|
Post by Zorro on Apr 13, 2009 10:26:43 GMT -5
When I mentioned getting "hung up" on words, "begotten" is a prime example. Arianism argues that the word means "created", however Scripture presents a very difficult path to that conclusion. You actually support my point of studying God's attributes before drawing conclusions based on a single word. Clearly Scripture prohibits worship of anyone but God. It also clearly commands that Jesus be worshipped. 1+1=2. Scripture describes God as omniscient. It describes Jesus as omniscient. 1+1=2. It describes God as the Creator. It says that through Jesus all things were created. 1+1=2. Whatever "begotten" means, it doesn't mean "created". Bottom line is that Scripture clearly supports the doctrine of a Triune God. But how to understand that, describe God??? Impossible. As you say..."not tidy". I view it the same as I view the Spiritual realm in general....a mystery that we can't comprehend this side of eternity. Just like a God without beginning. Just like God literally dwelling within us (if a person doesn't believe in the Trinity, I ask how they expalin God - Himself - dwelling within us). It's all an awesome mystery.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 13, 2009 20:00:04 GMT -5
The Trinitarians have trouble with the Bible saying that Jesus was God's only begotten son, as they believe he was unbegotten, e.g. with Him from the beginning and before.Actually, I believe Arianism has the problem with the word "begotten". I have no more problem understanding Jesus being "begotten" than I do understanding a God without beginning in the first place In other words, the argument is over the way Jesus "began", if you will. If someone can explain how God "began", or didn't "begin" for that matter, that might be interesting. Until then I'm fine with the mystery of a God without beginning. Trinitarians also have no problem with the relationship of a Son submitted to the will of his Father. IMO, there are many people who enter this study backwards; IE hung up on words. Study the attributes of God. That's the study that will lead to understanding the deity of Christ. One of the Psalms says our Heavenly Father, our God is from "everlasting to everlasting". Kind of nice to think of it in that light, eh?
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Apr 13, 2009 21:13:38 GMT -5
Gen 33,verse10-And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me. Jacob knew what God looked like he even compared it to Esau.
nitro
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 14, 2009 17:39:44 GMT -5
When I mentioned getting "hung up" on words, "begotten" is a prime example. Arianism argues that the word means "created", however Scripture presents a very difficult path to that conclusion. You actually support my point of studying God's attributes before drawing conclusions based on a single word. Clearly Scripture prohibits worship of anyone but God. It also clearly commands that Jesus be worshipped. 1+1=2. Scripture describes God as omniscient. It describes Jesus as omniscient. 1+1=2. It describes God as the Creator. It says that through Jesus all things were created. 1+1=2. Whatever "begotten" means, it doesn't mean "created". Bottom line is that Scripture clearly supports the doctrine of a Triune God. But how to understand that, describe God??? Impossible. As you say..."not tidy". I view it the same as I view the Spiritual realm in general....a mystery that we can't comprehend this side of eternity. Just like a God without beginning. Just like God literally dwelling within us (if a person doesn't believe in the Trinity, I ask how they expalin God - Himself - dwelling within us). It's all an awesome mystery. I think you're sometimes conflating two separate issues. Whether Jesus is God, which Arians accept, or so I believe. And whether or not Jesus existed with God from eternal beginnings or was created from Godly substance by God. If you read Dennis's post above he mentions a number of godly things created by God. No Arian will argue with your 1+1=2 points above. Very well and simply put though. Anyway, I didn't invent Arianism. It's a well elaborated theology, subscribed to by many of the early church fathers, but I'm no expert on it. I wouldn't poo-poo it, is all.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 14, 2009 18:10:28 GMT -5
I think you're sometimes conflating two separate issues.
I understand how it might appear that way, but ultimately it boils down to one basic issue - who is God according to Scripture? One of the attributes of "God" in Scripture is that He is eternal, without beginning or end. So to say that Jesus was God, but not eternal, is a contradiction of terms. Col 2:9 says "In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily". Scripture teaches that Jesus was "fully" God; IE he had ALL the attributes of God, not just some of them, which is actually closer to the essence of the argument between Arius and the early church fathers.
Regarding Arius' influence in the early church, I believe it is accurate to say that he was influential, but not accurate to say that he had the support of early church fathers. Only 3 (possibly only 2) bishops refused to sign the Nicene Creed....out of approximately 300. His main source of influence was through the educational system of the day. But the position of the Apostles and early church fathers couldn't be more clearly articulated than this:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 14, 2009 20:29:11 GMT -5
I think you're sometimes conflating two separate issues.I understand how it might appear that way, but ultimately it boils down to one basic issue - who is God according to Scripture? One of the attributes of "God" in Scripture is that He is eternal, without beginning or end. So to say that Jesus was God, but not eternal, is a contradiction of terms. Col 2:9 says "In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily". Scripture teaches that Jesus was "fully" God; IE he had ALL the attributes of God, not just some of them, which is actually closer to the essence of the argument between Arius and the early church fathers. Regarding Arius' influence in the early church, I believe it is accurate to say that he was influential, but not accurate to say that he had the support of early church fathers. Only 3 (possibly only 2) bishops refused to sign the Nicene Creed....out of approximately 300. His main source of influence was through the educational system of the day. But the position of the Apostles and early church fathers couldn't be more clearly articulated than this: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. The council didn't resolve the issue until 300 years after Christ, and there was much more support for Arianism than the numbers you mention indicate. The doctrine of the Trinity did not emerge until around that time, so for the first 200 years of Christianity no single doctrine predominated. You might say the early Christians didn't really worry about it. Incidentally, what happened to those who didn't sign? Right, they didn't stay alive for very long, so it's not a surprise so many capitulated. Why does John 1 (and Proverbs 8) say Word? If it was Christ, would it not be much clearer to just say, Christ? What do you make of this verse ... in Scripture. 1Cr 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Why will the Son be made subject to God, if he is God? My source for much of this is The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 14, 2009 22:36:04 GMT -5
The council didn't resolve the issue until 300 years after Christ, and there was much more support for Arianism than the numbers you mention indicate.
Everything is subjective, I suppose. There were an estimated 25-30 supporters of Arius at the council, who apparently were put off when they heard, first hand, the scope and implications of Arius' teaching. All but 2-3 signed the document. Granted, it's difficult to sort through history that is dominated by Arius' detractors on one hand and conspiracy theorists on the other hand, but it is safe to say that when it comes to the major leaders of the early church, Arius' teaching was obviously rejected. An interesting aside......Constantine's son supported Arianism.
The doctrine of the Trinity did not emerge until around that time, so for the first 200 years of Christianity no single doctrine predominated. You might say the early Christians didn't really worry about it.
I agree with this to a point. The doctrine wasn't hammered out until the 3rd century, but it wasn't because the early church fathers didn't believe it. The doctrine was the response, and defense, against heresies regarding Christ's being. Origen's position supporting "subordinationism" was rejected, as well. What alot of folks don't realize is that MANY doctrines we accept as centerpieces of Christianity - atonement being an excellent example - were developed over centuries. I think it's very difficult for us, from a modern perspective, to fully grasp what it meant for the early church to wrestle with the implications of God stepping into the earth and changing it forever.
Incidentally, what happened to those who didn't sign? Right, they didn't stay alive for very long, so it's not a surprise so many capitulated.
Good question. I don't know. Chalk one up for the conspiracy side of the argument.
Why does John 1 (and Proverbs 8) say Word? If it was Christ, would it not be much clearer to just say, Christ?
Another good question, from our modern perspective. But from the perspective of antiquity, the plurality of persons of the Godhead was not new. Genesis 1 introduces us to the concept of a God existing as multiple persons. "Elohim" is plural and is used thousands of times in the OT, always with a singular verb; multiple persons as a single God. There are many passages they would have been familiar with like this: Ps 45:6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. 7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
What do you make of this verse ... in Scripture.
1Cr 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Why will the Son be made subject to God, if he is God?
The persons of the Triune God have relationships with each other. The Father is the father. The Son is the son. Pretty simple actually.
Mysource for much of this is The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman.
I'd highly recommend Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 15, 2009 8:49:06 GMT -5
What, As I said in my very first post, I didn't want to get involved in another long, drawn out debate about the Trinity. I still don't and I have several important issues on my plate that need my attention. But before I head for the exit, I want to clarify a couple of points because I think it may appear that the points of disagreement are far greater than they actually are.
First of all, I do confess to perhaps excessive passion on the subject. It was the exact subject I presented to the workers before I professed and I allowed them to persuade me that the Trinity was wrong, Jesus was just a man, and because he was just a man the F&Ws can find exactly the same power to live spotless lives themselves. In addition to the ministry and mtgs in the home, this was the singular issue that set the F&Ws apart from the religious world; we were the only ones who knew the secret to receive and empower the TRUE spirit. Over time, I realized this was wrong. At the end I discussed this issue with many workers, including overseers, and I found they still held to the same error...Jesus was not God. I firmly believe that this is a grievous error, not a trivial issue to simply wink at...and I was forced to leave the fellowship. BTW, this spanned 30 years!!
Let's use Freeman's basic premise to illustrate my second point. He feels the world, in general, morphed from the "open mindedness" of Plato and Aristotle to the "closed mindedness" of Christianity (oversimplified, admittedly). IMO, this begs the question of who do we consider to be the ultimate authority for truth in the first place? Plato, Aristotle, or Christ? What I'm driving at here is that I see no problem with the shift of authority to Christ. The problem is the people. And they had plenty of problems. It doesn't help the modern mind when we view all these events in the context of barbarous times, either. It doesn't help when we see the involvement of people like Constantine. It doesn't help when we see people deal with disagreement with draconian measures. I see the actions of many people of the times and cringe, and wonder. But none of that changes the rightful place of authority in the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, it seems history has been written from the perspective of two extremes. Perhaps at the time that was reality, people couldn't find middle ground. I watched the Passion of the Christ on Easter, and one of the things I wondered about was why Jesus came to earth at that particular point in history. It was a fascinating time to say the least. It's no small wonder that history paints a confusing, conflicted picture when we consider the reality of leaders trying to understand and deliver - and the common man receiving - this message: God came to earth, he taught, he was rejected, he was crucified, he was resurrected, he is now in heaven...and on top of all that....you are redeemed through his blood. Talk about turning the world upside down.
Anyway, it's been pleasant chatting with you and I just wanted to let you know that, from my perspective, I don't think we really disagree on that much...certainly nothing critical. Peace.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 15, 2009 10:13:19 GMT -5
Thanks for your witness Zorro ! My hat's off to your passion.
|
|
|
Post by buzzybee on Apr 15, 2009 11:35:30 GMT -5
Zorro,
I agree with you about this being one point that the workers have wrong. That's why it's confusing for me when joining another church, and they start talking about the Trinity. This has been a most interesting and informative discussion.
Thanks, BB
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 15, 2009 12:08:02 GMT -5
Zorro, I agree with you about this being one point that the workers have wrong. wrong according to who? Many workers accept that Christ is God, but I think most do not. Those that do, are in agreement with the opinion of Johannine writings. Those that do not are in agreement with the opinion of other N.T. writers such as "Matthew." I still do not see how we can possibly argue "right" and "wrong" without a bit more evidence. All we do is circle round and round, each arguer claiming to be on the side of "scripture" because they have found one or more Biblical writers who agree with them.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2009 12:43:04 GMT -5
~~~ My friend, what.... Do you think it was incorrect for Peter, Thomas, Paul to address Jesus as My Lord and God?
If Jesus wasn't God then why didn't He correct them when they called him Lord and God? ;D
Do you believe when the word God is used only refers to the Father in the Bible? How about the word Lord/Yahweh who does it refer to? Jesus or God the Father... or both? No, I accept that Jesus is/was God.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2009 12:51:10 GMT -5
Zorro, I agree with you about this being one point that the workers have wrong. wrong according to who? Many workers accept that Christ is God, but I think most do not. Those that do, are in agreement with the opinion of Johannine writings. Those that do not are in agreement with the opinion of other N.T. writers such as "Matthew." I still do not see how we can possibly argue "right" and "wrong" without a bit more evidence. All we do is circle round and round, each arguer claiming to be on the side of "scripture" because they have found one or more Biblical writers who agree with them. My own opinion is that many aspects of the question cannot be resolved. Among them the exact relationship of Jesus to God, which seems to me much more complex than the "two mints in one" theory. Well, three mints.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2009 13:06:22 GMT -5
What, As I said in my very first post, I didn't want to get involved in another long, drawn out debate about the Trinity. Too late. I do appreciate your insight. I find the question interesting and resist closing around a particular solution. Well I sure don't agree with that, same as you. It sounds like a hell-ish way to proceed in life. Not a wonder you know so much about the issue. All that is most interesting. It sounds like you've read Freeman's book. He finds the motivations of the Nicene council to be more rooted in political than theological necessity. All the same, political necessity often fortuitously serves a wider purpose. I'm quite content to give Plato and Aristotle their due, and accepting Christ should never mean rejecting Plato. (Taking Plato as representative for all culture and science). But we do see that kind of thinking often enough. Also, if the growth of Christianity was concomitant with the slide into the Dark Ages, I don't think Freeman explains very much how that is so. Probably the least compelling part of his thesis. Mere quibbles, but interesting ones.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2009 13:17:21 GMT -5
Thanks for your witness Zorro ! My hat's off to your passion. Witness? Interesting choice of words. You here to convert people?
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Apr 16, 2009 16:50:13 GMT -5
That confusion is unlikely to abate here, since this thread is brimming with heretical views on the Doctrine, and fundamental misunderstandings.
Firstly, to those who would say that the Doctrine of the Trnity does not 1.) offer a full understanding of God, or 2.) "boxes" God into a human package, allow me to respond by saying that the Triune nature of God is a mystery which no man can comprehend. But to suggest the Doctrine of the Trinity is a waste of time is as absurd as saying that because we do not fully understand the nature of sub-atomic particles, we should not bother to construct any models to help us understand them. The analogy is an imprecise one, but I hope it makes the point.
The Doctrine of the Trinity states that God is One Being, but not One Person. God is One Being, and in that One are a plurality of Persons - which we call Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These Persons are co-equal in every attribute of God: perfection, power, glory, praise etc. although there is a certain primacy given to the Father because the Persons lovingly relate to each other.
It is rather an oversimplification to boil it down to the slogan "Jesus is God".
You have neatly described two very ancient heresies: Arianism (which denied the divinity of Christ and asserted Christ was a created being), and Monarchianism (sometimes called Adoptionism), which asserts that Jesus was granted a kind of divinity from God and thus became divine "by adoption".
You are also wrong that Jesus was not equal with the Father, for the Scripture says, "And he being equal with God, did not consider that equality something to be grasped at all costs, and become a little lower than the angels...".
Yet we are given "fullness" in Christ Jesus. I wonder what "fullness" means?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2009 17:03:06 GMT -5
GIC, your post above, in my opinion, is very well stated. May I just add that, for me, God indeed is a singular Spirit Being? For me, that Spirit Being has a plural existence, fully able to emerge and merge again according to the will of the Father. For me, too, it is indeed a great mystery, this matter of Godliness even though the Holy Spirit continues to reveal that mystery so that with the passing in time, it is not quite so cloudy as it once was..
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 16, 2009 17:23:24 GMT -5
Our head worker spoke on the deity of Christ just two weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 16, 2009 17:40:52 GMT -5
He finds the motivations of the Nicene council to be more rooted in political than theological necessity.
This is a good point that I think is very helpful for folks to realize and understand. Maybe it would be helpful to imagine current events being written into history. A conservative perspective is going to interpret and record events far differently than one looking at the same issues from a liberal point of view. There is little doubt that this dynamic comes into play regarding historical accounts of the early church. As I wrote earlier, it appears there was little middle ground for opposing positions.
Frankly, during my professing years the early church was always cast in a negative light (I contend that generally speaking the fellowship subscribes to the Great Apostasy, whether they call it that or not). Consequently, I find the period to be a fascinating study. Regarding Constantine's impact on the times, obviously it was significant and the argument for a political agenda is fairly easy to make....and not without merit. However, the writings of Polycarp, Irenaeus, Augustine, etal clearly show the concept of the Triune God being articulated in the first and second centuries, long before Constantine came onto the scene. I also believe that the threat of Gnostic influence cannot be underestimated, let alone ignored. Bottom line for me is that while Constantine's political agenda is fairly obvious, I believe the case arguing the need to address the theological issues of the time is significantly stronger. To my ear most arguments to the contrary take on the ring of "conspiracy theories", if you will.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2009 22:26:18 GMT -5
How so? It seems to me that an agnostic like Charles Freeman would be more inclined to take a passive view. And in fact, he displays full command of the human processes at work; no conspiracy about it. Whereas it's a known fact that mainstream belief systems are powerful enough to rewrite history and even re-define language to place themselves at the centre of things. Freeman tells us that in the last 20 years historians have "completely rewritten" the church history of this period to take fuller account of the influence of Arianism. (163-4). Here is an interesting quote, "Until Athanasius began writing [against Arianism] every single theologian, east and west, had postulated some form of Subordinationism ... it could until the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic (i.e. universal) theology".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2009 22:58:12 GMT -5
That confusion is unlikely to abate here, since this thread is brimming with heretical views on the Doctrine, and fundamental misunderstandings. Firstly, to those who would say that the Doctrine of the Trnity does not 1.) offer a full understanding of God, or 2.) "boxes" God into a human package, allow me to respond by saying that the Triune nature of God is a mystery which no man can comprehend. But to suggest the Doctrine of the Trinity is a waste of time is as absurd as saying that because we do not fully understand the nature of sub-atomic particles, we should not bother to construct any models to help us understand them. The analogy is an imprecise one, but I hope it makes the point. The Doctrine of the Trinity states that God is One Being, but not One Person. God is One Being, and in that One are a plurality of Persons - which we call Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These Persons are co-equal in every attribute of God: perfection, power, glory, praise etc. although there is a certain primacy given to the Father because the Persons lovingly relate to each other. It is rather an oversimplification to boil it down to the slogan "Jesus is God". You have neatly described two very ancient heresies: Arianism (which denied the divinity of Christ and asserted Christ was a created being), and Monarchianism (sometimes called Adoptionism), which asserts that Jesus was granted a kind of divinity from God and thus became divine "by adoption". You are also wrong that Jesus was not equal with the Father, for the Scripture says, " And he being equal with God, did not consider that equality something to be grasped at all costs, and become a little lower than the angels...". Yet we are given "fullness" in Christ Jesus. I wonder what "fullness" means? From what I understand, Arianism does consider Jesus to be divine. The only question is the exact nature of the subordination of the Son to the Father. Even the doctrine of the Trinity considers the Son subordinate to the Father from what I read here. Somehow the Father is equal to the Son, but also greater than the Son. He is greater than and equal to the Son, an operation well outside the realm of conventional mathematics. One serious problem in the discussion is that there probably is no exact thing as "Arianism". It tends to be a grab-basket for all non-Trinitarian thought. One problem historians mention is that the exact thought of non-Trinitarian scholars such as Origen, Clement, Justin Martyr and Arius was destroyed and so we are left with the Trinitarian's version of the non-Trinitarian views. It would seem that these men were not so much in the grip of a blinding heresy, but that they wrote freely and as they thought upon a number of questions without considering the need for an overriding, all-encompassing theory. The essential problem with Nicene is that someone, the very powerful Emperor Constantine, thought there should be one prevailing view, for the sake of good order within the Empire. So the very reason for Nicene was not that things had to be settled because of a compelling theological need, but rather it had to be solved because of a political issue. Had there not been a powerful Emperor who thought this, the council would not have occurred, and we'd still be arguing about this today. Wait ... we still are arguing about this today. So much for the Emperor, and so much more for Truth, Light, and a proper tolerance for ambiguity in the face of apparent contradiction. One thing I am sure of is that there is no reason for thinking that Trinitarian views had a sounder basis in Scripture than any other. The non-Trinitarian views as I read them are not so broadly heretical as to suggest that Jesus is not divine, for example. It's not my purpose to defend Arianism, a philosophy I don't fully understand, but I would challenge anyone to find one point of it that contradicts Scripture. Personally, I think there is much merit in discarding the entire Trinitarian idea and just reading the verses on the subject of the relationship of the Father to the Son. It's not really a theory if no one can understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 16, 2009 23:40:40 GMT -5
To my ear most arguments to the contrary take on the sound of "conspiracy theories", if you will.
How so? It seems to me that an agnostic like Charles Freeman would be more inclined to take a passive view. How can I explain this? Let's draw a line and at one end of it, let's put the general positions of what some call the Great Tradition (the body of orthodox beliefs) and at the other end let's put the positions of those who might consider The DaVinci Code one of the important works of our time; IE the standard bearers of conspiracy theories. IMO, everyone finds themselves somewhere on that scale and my general observation is that very few people are in the middle, but tend toward one end or the other. Why would I consider an agnostic to deliver an unbiased view of the cumulative work the early church fathers? Especially when he makes a statement like this: in the last 20 years historians have "completely rewritten" the church history of this period to take fuller account of the influence of Arianism. An exaggerated statement such as that smacks of bias. IMO, I'm being kind calling that an exaggeration. It's certainly not true of the scholars I've read or the theology instructors I've listened to. Here is an interesting quote, "Until Athanasius began writing [against Arianism] every single theologian, east and west, had postulated some form of Subordinationism ... it could until the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic (i.e. universal) theology".This is an another exaggeration (every single theologian), and I suspect a misstatement of fact. At the very least it's a misrepresentation of the process of refining the doctrine. Athanasius was only 29 years old at the time of the Nicene council, coming to the council as the secretary of Alexander, not as an official member. While he actually did have influence on the council, he didn't emerge as Arius' chief rival until after. On the other hand, "subordinationism" was rejected at the council. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept the above statement as any more than biased exaggeration. As far as the process is concerned, there is no question that there was diversity of opinion regarding a multitude of issues. I wonder why anyone would expect anything different, given the utterly unimaginable task of trying to understand what it meant for Christ to walk on the earth. They were witnessing, interpreting and recording the pinnacle of redemptive history. I don't think it's particularly insightful to interpret the early church father's efforts as corrupted by politics, nefarious, misguided...or any such thing. Bottom line is that even if the quote above were true, which I don't believe it is, my response would be "So what?" The early church had many things to work out, and they did it. I believe they were being led by God to do his work, and the end result was his will. People leaning toward the right side of my scale above, tend to believe the result was the work of politics, corruption, fear, and the like. I guess you can probably tell what side of the scale I lean towards
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 17, 2009 7:39:13 GMT -5
What, Re-reading my post above, I think it may sound more argumentative than it should and I want to to clarify where I'm coming from. I'm not saying Freeman's opinions are without merit, I'm saying they're not without bias. IMO, EVERYONE has bias. I'd like to make a suggestion to you that I've found helpful, not in eliminating my own personal bias (because I recognize that's impossible) but to help me keep as open a mind as possible. Because I operate from the position that EVERYONE is biased (perhaps the "smarter" one is, the higher I raise my antennae), I try my best to consider a counter opinion of every author I read. This is something demonstrated exceptionally well by the instructors of bible.org's Theology Program (which is sponsored by the Dallas Theological Seminary). The primary texts they use are Systematic Theology, by Wayne Grudem (a Calvinist) and The Mosaic of Christian Belief, by Roger Olson (an Armenian). Michael Patton can present the diversity of opinion on any subject in a way that you don't know his actual position until he reveals it at the conclusion of the session. To this end, I've tried to develop the habit of considering opposing views of all arguments. When reading the works of "emergent church" authors (Brian McLaren, Donald Miller, etal), I read DA Carson ( Becoming Conversant With the Emergent Church). I study Calvinism and Armenianism at the same time (even throw Molinism in there for good measure). Believe it or not, I've tried to understand as best I can where atheists are coming from. This approach helps me recognize the bias of various positions and gives a broader base on which to form my own opinions (which of course are biased. I just want them to be mine . Bottom line is that you have a good work representing that position in your hands, now I'd suggest you read a good counter point. Either of the books mentioned above would be good. Again, I've enjoyed the "chat" and I hope you don't take my post above as excessively argumentative, on a personal level.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Apr 17, 2009 9:53:00 GMT -5
Hi What,
Interesting discussion.
Firstly, Arianism generally regards Jesus as a created being, often relying on texts such as John's "begotten of the Father" as evidence. However, Trinitarians have long pointed out that as Jesus must be understood to be eternally begotten, this text is not a refutation of Trinitarian belief. You are correct that Arianism may ascribe Jesus some form of divinity, but usually only in the sense that angels are sometimes referred to as "divine" - that is, they are created, yet of an higher order of existence than man.
I believe confusion arises when we reconcile our belief about the Person and nature of Christ, with the concept that he "became a little lower than the angels", in that he came to earth taking the "form of a servant". Care must be taken when approaching the incarnate Christ that we distinguish between his humanity and his deity. For example, in occupying a body he was, in one sense, made finite; he was possessed of needs unlike God who needs no food or drink.
When we come to understand that in Jesus was an interaction between his full humanity and his full divinity - prayer being a characteristic of humanity, and miracles (for example) being the characteristic of divinity, we see the apparently subordinate position served a definite function. The Bible speaks of Jesus creating the world (John); sustaining "all things" with his powerful word; and being equal with God (Hebrews).
I disagree. Although Arian heresy may differ on nuance, it always has key characteristics - denying, namely, Jesus' eternal nature and the fullyness of his deity (Arianism is often paired with Dynamic Monarchianism, which is typical, for example, of Jehovah's Witness belief). There are a great many non-trinitarian heresies, and they are very specifically understood. I would recommend a short text The Cruelty of Heresy (Allison, 2005), written by a theological expert in this area who analyses the "cardinal" or typical non-trinitarian heresies that have cropped up throughout the centuries.
I agree with you. The Patristic Corpus is not a coherent body of theology, as our Roman Catholic friends like to assert. However, I do reject your suggestion that the Patristic documents were tampered with. Firstly, you would need to have good reason - solid evidence - for such a view, which I believe is never adequately provided by revisionist historians of the Patristic Corpus. Secondly, I believe there is significant solid and scholarly evidence to show that such tampering did not occur.
If the Patristic literature is overwhelmingly Trinitarian, this may suggest that the Church itself generally leant in that direction. The hitherto ignored Bishop of Melito preached a powerful sermon, full of Trinitarian language a hundred years before the Council of Nicea or Constantinople. (The latter council actually formalised the doctrine, not the former as is often believed.)
Poor Constantine has been blamed for a lot of things, probably due to modern scepticism about the integrity of ancient people, and the honesty of politicians. In fact, Constantine was a theological ignoramus who probably did not care overmuch - but he did want the bishops to settle the matter once and for all. Constantine exiled Athanasius when that was favourable; and then exiled Arius when that course of action became more popular. Arianism was very strong; Trinitarian belief had a lot to overcome - and almost hinged entirely on one man: Athanasius.
Any non-trinitarian view of Jesus by necessity presents a limited, or changeable being, who comes forth as either too much a man, or too much divine to adequately serve as the "Way, Truth and Life". The implications are stark. We either end up as Pelagians because Jesus is not sufficiently perfect, eternal, pure, and powerful to atone for sins, or we end in mysticism as we contemplate a spiritual, mostly-divine emanation who once walked among us.
I find Trinitarianism logical, intellectually satisfying, spiritually significant and reassuring. We have access to God. That is surely a thing to celebrate!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 18, 2009 9:07:10 GMT -5
Well, you fellows will soon outstrip me, if you have not already, as far as my knowledge of the early church fathers are concerned. I appreciate the references for further study. I have a pretty extensive library, and a growing section of unread books; the virtues and pitfalls of the curious mind. I've got one weighty tome Rob Oxenbridge recommended to me, and a score or two of other volumes in the theology section (mostly unread ), which used to have only a few books about Mennonites and maybe Josephus. I have to correct one major misunderstanding and then some minor points. My perspective on these issues is influenced primarily by two things: a) primary text reading of the Bible, and b) a secular, liberal point of view. Freeman is most decidedly NOT a fictional conspiracy writer like Dan Brown who strings together startling factoids designed to appeal to the prurient interest. Rather, there is a stark contrast, I believe, between histories written within the Bible college domain (with no discredit intended) and those written in the secular domain. So if you wish to arrange a continuum it should be of those opposed within the realm of serious scholarship. Freeman is a secular historian taking a fresh look at source material with a decidedly contrarian view to the established, religious view. He may be stretching the envelope, but the important thing to realize is the legitimacy of his interpretation from a scholarly point of view. He in no way would wade into the question of the validity of Trinitarianism as we have; the point is of no concern to him. But let's look at this comment of GIC "Poor Constantine has been blamed for a lot of things, probably due to modern scepticism about the integrity of ancient people ...", It must be said that this would mischaracterize Freeman's view; I know that was not GIC's intent. But the real problem is that Constantine has been thought by conventional religious historians to be a true convert and a strong advocate for the Christian faith. At least that's what they told me as a young Calvinist, and the balance of the evidence now is that he was merely an excellent and religiously tolerant emperor. Zorro, I found your insight on Athanasius interesting, and it struck me that the key difference, as you yourself state, is your outlook on the temper and attitude of these men. In Freeman's book they come off rather power hungry and shark-like, and I might add, more like I find men many times to be. I find I'm left somewhat irresolute on the subject, and thank you again for those references. Finally, on the question of tampering ... No such allegation is made. Freeman states that we do not have the original writings of the Arians and "other heresies", I believe they were destroyed. What we have is the Trinitarians' descriptions of these doctrines. On balance, perhaps the Trinitarian doctrine might provide a useful semantical logic structure for slotting the testimonies of Christ and God that are available. And I truly believe the question of our faith is an independent matter from our 'thinking about things'. I probably will always have some reticence toward the doctrine because of the closure it seemingly provides, which is no fault of the doctrine but the manner of its teaching, a closure which I don't think exists. But I could change my mind: it has happened before ...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 18, 2009 9:23:18 GMT -5
Oh yeah, for atheism try Bertrand Russell, although it's been a while for me.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 18, 2009 10:32:37 GMT -5
interesting discussion.
fs
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Apr 18, 2009 10:37:25 GMT -5
I agree... but admittedly far above my head....I'm learning by it though!
|
|