are saying. What they are doing in reading the Fathers isn’t reading them to understand them or to take insight from them, but rather they are reading them the way that a lawyer reads a hostile brief–they are looking for dirt and evidence to beat the other side with.

There a few things that I no longer like to see, and that is anyone on my ‘side’ calling the theologians of the 2nd and 3rd century, Roman Catholic. Most them would have rebelled against the idea of the Roman Church as we know it now. Instead, we must look at these as cousins, rather distant, and stop the labeling, often times done in error. We must not succumb to the ‘violence’ of apologetics, but instead place these people in their respective places, learning and valuing their input.

Finally, even Paul used non-Christians to highlight Christianity, and if we dismiss the entire corpus of post-Apostle’s writing simply because they might not agree with us in every way, then we do a great deservice to the Church.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Church History, Debate/Discussion, Marcellus of Ancyra, Polycarp of Smyrna | 40 Comments »

September 10th, 2008

Commentary on Wisdom, 1.7-11

See other posts in this Category.

Wisdom 1:7-11

(7)  For the Spirit of the Lord that has filled the world holds all things together and knows what is said;

This thought of Wisdom’s author is expressed throughout the book, that God holds the world together through His spirit,

But thou sparest all: for they are thine, O Lord, thou lover of souls. For thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things. (11.26-12.1)

As well as being found in the New Testament,

And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Colossians 1.17)

Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (Hebrews 1:3 NKJV)

Clearly this has lead to the Orthodox view of panentheism, or God-in-all. (This is opposite of the pagan belief that all material things are god). In panentheism, God is viewed as creator and/or animating force behind the universe, and the sole source, or perhaps first principle, of universal truth. This concept of God can be closely associated with the Logos of Heraclitus  and Justin Martyr, in which the Logos pervades the cosmos and whereby all thoughts and things originate.  An opposing thought may be that God, as any Creator, as imparted some of Himself into His creation. We note that in both Creation accounts (Genesis 2.7 and John 20.22) the Creator is seen as imparting His breath into the new Creature (Man in Genesis and the Church in John). The thought, which may interpreted differently, seems not so much as permeate this work, nor the epistles or theology of Paul, but serves as a backdrop as to why, especially in the New Testament, God would care so much for His Creation.

Is this the Spirit of God, or the spirit that is Wisdom? Does God have two Spirits, or are they one with different attributes. On the Old Testament, the Spirit of God is God’s activity in the World. The Logos has been described as God active, of God in motion. One way of interpretation that is often overlooked is to interpret the pneuma in this verse as breath. Then we can connect this verse to the two creation accounts.

The author continues to emphasize the fact that God’s spirit which holds all things together is made manifest to the world of men as power, wisdom, and spirit, which becomes important as we deal with the next few chapters, and especially in the latter half of the book when Wisdom plays an intricate part in the Exodus story.

The author, still in the mind set of the Old Testament writers, uses the fluidity of manifestations as extensions of the God Absolute.

(8)  Because of this no one who speaks unrighteous things will escape notice, and justice, when it punishes, will not pass him by.

(9)  For inquiry will be made into the counsels of an ungodly man, and a report of his words will come to the Lord, to convict him of his lawless deeds;

Who will make these examinations? The Greek is passive and leaves the interpretation open. We can take the last attribute mentioned, Justice, or we may take the Spirit of the Lord who we are told knows all things that are said. Justice is a personification of God that the author uses later in 11.20. We have to turn to the Jewish belief that along with the book of life there is a book of remembrance written to record the deeds of man.

Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. (Malachi 3:16 KJV)

We see here that this Spirit of the Lord will search the counsels of the unrighteous and a conviction will be made. The thought is echoed in Jude who quotes from the Book of Enoch,

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convict all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 1:14-15 KJV)

In Jude, just as in these verses, we have the Lord who will convict the ungodly of their ungodly deeds as well as the ungodly words spoke against Him.

(10)  because a jealous ear hears all things, and no whispered syllable escapes the vigilant ear.

(11)  So, then, beware of useless murmuring, and keep your tongue from slander; because no secret word is goes unpunished, and a lying mouth destroys the soul.

See Numbers 21.5, Psalms 78.19 (77.19 LXX). These ‘hard speechs’ of Jude, or defiant words, against God, whether whispered or shouted, will be remembered when Justice passes by.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Wisdom | 1 Comment »

August 7th, 2008

Reviewing Early Christian Doctrines – The Divine ‘Triad’ (pt2)

*Note: This is the second part, and much delayed review/response. I have tried to narrow in on some main points that I hope can lead to further discussion. I am intrigued by the early ‘economic Trinity’ as expressed by Irenaeus and others and hope to study more on it. Until then, perhaps we can discuss this issues here.

In studying Ignatius, we are led to believe that this disciple of Peter at Antioch was the surest example of Apostolic preaching in the early Church, after all, he calls Christ God and dates the divine Sonship form the incarnation (Kelly, pg 92). In the Epistle to the Magnesians 8.2, Ignatius declares that there is ‘one God, Who has revealed Himself through His Son Jesus Christ, Who is His Word emerging from silence.’ Further, Christ is the ‘unlying mouth by which the Father spoke truly.’ Dr. Kelly rightly first surmises that Ignatius is an ‘economic Trinitarian’, meaning that he ‘regard God as an undifferentiated monad in His essential being, the Son and the Spirit being merely forms of modes of the Father’s self-revelation, only distinguishable from Him in the process of revelation.’ (pg93). If the common Modalist or oneness believer will step away from the word ‘Trinitarian’, it is easy to see that Dr. Kelly has defined the common definition of the oneness doctrine. It is God who has revealed Himself in His Son Jesus Christ, the distinction being at the moment of Incarnation and thus ending at the Ascension.

Unfortunately, neither Dr. Kelly nor Trinitarians stop the analysis there; he goes on to say that the definition that is so easily applied to Ignatius’ view of the Deity is wrong and ‘misleading’, yet it is there definition of the Trinity that is retro-applied in order to see Ignatius in the Trinitarian light. However, in doing so and in trying to state the proof of such a belief, he gives us further examples that Ignatius believed in an economic Deity. In the same epistle as above, Ignatius states that the Word ‘existed with the Father before the ages’ while expressing an emanatist theology as found in Wisdom (7.25-26) and Hebrews (1.3) when he says that Christ ‘came forth from the unique Father, was with Him and has returned to Him’ (6.1; 7.2). This is not difficult for a Modalist with an economic view of the Deity. Dr. Kelly finishes his thoughts on Ignatius by acknowledging ‘the only hint he (Ignatius) gives of the nature of this distinction within the unity of the divine spirit is that Christ is the Father’s ‘thought’ (pg93).

Not wishing to spend too much time on the relative unknown Hermas, Dr. Kelly notes that the Shepherd confuses the Spirit with the Son of God, possibly leading to a dyadic view of the Godhead. It is also noted that Hermas seems to view Christ in adoptionist terms as he points to the flesh of Jesus as a ‘partner with the Holy Spirit.’ On the other hand, Hermas follows the so far Tradition view that the distinction begins at the Incarnation. (pg94)

Dr. Kelly notes (pg95) that the evidence that is collected from the Apostolic Fathers is ‘meager, and tantalizingly inconclusive’ although he notes that the pre-existence of Christ was ‘generally taken for granted, as was His role in creation as well as redemption.’ These themes coalesce with Pauline and Johannine thought as well as the Wisdom Tradition in Late Judaism, however ‘of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church’s triadic formula left its mark everywhere’. Can there be a triadic formula without the Trinity as developed through Nicaea and Chalcedon? Only in a proper theology, such as Modalism, or as Dr. Kelly said, ‘economic Trinitarianism’.

Dr. Kelly (pg95) says that the Apologists were the first to try to fit the Gospel into an intellectual framework, proposing a solution which essentially was ‘a pre-existent Christ’ was ‘the Father’s thought or mind and that as manifested in creation and revelation, He was its extrapolation or expression.’ This, of course, was essentially the doctrine of the Logos, however it must be reminded that of the 330 times that the Greek logos is used in the New Testament, only four times does it carry theological implications, and only by John. While many continued to seek the meaning of logos in the Stoics or in Philo, they failed to use the Scriptures that the Church already had which was Wisdom. Even Dr. Kelly admits that the early Church choose Philo and his use of logos than John’s, which does give way to a distinction, more so than either John or Wisdom’s author intended. In using Greek philosophy, they gained the idea of a technical distinction from Stoicism, which gave Christianity the philosophy of the immanent word and the word uttered.

This teaching, according to Dr. Kelly, first clearly appears Justin who used Greek philosophy to underlie any thought that he had. He even went so far as to declare that long dead pagans, such as Hereclitus (c600B.C.), were in fact Christians because they had developed the philosophy of the logos. It was this Logos, that had ‘united men to God’ in order that they would have ‘knowledge of Him’ that Justin said became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. According to Dr. Kelly, the logos/Christ was not merely distinct in name only, but also ‘numerically’ (quoting Justin). This development was supported by three points, namely:

· The alleged appearances of God in the Old Testament which suggests that ‘below the Creator of all things there is Another Who is, and is called, God and Lord’, since it is inconceivable that the ‘Master and Father of all things should have abandoned all supercelestial affairs and made Himself visible in a minute corner of the world’.

  • Frequent Old Testament passages which represent God as conversing with another, ‘Who is presumable a rational being like Himself’
  • The Wisdom Texts, such as Proverbs 8.22, since ‘everyone must agree that the offspring is other than its begetter.

Justin would say of the logos that ‘having been put forth as an offspring from the Father, was with Him before all creatures, and the Father had converse with Him’ but that he was ‘adorable, He is God’ while also saying ‘we adore, next to God, the Logos derived from the increate and ineffable God, seeing that for our sakes He became man.’ A quick glance as Dr. Kelly’s quotes from Justin seems to display that Justin say the Logos as a separate being. Further, Justin, in his 1st Apology (13.3) seemed to speak of the Logos as a ‘second God’ and worshipped ‘in a secondary rank’. (pg101). Justin also made an attempt to ‘extract testimony to His (the ‘prophetic Spirit’) as a third divine being from Plato’s writings’ (pf100).

Tatian, as we know, was a disciple of Justin and employed the same language as Justin in dealing with the Logos. Like Justin, Tatian, saw the Logos as being ‘born’ but not being severed from the essence that is God. This is clearly a Trinitarian concept from the West. However, Tatian had a sharper context of the Logos than Justin, especially when it came to the generation of the Logos. According to Tatian, ‘before creation God was alone, the Logos being immanent in Him as His potentiality for creating all tings, but at the moment of creation He leaped froth from the Father as His ‘primordial work’. Here again, we see a great divergence from biblical concepts, words, and ideas.

  1. Dr. Kelly (pg100) makes two points in the Apologists’ ‘which, because of their far-reaching importance, must be heavily underlined:
  2. For all of these Apologists, the ‘description ‘God the Father’ connoted, not the first Person of the Holy Trinity, but the one Godhead considered as author of whatever exists’
  3. All, ‘Athenagoras included, dated the generation of the Logos, and so His eligibility for the title ‘Son’, not from his origination within the being of the Godhead, but from His emission’ or emanation ‘for the purposes of creation, revelation, and redemption.’

Dr. Kelly wants a firm grasp on these two concepts or he fears that a distorted view of their theology is likely to happen. Two ‘stock criticisms’, as Dr. Kelly says, are that ‘they failed to distinguish the Logos from the Father until He was required for the work of creation, and that, as a corollary, they were guilty of subordinating the Son to the Father. Remember, Nicaea established that the Son and the Spirit were co-eternal with the Father, and all three ungenerate, yet, the early Apologists lined upon with each other, and with the view of ‘oneness’ doctrine, that the Logos was generated for a certain purpose, and like the economic view of the Deity, once those purposes were completed, the distinction ceased.

In discussing the Apologists and the Trinity, Dr. Kelly fails to take into context the word ‘trinity’ in Theophilus’ writings, who was the first person to use this word. To quote Theophilus,

But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the 101 three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

If we were but to stop reading at this point, we would understand that Theophilus did indeed see a Trinity of persons, or at least was driving that way, however, Theophilus continued his words with,

And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.

The Greek is ‘Τριάδος’. The Trinitarian claim about Theophilus is based on a misunderstood and mistranslated passage in his writings. It is mistranslated because trinity is not a Greek word. Thus, the proper translation would be: ‘In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the three of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.’ Adding to the three of God, is a fourth, that of man. It would be somewhat in error to say that Humanity is a Fourth Person in the Godhead.

In discussing the third Person of the Trinity, we find little evidence in the Apologists for the inclusion of the Spirit, for Dr. Kelly says, ‘Yet, as compared with their thought about the Logos, the Apologists appear to have been extremely vague as to the exact status and role of the Spirit.’ Even as late as 380, Gregory Nazianzus said, “Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence[1], others a creature, others God himself, and again others know not which way to decide, from reverence, as they say, for the Holy Scripture, which declares nothing exact in the case. For this reason they waver between worshipping and not worshipping the Holy Ghost, and strike a middle course, which is in fact, however, a bad one”[2]

Dr. Kelly, showing that the ‘thought was highly confused’ says that Justin ‘attributes the inspiration of the prophets to the Logos’ while Theophilus ‘suggests that it was the Logos Who, being divine spirit, illuminated their minds.’ Justin fails to even assign a place for the Spirit in the incarnation. He assigned the ‘power of the Most High’, as recorded in Luke 1.35, not as the Spirit, but as the Logos, ‘Whom he envisaged as entering the womb of the Blessed Virgin and acting as agent of His won incarnation.’ Somehow, it seems that Justin missed the first part of the verse, which in its entirety reads:

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luk 1:35 NKJV)

Dr. Kelly notes that much of Justin’s language points to a ‘subpersonal’ Spirit, but approaches the personal when he speaks of the ‘prophetic Spirit’. Returning to a thought made before, Justin further regulates the Spirit to a third rank, after Christ.

Irenaeus seems to undertake the economic Deity and expound upon it. He could claim that ‘by the very essence and nature of His being there is but one God’ and yet ‘according to the economy of our redemption there are both Father and Son.’ Dr. Kelly makes mention that Irenaeus had a ‘firmer grasp and more explicit statement of this notion of ‘the economy’’. Applying Dr. Kelly’s definition of the ‘economy’, it is believable that Modalism as presently understood existed as a doctrine – more so than the Trinity – from the time of the Apostles to Irenaeus, as we have seen. (It is interesting to note Dr. Kelly’s comments that for Irenaeus, ‘Son’ and ‘Word’ are merely synonyms, as this author believes.)

In exploring the Spirit and Irenaeus, Dr. Kelly says, ‘although Irenaeus nowhere expressly designates Him God’ the Spirit clearly ‘ranked as divine in his yes’. In this picture, Kelly (pg107) states that ‘we have …the most complete, and also most explicitly Trinitarian, to be met with before Tertullian.’ Yet, he goes on to issue was is an economic view of the Deity, and a rather modalistic view as well, that what Irenaeus lacks is a picture of co-equality, ‘but rather of a single personage, the Father Who is Godhead Itself, with His mind, or rationality, and His wisdom.’ This, Kelly states, is because of their ‘fundamental tenet of monotheism’ going on to say that this type of thought ‘has been given the label ‘economic Trinitarianism’, but caution is well heeded. This term, like the term Trinity, is only backwards applied, yet in the concept of ‘economic Trinitarianism’ we find striking similarity to oneness doctrine, minus the unbiblical words of ‘economy’ and ‘Trinity’.

[1] Or, emanation

[2] History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Books, Debate/Discussion, Philosophy | No Comments »

August 5th, 2008

Reviewing Early Christian Doctrines – The Divine 'Triad' (pt1)

Note: I had to break the discussion on this chapter up into two. I will post the other one, I hope, something this afternoon or perhaps later tonight.

In the first section of this chapter, Dr. Kelly exposes us to some of the early writers who readily defined God as one, as Creator and as Father only in the aspect of His creator ship. He states (pg83) that “‘Father’ (in this period) referred primarily to His role as creator and author of all things. This comes at the end of a series of statements where Hermas writes (88-97) that the first commandment is to ‘believe that God is one, Who created and established all things, bringing them into existence out of non-existence’. Moving to Clement of Rome (88-99), we read that Clement saw God as ‘the Father and creator of the entire cosmos’ while for Barnabas (c100), He is ‘our maker’. Kelly acknowledges that this ideas derived directly from the Bible and from latter-day Judaism, and rarely from the philosophy of the day. Acknowledging this leads us to ask, ‘if the bible was a sturdy foundation for these first generation writers, then what lead to the change?’

The Apologists, those coming after the Apostles, seemed to flirt with the idea of secular thought (i.e., paganism and philosophy) as a defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Doctrine of the Church. This, however, is an interpretation 1800 years removed. Dr. Kelly, citing on the first apologist, Aristides of Athens, says he opened his letter to the emperor Hadrian with a demonstration of God’s existence based on Aristotle’s argument from motion[1]. (pg84) Aristides does go one to acknowledge only one God, ‘and apart from Him worship no other God.

In moving to Justin Martyr, Kelly focuses on his language ‘strongly colored’ by the ‘Platonizing Stoicism of the day’. Tertullian, separate from Justin by the Mediterranean Sea, stated,

“What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,” who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.

Justin, however, felt completely comfortable combining Christian doctrine with pagan philosophy, establishing an Academy instead of teaching from the Porch. The Martyr went so far as to sincerely hold to the notion that the great Greek thinkers ‘had access to the works of Moses’. Kelly points out that much of Justin can be found in Plato’s Timaeus (pg84) ‘which Justin supposed to be akin to, and borrowed from, that contained in Genesis’. For Justin, God was ‘everlasting, ineffable and without name, changeless and impassable, and ingenerate’. He is also ‘Creator of the Universe, maker and Father of all things; Himself above being, He is the cause of all existence.’ It is worth nothing that Justin’s conversion experience[2] leaves doubt in the mind of the modern believer as to the intentions of the philosopher. Was it repentance or merely a search for purer philosophy that attracted Justin to Christianity?

The era of the Reformation has not been kind to Justin. Flacius[3] discovered “blemishes” in Justin’s theology, which he attributed to the influence of pagan philosophers; and in modern times Semler[4] and S.G. Lange have made him out a thorough Hellene, while Semisch and Otto defend him from this charge. In opposition to the school of Ferdinand Christian Baur[5], who considered him a Jewish Christian, Albrecht Ritschl[6] has pointed out that it was precisely because he was a Gentile Christian that he did not fully understand the Old Testament foundation of Paul’s teaching, and explained in this way the modified character of his Paulinism and his legal mode of thought. M. von Engelhardt has attempted to extend this line of treatment to Justin’s entire theology, and to show that his conceptions of God, of free will and righteousness, of redemption, grace, and merit prove the influence of the cultivated Greek pagan world of the second century, dominated by the Platonic and Stoic philosophy[7].

Kelly then moves to Tatian, the pupil of Justin, however, Tatian is a worthy mention. According to Irenaeus, was expelled from the Roman Church because of his encratitic ways. This is a heretical sect which Tatian is accused of starting which attempted to live a very ascetic way of live, forbidding marriage and abstaining from meat. Supposedly his excommunication was a result of his following of Valentinus the Gnostic, of course, this did not stop Tatian from establishing a school of thought as well as, as some say, teaching Clement of Alexandria.

Kelly then goes on to mention Theophilus and Athenagoras in describing creation ex nihilo. It is interesting to here Theophilus’ description of God, which Kelly relates,

‘Without beginning because uncreated, immutable because immortal, Lord because He is Lord over all things, Father because He is prior to all things, most high because He is above all things, almighty because he holds all things; for the heights of the heavens, the depths of the abysses and the ends of the world are in His hands’.

It is noteworthy because of what is lacking: any notion of a ‘Son’ and thus a traditional understanding of the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity. We also see that the notion of ‘Father’ and ‘Almighty’ is in line with Clement of Alexandria and Barnabas. Even here, in the philosophers, we fail to find any mention of the Father as described in the Trinity.

Theophilus was ‘particularly critical of the Platonic notion of the eternity of matter, arguing that, if it were true, God could not be the creator of all thing, and therefore His ‘monarchy’, i.e His position of sole first principle, must go by the board, ‘ says Dr. Kelly. We have to first understand that if Clement (who was in the apostolic succession from Peter) as well as these early Apologists, never used the word ‘Father’ in relation to an co-eternal Son, then the idea of a Trinity as proposed by Nicaea is unknown to the Apostles. If, as according to Theophilus, God is the sole source, the first principle of Creation, then that means that the Wisdom and the Word, or the Spirit and the Son, are created beings at the very least, dismissing the notion that later develops that the Son and the Spirit are both co-eternal with the Father.

Dr. Kelly moves to Irenaeus, often times called the first Orthodox theologian for this strict adherence to Tradition. The author states that the task of this theologian was different that that of the Apologists, ‘being to rebut the Gnostics’ theology of a hierarchy of aeons descending from an unknowable Supreme God.’ Dr. Kelly provides us with texts to make the position taken by Irenaeus clear. In Haer. 2, I, I, Irenaeus states:

It is clear that we should start with the first, most important proposition, vis. God the Creator (a demiurgo deo), Who made heave and earth and everything in them, the God Whom they (the Gnostics) blasphemously describe as an abortive product; and that we should show that there is nothing above or after Him…since He is alone God, alone Lord, alone creator, alone Father, and alone contains all things and bestows existence on them’.

In another work, Irenaeus cites the first article of faith as:

God the Father, increate, unengendered, invisible, one and only Deity, creator of the universe.

Irenaeus taught that “God exercises His creative activity through His Word and His Wisdom, or Spirit, and was a firm believer in creation ex nihilo, point out that ‘mean indeed cannot make anything out of nothing, but only of material already before them.’” We fail to see yet a clear distinction, in the vein of the Trinity, in the words of Irenaeus. It is by the Word (which is Christ) that God creates, yet Irenaeus does seem to argue with Paul who said that Christ was the Wisdom of God[8]. Kelly goes on to say that Irenaeus, in his war waged against the Gnostics, believed ‘every subordinate emanation must share the nature of its principle, but thy very notion of Godhead excludes a plurality of Gods.’ (pg87)

Irenaeus says, ‘Either there must be one God Who contains all things and has made every creature according to His will: or there must be many indeterminate creators or gods, each beginning and ending at his place in the series’, and in saying such, Irenaeus stands as an accuser of the Trinity belief that God is divisible, and that each Person of the Godhead, distinct from one another, has only a place in a series.

Moving into the section which Dr. Kelly has named ‘The Church’s Faith’, he notes that the New Testament, yet uncanonized by the middle of the Second Century, was exerting a ‘powerful influence’. Dr. Kelly also notes ‘how deeply the conception of a plurality of divine Persons was imprinted on the apostolic tradition and the popular faith’ ignoring Tertullian’s quote that the majority of believers knew of only Person in the Godhead, assuming that a plurality lead to paganism. Dr. Kelly does, however, being to build the concept that the dyadic and triadic pattern of the Godhead began to take shape; however, he ignores the monad creeds that are found on the pages of Holy Writ, namely:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

(1Ti 3:16 NKJV)

That if you will profess with your mouth that Jesus is God, and will believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved!

(Rom 10:9 CTV-NT)

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider Deity something to be held so tightly to, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

(Php 2:5-8 CTV-NT

It must be noted that these early ‘creeds’ of the Church exhibited only a monad theology, that Jesus Christ was God.

Moving to the issue of baptism, Dr. Kelly notes that the baptismal rite provides evidence of a triadic formula of the Godhead, yet throughout Acts and even into the epistles baptism is seen only in the name of Jesus Christ. Many scholars even today note that the original formula of baptism was in the singular name while Catholic commentators often note the doubt as to the validity of the tri-part name in Matthew 28:19, yet Dr. Kelly fails to acknowledge these meager facts that demonstrate that the early Church’s baptism, in line with the Apostles, was first changed which led to a triadic view of the Godhead.

How ever, Dr. Kelly does bring to light that Justin first used a dyadic formula for baptism and only later changed it to use the third part, that of the Spirit. In the earlier models, Justin would quote ‘In the name of God the Father and master of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, they are washed in the water’ while later, he added in great detail, ‘in the name of God the Father and master of all things, of Jesus Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate’, and of the Holy Spirit, Who foretold by the prophets the whole story of Jesus’. This of course greatly adds to both baptismal formulas (Matthew 28.19 and Acts 2.38).

If baptism was a keystone in the development of the Godhead, then the Apostles who baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ would surely have failed to recognize the Trinity doctrine that developed later from the heavy reliance upon the singular instance in the New Testament of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Moving into the Apostolic Fathers, the apocryphal book of 2nd Clement opens with the monad formula,

Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ, as of God, as of the Judge of quick and dead. 2Clem 1:1

And again, the author says,

If Christ the Lord who saved us, being first spirit, then became flesh, and so called us, in like manner also shall we in this flesh receive our reward. 2Clem. 9:5

Neither of these statements lead to a dyadic formula, but rather seeing on Christ, as God, as a Spirit. Barnabas seems to have the same problem in placing the ‘spirit’ as an adjective instead of a person. In 7.3 and 11.9 the author of Barnabas calls the body of Christ the vessel of spirit, ‘presumably denoting by the word the spiritual nature of the diving element in the Lord.’ (pg91). It must also be fairly noted that the Epistle of Barnabas was not written by Paul’s companion and John Mark’s uncle; however, this book does given prominence to the pre-existence of Christ, for as Dr. Kelly points out Barnabas says that it is Christ whom God spoke to in Genesis 1.26.

[1] “And I perceived that the world and all that is therein are moved by the power of another; and I understood that he who moves them is God, who is hidden in them, and veiled by them” – It is not uncommon for someone to search based on secular methods for something greater, but when finding the Greater, realizes the futility of the secular methods. Aristides used Paul’s method of discourse by using something familiar to the Roman elite to bring forth Christ, but in no way used philosophy to shape Christ and His doctrine.

[2] In the opening of the “Dialogue,” Justin relates his vain search among the Stoics, Peripatetics, and Pythagoreans for a satisfying knowledge of God; his finding in the ideas of Plato wings for his soul, by the aid of which he hoped to attain the contemplation of the God-head; and his meeting on the sea-shore with an aged man who told him that by no human endeavor but only by divine revelation could this blessedness be attained, that the prophets had conveyed this revelation to man, and that their words had been fulfilled. Of the truth of this he assured himself by his own investigation; and the daily life of the Christians and the courage of the martyrs convinced him that the charges against them were unfounded. So he sought to spread the knowledge of Christianity as the true philosophy.

[3] Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520-1575) was a Lutheran reformer.

[4] Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791), was a German church historian and biblical commentator.

[5] Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792 – 1860), was a German theologian and leader of the Tübingen school of theology.

[6] Albrecht Ritschl (1822 -1889) was a German theologian

[7] But he admits that Justin is a Christian in his unquestioning adherence to the Church and its faith, his unqualified recognition of the Old Testament, and his faith in Christ as the Son of God the Creator, made manifest in the flesh, crucified, and risen, through which belief he succeeds in getting away from the dualism of pagan and also of Gnostic philosophy.

[8] 1st Corinthians 1.24 which states that Christ is the power and the wisdom of God. If one would understand that the Spirit of God correctly as the power of God, we see that both wisdom and word, power and spirit, are the same in the minds of the Apostles, and this is that they are all Christ.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Books, Debate/Discussion, Hermeneutics, Philosophy | No Comments »

May 21st, 2008

Unus Deus – The Apology of Aristides

The Apology of Aristides was written in relation to the Emperor Hadrian sometime 117 and 138 (bringing it within the time frame of the Epistle of Diognetus), and not long after John’s Apocalypse. It details to the Emperor the attempts by others to find the true God, and their subsequent failures. Fore 1500 years, we had only the mention of Eusebius concerning the Apology, but it was found in the waning years of the 19th century by Armenian monks; it was then found in the Syriac version by Orthodox monks at Mt. Sinai. The Greek exists in a modified form, and cannot be trusted in the differences. Of interesting note to the discussion of the doctrinal development is from Book II. The The English translation from the Syriac reads,

The Christians, then, reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God. This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached; wherein if ye also will read, ye will comprehend the power that is upon it. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the Hebrews; and He had twelve disciples, in order that a certain dispensation of His might be fulfilled. He was pierced by the Jews; and He died and was buried; and they say that after three days He rose and ascended to heaven; and then these twelve disciples went forth into the known parts of the world, and taught concerning His greatness with all humility and sobriety; and on this account those also who to-day believe in this preaching are called Christians, who are well known. There are then four races of mankind, as I said before, Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians

This statement rings true of a Modalistic viewpoint, that God robed Himself with flesh as the Son of God.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Apologetics, Debate/Discussion, Godhead, Septuagint, Theology | No Comments »

May 19th, 2008

Unus Deus – Verus Doctrina, Pt 11

The Right Hand of God

The term, right hand of God is an anthropomorphic expression[1]. The use of this anthropomorphism occurs 60[2] times in Scripture (39 times in the OT; 21 times in the NT). Hebrew Idiom behind this language denotes power and strength. Let us take note of the Old Testament visions of God at this time. In Genesis 28.13-16, Jacob saw “the LORD…” (a theophany, as all OT visions are). 1 Kings 22.19 and 2 Chron. 18.18, Micaiah said, “I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left;” noticeably absent is Son or the Spirit. Throughout the entire Old Testament and Deuterocanon, there is only mention of “the LORD,” as a single Deity (numerical singleness, not unified). In Isa. 6.1, only “the LORD” is seen. Ezk. 1.26-28, 2.1. Ezekiel saw “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.”

The Greek δεξιός (dexios) means the ‘right’, indicating a direction. Usually, the word ‘hand’ is supplied, and not unjustly. The issue is, what is meant by ‘the right hand’ and is their a particular emphases on the action (sitting, standing, at or by). In Acts 2.33, we read “τη δεξια ουν του θεου υψωθεις την τε επαγγελιαν του αγιου πνευματος λαβων παρα του πατρος εξεχεεν τουτο ο νυν υμεις βλεπετε και ακουετε.” The phrase “τη δεξια ουν του θεου” is translated in the KJV as ‘by the right hand of God’ with the margin note reading ‘at.’ This translation makes it the instrumental case, while the ‘at’ translation refers to the locative case. Robertson suggests that it only makes sense in the dative case, which reads ‘to the right hand of God.’ The issue here is that depending on the translation, a different theology can develop. For example, if Christ was exalted to the right hand, then a form of dynamic Monarchianism could develop. The proper method is translating this verse as ‘at the right hand of God,’ which still allows the idiom to come out. The same can be said for Acts 5.31. In Acts 7.55-56, Stephen saw Christ ‘on’ the right hand of God. (εκ δεξιων εστωτα του θεου)(See Col 3.1 which reads εν δεξια του θεου )

We read in the much discussed Hebrews 1.3, ‘εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις. Simply, after word of God had been fulfilled, with the price of redemption was paid, Christ resumed His glory and dignity, fully and without separation; he assumed the glory that He had before the Incarnation without distinction Christ is here pictured as the King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated on the throne of God as God.

John says the following about Christ: “But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him, that the saying of Isaiah the Prophet, might be fulfilled, which he spoke: The Lord, who has believed our report and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’” (John 12.37-38) echoing the Song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. The “Arm” of the Lord denotes the “power” of the Lord. A thorough study of this term and it’s usage in the Bible, will reflect a similarity in the meanings and usage of the words: power, might, strength, hand, right side and arm, when referring to this designation of Christ. Christ, as is often done in the Gospels, attributes a prophecy in the Old Testament to Himself.

A question that is begged relates to the issue of ‘co-equality’ and power. In Matthew 28:18, Christ tells His disciples that He has been given all power in heaven and in earth. If Christ is the Almighty, the ruler of both heaven an earth, and He alone sits on the throne, then where does the Father and the Spirit stand in relation to him? Throughout the final book of the New Testament, we find references to a throne in heaven and only one sitting on that throne. We find no mention, when John describes the throne room, of either the Son or Spirit standing in conjunction with God on the throne. In 3.21, Christ says that He has taken His seat on the throne of the Father. (The vision of which is easily understood of the Incarnation is seen as providing a temporary difference between the Father and His Word.) Throughout the remaining verses, we see but one sitting on the throne.

In 2nd Temple Judaism, it was common to use idioms to express God, thus we have the development of Throne, Majesty and other words to describe God without saying God. We have to be careful in understanding the phrase literally. Since the right hand (or side) is a place of honour, to literally say that Christ is at the right hand of God, is to demote the deity of Christ and bring about the adoptionist doctrine of the Arians. We also will see that a contradiction in scripture exists between the phrases ‘at the right hand’ and ‘on the throne’. To understand this phrase in a completely idiom free translation, we would generally read that Christ is on the throne.

The Roman Road: Jesus is God

Before we move to the profession of faith found in Romans 10, let us first examine chapter 9, verse 5, where Paul writes, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (KJV) The NET reads, “To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.” The NRSV has “to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” There is doctrine here decided by the correct placement of commas.

Paul, in the original Greek wrote, “ων οι πατερες και εξ ων ο χριστος το κατα σαρκα ο ων επι παντων θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας αμην.” Vincent, noting the difference that arises by punctuation notes, “Authorities differ as to the punctuation; some placing a colon, and others a comma after flesh. This difference indicates the difference in the interpretation; some rendering as concerning the flesh Christ came. God who is over all be blessed for ever; thus making the words God, etc., a doxology: others, with the comma, the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever; i.e., Christ is God.” Robertson writes, “A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See note on Acts 20:28[3] and note on Titus 2:13[4] for Paul’s use of theos applied to Jesus Christ,” clearly indicating that He believes that Paul applied the θεος to Christ in this instance.

Several commentators have stated that the closing phrase should be a separate sentence (God who is blessed forever), however, in scriptural doxologies the word “Blessed” precedes the name of God on whom the blessing is invoked[5].

To understand our profession in 10.9 of Romans, we have to read further to verse 13, where Paul quotes Joel 2:32, which reads, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.” (KJV). Here, the word for LORD in Hebrew is יהוה, the Tetragammon, which is commonly understood to be the proper name of God in the Old Testament.

Would Paul use a theological drenched title in two different ways, especially in such a short distance from one another?

In verse 13, we understand the LORD to be the God of the Old Testament, so therefore we must understand Paul to mean in verse 9 to the God of the Old Testament as well. The construction of the passage leads us to translate the phrase found in the KJV as ‘profess the Lord Jesus’ to profess that ‘Jesus is Lord.’. With the understanding that the ‘Lord’ in verse 13 is the same ‘Lord’ in verse 9, in order to be saved, we must profess with our my mouth that Jesus is God.

[1] The attribution of human characteristics to non-human beings or things

[2] Ex. 15:6, 12, De. 33:2, 1 Ki. 22:19, 2 Ch. 18:18, Job 23:9, 40:14, Ps. 16:11, 17:3, 18:35, 20:6, 21:8, 44:3, 45:4, 48:10, 60:5, 63:8, 73:23, 74:11, 77:10, 78:54, 80:15, 17, 89:13, 25, 98:1, 108:6, 110:1, 118:15, 16, 138:7, 139:10, Is. 41:10, 48:13, 62:8, Je. 22:24, La. 2:3, 4, Hab. 2:16, Mt. 22:44, 26:64, Mk. 12:36, 14:62, 16:19, Lk. 20:42, 22:69, Ac. 2:33, 34, 5:31, 7:55, 56, Ro. 8:34, Ep. 1:20, Col. 3:1, He. 1:3, 13, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2, 1 Pe. 3:22

[3] Robertson’s note here states, “With his own blood (dia tou haimatos tou idiou). Through the agency of (dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called “God” who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Colossians 1:15-20; Philippians 2:5-11.”

[4] Here, he notes “This is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and sōtēros just as in 2Peter 1:1, 2Peter 1:11.”

[5] Psalms 68:35; Psalms 72:18

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Debate/Discussion, Godhead, Septuagint, Theology | No Comments »

May 13th, 2008

Unus Deus – Writings of Athenagoras

Below is chapter 10 of a work produced around 177ad, sometime before Tertullian and right around the Muratorian Canon, which included the Book of Wisdom.

Chapter X.—The Christians Worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being—I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say “His Logos”], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (νοῦς καὶ λόγος) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [λογικός]); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. “The Lord,” it says, “made me, the beginning of His ways to His works.” The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognise also a multitude of angels and ministers whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and appointed to their several posts by His Logos, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things in it, and the goodly ordering of them all. (translated by Translated by the Rev. B. P. Pratten)

Easily noticed are the phrases “God the Father” and the “God the Son” but what is lacking is “God the Holy Spirit;” (It would not be until Tertullian’s time that such a heavy emphasis was placed on the person of the holy spirit) however, Athenagoras goes out of his way to address the issue that the Son is the Logos of God and that they are in ‘oneness’. He also says that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. The author then goes on to use the emanation doctrine found in Hebrews and Wisdom but transfer it to the Spirit.

We can look at this writing several ways. We can see a seed of a Father-Son substance which a pointing to a development of the a third part. We can see that Athenagoras was fighting (most likely pagans) the idea that the the Son was begotten, by drawing attention to the fact that the Son was in idea only, since the Son was the Logos which had existed with God as God since the beginning. There is no distinction for this author in the Deity.

Below are excerpts from his book, A Plea for Christians.

Chapter VIII.—Absurdities of Polytheism.

And indeed Socrates was compounded and divided into parts, just because he was created and perishable; but God is uncreated, and, impassible, and indivisible—does not, therefore, consist of parts.

Chapter XII.—Consequent Absurdity of the Charge of Atheism.

while men who reckon the present life of very small worth indeed, and who are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity

Taken apart, it presents a contradiction in the mind of Athenagoras, however, taken together, we see that the author is still promoting oneness and promoting those that know the ‘distinction in unity’ which contrary to the pagan thought at the time, is none. One cannot hold to a ‘oneness of the Son with the Father’ and that God does not ‘consist of parts’ while maintaining a ‘distinction in unity.’

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Debate/Discussion, Godhead, Septuagint, Theology | No Comments »

May 13th, 2008

Unus Deus – Stone-Campbellite Thoughts

Alexander Campbell was an American Religious reformer in the early 19th century. Here is a resource for him. For him, his greatest desire was to return to the New Testament Church, meaning that he attempted to rid himself of 1800 years of theology and made an effort to seek Theology from the Apostles. I am not endorsing the Church of Christ here, but I do think that he made a serious effort to right the ship and truly restore the Church. Where as Calvin and Luther attempted to reform Rome, Campbell and his ilk attempted to restore the New Testament Church.

On the Trinity, he said,

“This God is never called a person. The word person was never applied to God in the Middle ages. The reason for this is that the three members of the trinity were called personae (faces or countenances): The Father is persona, the Son is persona, and the Spirit is persona. Persona here means a special characteristic of the divine ground, expressing itself in an independent hypostasis.

“Thus, we can say that it was the nineteenth century which made God into a person, with the result that the greatness of the classical idea of God was destroyed by this way of speaking… but to speak of God as a person would have been heretical for the Middle Ages; it would have been to them a Unitarian heresy, because it would have conflicted with the statement that God has three personae, three expressions of his being. (Tillich, Paul, A History of Christian Thought, p. 190)

Barton Stone, a fellow Restorer said,

“The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. This is acknowledged by the celebrated Calvin, who calls the Trinity “a popish God, or idol, a mere human invention, a barbarous, insipid, and profane word; and he utterly condemns that prayer in the litany–O holy, glorious, and blessed Trinity, &c. as unknown to the prophets and apostles, and grounded upon no testimony of God’s holy word.” Admon. 1st. ad Polonos–Cardale’s true Doct.–The language, like the man, I confess is too severe

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Debate/Discussion, Godhead, Septuagint, Theology | No Comments »

May 10th, 2008

Unus Deus – Verus Doctrina, Pt 10

The ‘I am.’ (Ἐγώ εἰμι)

In Exodus 3: 13-14, God introduces Himself to Moses by His Name “I AM”.

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. – LXX

The Beloved Apostle writes the scene in the Garden this way, “Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am (εγω ειμι). And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am, they went backward, and fell to the ground. (18:3-7)”

Before that that tense moment, John writes of another occasion, when Jewish leaders told Christ, “You are not even fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?” Jesus answered them, saying, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” In the Modalist view, this passage as well as the above, makes sense. This does not point to the pre-existence of the Son, since that has already been proven an erroneous assumption, but to the very truth that Christ was God manifested in the flesh.

In John 8:24, Christ says, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am (οτι εγω ειμι), ye shall die in your sins.” ‘He’ is inserted in many translations, but no word exists in Greek for the pronoun after the copula ειμι. It simply means ‘that I am’. The Jews (Deuteronomy 32:39[1]) used the language when speaking about the LORD (In Septuagint Isaiah 43:10 the very words occur πιστεύσητε καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι). The phrase εγω ειμι occurs three times here (John 8:24, John 8:28, John 8:58) and also in John 13:19 and 18:5.

Vincent says,

“‘He’ is inserted in the versions and is not in the text. By retaining it, we read, I am the Messiah. But the words are rather the solemn expression of His absolute divine being, as in John 8:58 : “If ye believe not that I am.” See Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10; and compare John 8:28, John 8:58 of this chapter, and John 13:19.”

Kittel remarks,

‘Already in the LXX ἐγώ εἰμι is used for God (Ex. 3:14). Philo has it too, and it is a divine predicate in Josephus. In the NT Revelation uses it in the formulas in 11:17; 1:4, 8; 4:8 — formulas of worship, salutation, and self-predication. The nondeclinability of ἐγώ εἰμι and the quasi-participial use of εἰμι preserve the sanctity of the divine self-predication. The formulas express God’s deity and supratemporality. Similar formulas occur in Judaism. The Greeks also use two- and three-tense formulas to express eternity (cf. Homer, Plato, and an Eleusinian inscription). These possibly came into Revelation by way of the Jewish tradition, though a common source may lie behind the Greek and Jewish traditions.” Kittel further says that ἐγώ εἰμι is a self-designation of Christ which ‘stands in contrast to the genésthai applied to Abraham’.

The point of ἐγώ εἰμι is not Christ is identifying himself as the Messiah or a second part of a Trinity, but as the Absolute Deity Himself.

With this said, how can we avoid the Patripassian misunderstanding of Tertullian? We have to still remember that God, preexistent and eternal, manifested Himself in the flesh, creating the Son in His humanity. The Son who revealed to humanity God, who bore the name of God, and who could rightly claim that He was God, was not the Father. It was the human nature of the Son that died and rose again, suffering the agonies of the Cross, and baring upon Himself the sins of the world, of you and me.

[1] ἴδετε ἴδετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς πλὴν ἐμοῦ· ἐγὼ ἀποκτενῶ καὶ ζῆν ποιήσω, πατάξω κἀγὼ ἰάσομαι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὃς ἐξελεῖται ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν μου.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Debate/Discussion, Godhead, Septuagint, Theology | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries