The Subordinationist's (SB) comments are in red. Pacheco's comments are in blue.
Let's first look at the apostolic fathers, the designation used for churchmen who wrote about Christianity in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries CE. Some of them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and Papias. They were said to be contemporaries of some of the apostles. Thus, they should have been familiar with apostolic teachings.
Yes. Let's look at what they did, in fact, say.
I am not sure why you respond in such a fashion. I have, in fact, quoted directly from the ante-Nicene fathers.
Yes. I know you have quoted from them, but I challenge your interpretation of what they have said by and extrapolation of their writings.
“If he were made a temple of God - now I ask you: of what God? Of the Creator? But that is not possible, because he does not believe Him. Of Christ? One who denies that Christ is God cannot become His temple. Of the Holy Spirit? Since the Three are One, how were it possible for the Holy Spirit to be reconciled to him that is an enemy of either the Son or of the Father?” - St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters, 73,12, 254 A.D.
Regarding what those men wrote, The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Taken as a whole the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are more valuable historically than any other Christian literature outside the New Testament.” (The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1985, Micropædia, Volume 1, page 488)
You know, Mr. SB, I seem to recall that the JWs utilize this Encyclopedia to support their doctrines. I wonder if that is a coincidence.
Well, I happen to have a set, so it would be more than a coincidence. However, unless you dispute the accuracy of what is quoted, what is the point of such a comment?
Well, you said you were not a JW, but this group repeatedly refers to this text in selectively and fallaciously quoting against the Catholic Church so I find this coincidental - that’s all. As for the source itself, it’s adequate - although I really don’t appreciate it’s Darwinian bent by passing on the theory of evolution as fact.
I would think that we could agree that if the apostles taught the Trinity doctrine, then those Apostolic Fathers should have taught it too. It should have been prominent in their teaching, since nothing was more important than telling people who God is.
Great. I'm glad you don't have a truncated approach to the bible. Oral tradition is as important to the true Christian faith as the defined canon, which of course the Catholic Church determined. I know why I believe those books to be inspired and Apostolic. Why do you?
Because of the harmony between them. But I do understand that you would like to change the subject of our discussion, so let's try to stay on course
Harmony? I would think the Book of Psalms would be more “harmonious” with the Book of Wisdom (which Protestants reject) than it would be with Leviticus. But then again you no doubt have a special gift at discerning the harmony between all the books of *your* bible. How wonderfully convenient! I’m sure Joseph Smith has lit the flame in your bosom.
Of course, I do not subscribe to such a facile and patently subjective methodology. (At least, Prof. Beduhn was honest to admit that inspiration was outside his field of expertise.) I prefer the historical account offered by Eusebius in 325 A.D.: “Those that are disputed, yet familiar to most, include the epistles known as James, Jude, and 2 Peter, and those called 2 and 3 John, the work either of the evangelist or of someone else with the same name. Among the spurious books must be placed…the Revelation of John…Some have found place for the ‘Gospel of Hebrews.’”
Perhaps you could share you “harmonious” methodology with poor ol’ Eusebius?
One of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in a book of known as The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some historians date it before or about the year 100 C.E. Its author is unknown. (A Dictionary of Christian Theology, edited by Alan Richardson, 1969, page 95; The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1985, Micropædia, Volume 4, page 79).
The Didache primarily deals with things people would need to know to become Christians. In its 7th chapter, it prescribes baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the same words Jesus used at Matthew 28:19. (The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 3, by Robert A. Kraft, 1965, page 163). But it says nothing about the three being equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom.
Yes. I am familiar with the Didache. I find your assessment here quite unacceptable. No where in your reference does it deny the Trinity.
I am surprised that you use a logical fallacy in support of you view. You essentially argue that since it does not deny the Trinity, it impliedly supports it.
No. I do not refer to The Didache as supporting the Trinity - although I guess you could make an argument that it does just like Matthew 28:19, but that is not the issue here.
The issue here, Mr. SB, is that you are saying, "See, the Didache says nothing about the three being equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom." And I am saying that that proves nothing because it is an argument from sufficiency or a "mixed hypothetical syllogism" - as I have repeatedly alluded to in this post.
I am not saying what you suggest I am saying: The *reason* I said, "No where in your reference does it deny the Trinity" is to show you:
1) that you ironically reject the same argument that you, yourself, make;
2) that the argument from sufficiency can be used both ways - it settles nothing.
Re: Matthew 28:19
The reference, if anything, *favours* the Trinity. Notice that the "name of the Father" is put *along side* the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now, just when does God share the same stage and level with anyone else other than Himself? If indeed Jesus is subordinate to the Father, then he should not be put on the same plane with the Father, as this phraseology suggests.
This is a quite old and worn Trinitarian argument. It is true that Matt. 28:19 and 2 Cor 13:14 are instances of this. Neither of these texts says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, they are insufficient to prove the Trinity.
Sufficiency is a matter of personal opinion. For some people, the evidence of someone being cured of terminal cancer after being immersed in the waters of Lourdes is sufficient proof for its authenticity. For the obstinate skeptic, *no evidence* - even the *same kind* of evidence that they will accept in non-religious questions - will be sufficient.
Compare 1 Tim. 5:21, where God and Christ and the angels are mentioned together. So does God share the same stage and level with the angels?
1 Tim 5:21: "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels, I charge you....."
"In the presence of" does not equate to "in the authority of" as is used in Matthew 28:19 ("in the name of"). Asking someone to witness to an act or an event is not the same thing as saying that they have the authority to consummate it.
Moreover, in Matthew 28:19, Jesus is commanding his Apostles to perform a religious act in reference to the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit.", that is, to baptize - which effects a supernatural regeneration (Cf. John 3:5). No angel has that ability or power to do so.
Further, you state a conclusion upon an unsupported premise. It is your opinion, based upon your preconceived theology, that God does not "share the same stage and level" with others.
Actually, it has very little to do with a "preconceived theology" at all. It would not be out of line for you or a Jehovah Witness to say the same thing! You have a holy fear and awe of God. You believe He is sovereign and almighty. You believe that He is greater than anything and everything in the universe. Well, I do too. And that is why I can make the claim that He does not share "the same stage". To share the same stage, is in many respects a sign of equality with another being, which by definition, is not possible with an infinite and perfect God. Hence, there is no problem with saying God does not "share the same stage" with anyone. In fact, the bible is replete with this lesson, the most famous case is, of course, Adam and Eve where Satan said, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5). It was Satan and our first parent's pride that made them fall because they sought to put themselves "on the same stage".
Now, you *can* challenge if "in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does, in fact, mean "sharing the same stage". I am rather surprised, however, that you would question whether any other being can "share the same stage" as God Himself.
Also the language of the text never states that using such language is meant to covey equality of nature. Many trinitarians have argued that verse 19 uses a singular "name" with regard to the three persons of the Godhead, thereby identifying them as 3 persons who are all called by one name. This is simply not sound reasoning. I think we can be better helped to understand this verse by peering into the meaning of the Greek word translated "name," and then looking else where for its use in the Bible. The Greek word translated "name" here is "onoma." It means "in the power of, or in the authority of, delegated authority." (Strong's Greek Dictionary pg. 52; Thayer's Greek Lexicon pg. 447; The Analytical Greek Lexicon by Moulton pg. 289) So far so good.
It is like we might say in the English "Stop! In the name of the Law!" Now are we to conclude that the "law" has a literal name like "Henry or Bobby or Judy"? No, of course not. It simply refers to the power or authority by which one would have the right to stop another individual.
But that is just it. Jesus does not say, "Stop in the name of God" or "Stop in the name of the Father". He includes Himself in that authority and He includes a rather idiomatic "force", the Holy Spirit, in the formula. You do not say, "stop in the name of the law and the law's force", do you?
If God the Father is the *only* true God and Jesus is subordinate to Him, then is the Father's authority not *enough* or *sufficient* to baptize or, to use your example, "to stop another individual"?
Ask yourself why Jesus includes Himself in the formula. Would you say, "Stop in the name of the King, the Prince, and the King's law"? or would you say instead, "Stop in the name of the King!" To say the former does not cause much notice, but to say the latter is, at the very least, conspicuous. .
So let's "transliterate" the line: "...baptizing them in the authority of the Father, and in the authority of the Son, and in the authority of the Holy Spirit" If I said to you: "You have the authority to purchase the product by the authority of the marketing, finance, and production departments", would that not suggest to you that the authority of *all three* were *necessary*? And if they were indeed necessary, does that not mean that to deprive the authority of one would make the command incomplete?
Notice what "The Expositors Greek Testament" Vol. I, by Eerdmans pg. 340 has to say, relative to our discussion of Matthew 28:18,19: "it is the name not of one but of three, forming a baptismal Trinity-Father, Son, and Holy Ghost........Hence might be deducted the idea of a Trinity constituting at the same time a Divine Unity. But this would probably be reading more into the words than was intended."
"Probably...more than was intended?" What if, in this particular instance, the dice did not role the way that was "probable"? I hope you see that such a statement is rather problematic. Who has the power to know *objectively* what the sacred writers intended by the statement? See how a Church established by God would come in handy here? How the anarchy would quickly disappear? How Jesus' words "you will know the truth" can really mean that we *will*, in fact, *know* the truth?
So too here in verse 19. Notice that Jesus, in verse 18 says that he is "given all authority." Now stopping here for a moment, how can Jesus be "fully God" and be "given all authority?" There is obviously a christological problem with such logic. Jesus already would possess it "IF" he were Fully God. And also, just whom would give God anything, let alone authority?
When Jesus says, "I have been given all authority", who is the 'I'? When Jesus "grows in wisdom", how is this possible? Well, as you know, the Trinitarian will say that Jesus is not only fully divine but also fully human. His divinity means that he has a divine nature while his humanity demands a human one, both co-existing with one another. But BEFORE the incarnation, Jesus did not have a human nature because He had not yet become a human being. Therefore, since His 'human dimension' DID have a beginning, it is totally proper and logical to say that Jesus Christ, the man-God, was "given" all authority. It would not be totally incomparable to a family "giving" their family piano do the eldest daughter even though it belonged to all, or one partner in a business being “given” all authority to make certain strategic decisions.
Let's look at another usage of "onoma" in scripture and see how it is used. Acts 4:7 reads: "and they stood them in their midst and began to inquire: "By what power or in whose name did YOU do this?" Here we see that the disciples were questioned concerning the "power" and "name" by which they did their acts. They went on to explain that they did so by the power or authority of Jesus, their leader. So then the "name" by which disciples baptize new ones in, is in the submission to the "power or authority" of:
a) the Father, as The God of the Congregation (1 Cor. 8:6), then in the "power or authority" of
b) the Son as the Lord or Mediator of the congregation (1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5), and finally
c) the "power or authority" of the holy spirit which causes his will to be exercised and enforced.
Sorry. I don't see how this proves your point. St. Peter appealing to the power of Jesus Christ does not disprove the Trinitarian claim. The only thing you have shown by providing this reference is to show that Jesus' name is appealed to, which is rather a neutral passage.
But wait. Let's look at the passage a little more closely. "And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, 'By what power or by what name did you do this?' Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them....be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth...this man is standing before you well." (Acts. 4:7-10). Peter, "filled with the Holy Spirit", appeals to the Son, which, according to you, is allegedly subordinate to God. How can the Spirit of God, speaking through the Prince of the Apostles, subordinate its authority or its name to a creature? Can you give me biblical precedent for this?
McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matt. 28:18-20: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are “insufficient” to prove the Trinity.
I've addressed this kind of argument above. No need to repeat it again.
Re: Matthew 28:19
But what is more, at the very least, it is a neutral teaching - neither Arian nor Trinitarian. The fact that it says "nothing about the three being equal..." is an argument from silence which can hardly be taken as proof of the rejection of the Trinity. It does not say they are NOT equal either. It is *you* who say that.
Fine, I will accept that it is neutral. It certainly cannot be trinitarian based on the context and Greek.
At the very least, it is a neutral teaching. That is the very minimum. Of course, there is a lot to say that it well surpasses the minimum. I was merely giving you what I believe to be, in my opinion, a floor which you could not go below. The sky's the limit, though, my friend J.
In its 10th chapter, The Didache includes the following confession of faith in the form of a prayer: “We thank you, Holy Father, for your holy Name which you have made to dwell in our hearts; and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever! You, Almighty Master, created everything for your Name’s sake . . . And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and life eternal through Jesus your Servant. (Ibid., pages 166-7). There is no Trinity in this.
Um...what exactly is the proof here? The only thing I can surmise as an indication of subordination is that Jesus is called "servant". Well, if that is the proof that you are using to show subordination, may I suggest that you have missed the mark badly.
No that is not what I am suggesting. Here, only God is referred to as the "Almighty." But I see that you have made another mistake that I will address below.
Again, SB, you are arguing from sufficiency. But let's look a little closer at your claim that "there is no Trinity in this." The teaching says "And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and *life eternal through Jesus* your Servant." Tell me. How can a finite creature be used as a medium for something which is not finite, namely, eternal life? When Adam sinned, he caused a separation from God for all of humanity. The sin is infinite (in degree) because the offended, God, is infinite. Now, if the sin is infinite, then what quality must the redeemer have in order to negate the sin? Well, this redeemer *must* also be eternal in order to meet the demands of divine justice. Perfect justice is what God demands for the sin committed against Him, and only a perfect sacrifice (perfection, of course, includes eternity) through an eternal God can fulfill it. Hence, Jesus must be God - if He is not, our "redemption" is incomplete and insufficient.
This is your argument:
Premise 1: God cannot be servant to Himself. Premise 2: Jesus was a servant. Conclusion: Jesus cannot be God.
Premise 1: A being cannot be both the servant and master in reference to himself. Premise 2: Jesus was a servant. Premise 3: Jesus cannot be the master also in reference to himself.
I shall address your position that a person must be a separate being in just a moment.
To be a servant of someone does not necessarily mean that you are less than them in either dignity or authority.
Another common mistake of trinitarians is that they like to pretend that a person is not a separate being. To be a servant of another being does not mean that you are less than that person in dignity or authority, but it does mean that you cannot be that being.
Just a moment. Let's back up. Who gets to define what a person is? Of course, you take the contemporary line that persons are *necessarily* separate beings because that is what your senses tell you, but that is not necessarily applicable to the composition of God. You have argued from sufficiency much. NOW you are imposing an argument from necessity! By the way, Mr. SB, when the UN Charter (I think it was the Charter) was being drafted, it contained the word "person" in it. You know why the Communists rejected that word, Mr. SB? You guessed it! because it had Theistic, Christian, Trinitarian origins in it. You see how even the devil knows when to object to such a Trinitarian word.
In fact, if you did believe this, then how can Jesus be the servant of the Apostles (Cf. John 13:14) and of you and of me (Cf. Matthew 20:28). How can Jesus have "lived in subjection to" (Luke 2:51) Mary and Joseph? Is he less than or subject to the apostles or his parents because He is our Servant? This is the inescapable conclusion you must accept. Do you accept it?....I didn't think so. So, likewise……
Please! I am not the one arguing that Jesus has the same essence or exact nature as the Apostles, of other Christians, or of his parents. Are you attempting to say that Jesus is not a separate being from these persons?
No, of course not. All I was trying to demonstrate is that one may be a servant yet not be less than one's master, and I think I have done that.
…….He is not subordinate to the Father because He is His servant either.
This sentence does not make sense. But, if I am getting the correct sense of it, are you asserting that a servant and a master can be the same being? If yes, please provide scriptural examples.
I've addressed this issue above. No need to repeat it here.
In The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Edwin Hatch quotes the foregoing passage and then says: “In the original sphere of Christianity there does not appear to have been any great advance upon these simple conceptions. The doctrine upon which stress was laid was, that God is, that He is one, that He is almighty and everlasting, that He made the world, that His mercy is over all His works. There was no taste for metaphysical discussion.” (The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, by Edwin Hatch, 1957, page 252).
You are not talking to a Protestant, Mr. SB. Catholicism admits to the DEVELOPMENT of doctrine, and not just about the Trinity. I recognize that there can be advances in the study of Scripture. I don't see why it can't be the same in the understanding of such a great mystery either.
I don't recall thinking of you as a Protestant. The point of the quote above is to demonstrate that the original Christians did not resort to Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy to explain the relationship between the Father and his Son. Further, the Bible itself does not convey that such a relationship is any "great mystery."
Why do you downplay philosophy? Cannot God use man's capacity at reasoning to further explain His Truth? If you are so averse to the original Christians consulting other sources, then you must have a great problem with St. Paul who was not constrained by your artificial limitations. St. Paul frequently quotes pagans in his writings, such as the pagan poet, Menander (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:33). He quotes Aratus, a third century B.C. pagan poet, speaking of human beings as God's creation: "We are his offspring" (Acts 17:28). St. Paul quotes the pagan poet Epimenides (and even calls him a PROPHET! - (Cf. Titus 1:12)), who wrote, "In him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).
And what about the Jews of the Dispersion who composed the Septuagint? Here is a passage from “A History of the Church” by Philip Hughes:
It was nevertheless, impossible for them to live entirely uninfluenced by their surroundings. They became Greek speaking, for example, and forgot their Hebrew to such an extent that it was necessary for their own use to have their sacred writings translated into Greek -- whence the Septuagint. With the new language they entered into contact with all the rich variety of the world's most gifted civilisation. Greece, its literature, its philosophy, its spirit of speculation on fundamental things, now lay open to the scholars and thinkers of the Dispersion. Were they to close their minds to the new influence, to shut it out as a thing necessarily accursed, in the fashion of many of their compatriots in Palestine? -- or was there not a means of conciliating what was good in it with their own traditions, and so of enlarging the sphere of their influence without surrendering what was vital to their faith? The thinkers of Alexandrian Judaism chose the latter alternative, and using Greek Philosophy to universalise the Law, strove to create an entente where the corrected philosophy and the Law, philosophically explained, should be seen as two aspects of the same unity. The Jewish faith remained the same thing, with its eternal foundations of monotheism and the personal immortality of the individual soul. The best of Greek philosophy accorded here with Jewish belief; and while the Jew accepted the philosophical allegorising of the Greek myths and fables that made of them merely a vehicle for the teaching of abstract truths, he was prepared, in the same accommodating spirit, to explain allegorically, the contents of his own sacred books. It is the idea hidden behind the fact that is the all-important thing; the fact related is secondary. Greek Philosophy thus becomes a religion, accepting the principle of the supernatural; Judaism, without ceasing to be a religion, will be a philosophy, "searching beneath the word revealed, the reasonable teaching it covers."
Don’t truncate the Catholic Church, SB - unless you want to do the same for St. Paul and the Alexandrian Jews.
Now I find it rather delicious how the Church is viewed something of a contradiction. On the one hand, the liberals view the Catholic Church as “backward and closed minded, not willing to ‘open up’ to human philosophy”. On the other hand, you and the other “fundys” accuse Her of importing ‘traditions and philosophies of men’ into Christianity. So which is it, SB?
Clement of Rome: “Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.”
“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.”
“May God, who seeth all things, and who is the Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh-who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be a peculiar people-grant to every soul that calleth upon His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition, 1885, Volume I, pages 5, 16, 21).
Clement does not say that Jesus or the holy spirit is equal to God. He presents Almighty God (not just “Father”) as distinct from the Son. God is spoken of as superior, since Christ is “sent forth” by God, and God “chose” Christ. Showing that God and Christ are two separate and unequal identities
O.K. are you saying that Jesus is subordinate BECAUSE he was "sent forth" by God? Here we go yet again. SB, just admit it. St. Clement was a Trinitarian:
“This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man-the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal. For, according to that inspired apostle of the Lord, "the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." St. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1, 200 A.D. “Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, the Expiator, the Saviour, the Soother, the Divine Word, He that is quite evidently true God, He that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because He was His Son….” St. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 10, 200 A.D.
O.K., let's actually explore another common trinitarian argument technique. I assume that persons are separate beings based on all usage of the Biblical languages. Since you are the one that is assuming something different from that norm, where do you find grammatical, contextual or historical support for such a position?
God is constantly revealing Himself throughout Judeo-Christian History. Each successive generation of God's people knows a little more about God. The deposit of revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, but before this time new and novel revelation was still possible. Having said that, then, when you say "I assume that persons are beings based on all usage of the Biblical languages", you necessarily exclude those passages which point to the Trinity - you beg the question. Furthermore, there is no requirement that a new revelation in the bible be necessarily predicated on past biblical precedent. That’s why we call it revelation.
I, on the other hand, am not assuming anything. I am asking you to tell me who gets to say what a person is WITHOUT engaging in circular argumentation.
You presuppose that God the Son cannot be sent by God the Father and still be equal to God the Father.
First, as you know, Jesus is NEVER called "God the Son." His is called the "Son of God."
No. You are right. But He is called 'God'. And He is called 'Son'. He is not the Father, and He is not the Holy Spirit. So I don't think God the Son is too much of a stretch.
Funny, how St. Ignatius of Antioch has a different opinion of Scripture. Hmmmm…I wonder who I should believe - a twentieth century heretic or a giant of the VERY early Church?
“There is then one God an Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides him, the only true [God]. For ‘the Lord they God,’ says [Scripture], ‘is one Lord’ [Deut. 6:4]…And there is alone one Son, ***GOD THE WORD***…” (Letter to the Philadelphians 2, 110 A.D.)
Simply being called the Son of God strongly implies subordination in the sense of familial relationship.
So, by that rationale, does the fact that Jesus is also called the ‘Son of Man’ mean He is subordinate to man? Or does it point to what both of those formulas demand: He is fully human and divine. Jesus was born of a woman, and therefore He is fully human. My son will have a complete human nature because he will come from a human. A calf will have an animal nature because it comes from a cow. So likewise, when Jesus is called the ‘Son of God’, He too must possess the Divine nature of His Father. “Truly, this man was the Son of God.” (Mark 15:39), and only through his redemptive act can “we receive *adoption* as sons” (Galatians 4:5). Every species of life communicates its own complete nature to its offspring.
Why do you make this presupposition, and how can you defend it. The Apostle Paul was "sent" by the apostles (Cf. Acts 15:22) to preach to Antioch. Peter was also "sent" as well in another passage (the reference escapes me at the moment). Does that mean that they were subordinate to the other Apostles in authority?
Yes, he was sent by the Apostles. But the question is whether Paul was a separate being from the other Apostles?
Yes, Paul was a separate being. I don't think that being 'sent' by anyone by itself makes you a separate being or the same one, for that matter.
Clement said: “We will beg with earnest prayer and supplication that the Creator of the universe will keep intact the precise number of his elect in the whole world, through his beloved Child Jesus Christ. . . . We realize you [God] alone are ‘highest among the highest’ . . . You alone are the guardian of spirits and the God of all flesh.”
“Let all the nations realize that you are the only God, that Jesus Christ is your Child.”
(The Library of Christian Classics, Volume 1, Early Christian Fathers, translated and edited by Cyril C. Richardson, 1953, pages 70-1). Clement calls God (not just “Father”) “the highest,” and refers to Jesus as God’s “Child.” He also notes regarding Jesus: “Since he reflects God’s splendor, he is as superior to the angels as his title is more distinguished than theirs.” (Ibid., page 60). Jesus reflects God’s splendor, but he does not equal it.
No. You don't understand.
Wrong, I understand, I just don't agree with your understanding.
And I don't agree with yours. What happens to an objective and KNOWABLE truth in this circumstance? Will you resort to telling me that I don't "understand the issues". The first and second persons of the trinity stand to each other in the most true and authentic relationship between a father and a son. The son comes from or is "generated" from the Father.
If the Son owes his existence to the Father, he cannot be equal to him in nature.
Oh really? I "owe" my existence to MY human father, yet I remain equal to him in nature i.e. possessing a human nature.
Could Jesus have willed his own "generation" (and yes, I do understand your careful word game in using the word "generation")?
"We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn." (Matthew 11:17) You see if we try to be "dogmatically precise" we are accused of "dogmatism" and "word games" - if we don't do so our theology is weak and vague.
The question about generation versus creation is important when we are discussing Col. 1:15. Looking at the pre- Nicene church fathers we find a strange combination of belief. On one hand there is an almost unanimous agreement that Jesus was distinct from God and subordinated to him, on the other hand they believed that Jesus, or rather the Reason of God from which he generated, was eternal. Most of the fathers believed in a two-stage theory of generation: Logos existed first as thoughts of God and was later generated.
"A strange combination of belief..." Yes, you are right, the fathers did believe in an eternal generation - among them - St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, St. Iranaeus, Tertullian, St. Hippolytus, Origen, St. Dionysius, Lactantius, St. Athansius, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. But I want to challenge you now. You say that "on one hand there is an almost unanimous agreement that Jesus was distinct from God and subordinated to him, on the other hand they believed that Jesus... generated [eternally]." To me you must try and resolve this dilemma. IF INDEED THE FATHERS WERE SUBORDINATIONISTS, THEN WHY WOULD THEY DELVE INTO SUCH THELOGICALLY PRECISE LANGUAGE WHICH REFUTES ANY KIND OF SUBORDINATIONIST TENDENCY. What I am trying to say, SB, is if you asked 10 people if they were brain surgeons and they said no, but then they proceeded to do a brain transplant on your friend, you would be faced with two possibilities:
1) They ALL lied about being a brain surgeon. 2) YOU misunderstood their answer or your question was not well phrased.
Which do you think is the more likely scenario?
“He was begotten through communication, and not by a cutting off; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance; but that which proceeds from something by communication, and which accepts the choice of the arrangement, does not diminish that from which it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, and the light of the first torch is not lessened by the igniting of the many torches, so also the Word, proceeding from the power of the Father, has not rendered the Progenitor Wordless.
- Tatian the Syrian, Address to the Greeks, 165 A.D.
Irenaeus and Origen believed in just one stage where the Son is 'always being generated.' (Prooftext:Prov 8:25 LXX (LXX has wrongly rendered the H perfective verb as imperfective)). There is good reason to believe that Origen's view can be traced back to his Neo-Platonist teacher Ammonnius Saccas. His pupil Plotin used exactly the same words about the ideas as Origen did about logos. Also the view of the other fathers can be traced back to Plato's eternal ideas. Thus the technical use of 'generation' as opposed to 'creation' is not rooted in the Bible but rather in Greek philosophy. This, and the fact that Athanasius used the Platonic theory that the 'ousia' which the words refer to change their meaning (example: 'created' applied to Jesus would get the meaning 'generated' because "Jesus is God"), is the reason why I advocate that theology should be shunned in the first stages of the examination of a biblical passage.
This is rather amusing. You have been trying to convince me by APPEALING to the testimony and the authority of the early Church Fathers as to what the early Christians believed. Now that they dare utilize all available human instruments (i.e. Greek philosophy and Platonic theory) to try and explain the mystery of God, you object! Well, to me, you can't have it both ways - either you accept the testimony of the early Church Fathers and the entirety of their teaching or you do not. Somehow, I don't think you would object if they used these methods to support the idea that God is unitarian, would you? And while we are on the topic, there's plenty of rhetorical argument in the Book of Romans - where did St. Paul learn that?
No where does it suggest that Jesus was created. This eternal generation of the Son from the Father is testified in Psalm 2:7 (Doauy Rheims) and Hebrews 1:5: "Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee." You know the line, "begotten NOT made". A human father "generates" a human son, and imparts to him his human nature. Likewise, God the Father imparts HIS own divine nature to HIS Son.
It is interesting how you keep using words, such as "eternal generation," that do not appear in the scriptures and in fact have no basis there.
But who are you to say that Trinitarians, or anyone else for that matter, cannot use a word outside of the bible to more explicitly define a biblical doctrine? The bible was never meant to be a complete and exhaustive theological treatise of what Christianity taught. That was never its purpose, and this is at the root of your objection. Examine your contradiction, "eternal generation has no basis [in the scriptures]" BUT YOU ALSO SAY "on the other hand they [the Fathers] believed that Jesus, or rather the Reason of God from which he generated, was eternal." What is the conclusion? That the Fathers were not "biblical", of course. Good grief.
The real problem with your argument is that it makes the mistake of making definitional distinctions based on modern English that did not exist during the ante-Nicene period. According to John Dahms: "It seems clear that 'monogenes,' when used of persons, was always understood to include the idea of generation. This understanding did not have its beginning at the time of the Arian controversy." (John V. Dahms, "The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered," NTS 29, 1983, p. 228.) Dahms points out:
But if you examine the heresies that have attacked the Catholic Church throughout the ages, you will see that such definitions are made IN ORDER TO settle the matter. This makes perfect sense since IT IS MOSTLY THROUGH ADVERSITY that the TRUTH is revealed and defined. That maxim is rather universal, I would say, not being restricted only to religious truth at all.
But more on ‘monogenes’ later.
We have examined all of the evidence which has come to our attention concerning the meaning of `monogenes' in the Johannine writings and have found that the majority view of modern scholarship has very little to support it.
Surprise!
On the other hand, the external evidence, especially that from Philo, Justin and Tertullian, and the internal evidence from the context of its occurrences, makes clear that `only begotten' is the most accurate translation after all. (Ibid., p. 231) [Regarding John 1:18]
It is abundantly clear that usage and not etymology should be the proper guide in determining the meaning of monogenes. In filial contexts where monogenes is used of an offspring, the idea of generation seems always to be present, or at least implied, in the NT. If you would like to study this further, we can discuss each occurrence found in the NT.
But, the phrase "only begotten (Son)" is also used in Jn 3:16,18 and 1 Jn 4:9, which means, according to any Greek lexicon, "unique, only member of a kind."
I think Justin Martyr said it quite clearly: "God begat before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; . . . For He can be called by all those names, since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will." (Dialogue With Trypho, Ante Nicene Fathers 1, p. 227).
More to the point, if God begat a beginning identified as Jesus and *before* all *Creatures* , then how could Jesus have been created and therefore have a beginning?
Also how do you account for people such as Justin Martyr and other religious writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries that would refer to Christ as "only-begotten," but always referred to the Father as "unbegotten, unutterable God"? (Ibid. p. 263) Is it your position, based on your own example, that a father is not "generated" at any time? How does he come into existence?
He does not come into existence, and neither does the Son. And so as there is no beginning to God, the Father, the "begetting" of the Son need not have a beginning either. In order to conceptualize it, one could say that IF God did have a beginning the "begetting" would occur at the instant when God was created.
I don't understand trinitarian christology because it is an invention of philosophers' minds that finds no basis in the scriptures.
But you accept the advance in scientific discoveries, but you cannot bring yourself to admit that God uses human faculties to allow us to understand Him better? Why? Maybe it’s because you lack the beautiful universalism of Catholic truths - which are at harmony with all realms of knowledge - not just the religious.
Jesus himself tells us at John 6:57: "I live because of the Father." This is a superlative example of Jesus making an unqualified statement to the effect that the Father is the source of his life. I think a vitally important distinction is made between the Father and the Son.
No. The word "beget" means to "cause", but to cause something to happen FOR GOD does not necessarily mean that the event is WITHIN time. That is *your* imposition.
I know that trinitarians will usually deny that the designations "Father" and "Son" carry any connotation of inferiority, or that they jeopardize an eternal relationship between the two, even though one would expect them to be "brothers" were it the case that neither one had a beginning. In any event, this distinction naturally gives rise to the question, Why is one considered "the Father," and the other "the Son"? Indeed, why is not the Father the Son, and the Son the Father? What event took place that caused such a dichotomy to exist?
Well. That is a matter of divine revelation. You will have to ask Jesus that because it was He who set up the dichotomy in the first place.
Of course the event that took place was that the true God gave his Son life, thus the distinction "Father" and "Son" could take shape.
Did your human father truly GIVE you life, or was he an instrument only? I favour the latter interpretation since only God can give/create life. Is a father any less than a father for adopting a child, or the child any less than a son? What determines a father-son distinction, SB, is not so much the mechanical giving of life, but the giving of LOVE in a certain way.
To assert that because Jesus only reflects God's splendor, He cannot be equal to the Father is, once again, an argument from sufficiency which does not prove a thing.
Again you miss a crucial point. How can someone reflect a quality of another being and still be that being.
Who said they were separate beings? Not me. But if you are saying “How can a being reflect a quality of itself”, I will say “it depends on WHO we are talking about.” Remember, SB, it is you who impose your anthropology on God’s essence.
I cannot reflect a quality of my father and also be my father. Let's try to be honest in our definitions.
But I am not saying that *you* are your father. I am saying *you* are his son.
But we know that we are to "have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD a thing to be grasped…" (Philippians 2:6)
John, you will have to do better than this. Let's look at the NWT translation:
It's not my preference, but go ahead.
“Who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." I have seen Trinitarians look at this verse from three perspectives in their endeavor to prove the Trinity. First, that Jesus here is existing in God's form, implying that he was God. Secondly, that the word translated "seizure," means to cling to, meaning that Jesus was God. And finally that Jesus was equal to God. Of course this is not what Paul is telling us. First, let's look at the word "form." The Greek word translated "form" is "morphe." It means "in the form of, outward appearance, shape, external form, appearance." (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek-English Lexicon pg. 528; The Analytical Greek Lexicon by Moulton pg. 273)
Agreed.
What does this tell us about Jesus when he was in heaven? Simply that he was in God's "form, or outward appearance." And what exactly is God's form or outward appearance in heaven? John 4:24 tells us: "God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth."
Paul helps us to see just what the word 'form' means when he said at 2 Tim. 3:5: "having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away." So it is the outward appearance, or form of Godly devotion that people in the last days would demonstrate. Paul here helps us to see that they would not "internally possess, or have it be a part of their nature," this Godly devotion, but rather they would appear to have Godly devotion. We then understand that these would "outwardly appear" to have Godly devotion, yet not actually have it.
Let us compare: "form of God" in Phil 2:6 with "form of devotion" 2 Tim 3:5. See the difference here? The SUBJECT in Phillipians is God while in Timothy it is "devotion" or "religion" (RSV). To me that's an immense difference.
Thus the outward appearance or form of God is spirit, just as Paul tells us angels are, at Hebrews 1:14: "Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?"
Yes. Angels are spirits to help us inherit salvation, but this does not support your position.
Just as angels are spirits, Jesus also was a spirit in heaven before he came to earth. He would logically then, have to be in the "form" or "outward appearance" of God, who is a spirit as well.
Yes. I admit you can understand this through either viewpoint, and it is not a conclusive argument. But then again, I think it is far closer to the orthodox view.
Secondly, this notion trinitarians have, that the Greek word translated "seizure" means to "cling to." Is this the case? The NIV and the RSV translate this word "harpagmon" as "grasped." (This is the word used in the translation you quote from). The Greek word "harpagmon" is a form of the word "harpazo." It literally means to "plunder, pull, seize, take away by force." (Thayer's Greek Lexicon pg 726; Greek Analytical Greek Lexicon by Moulton pg. 52) NOT "cling to." Also please note the comments found in the Expositors Greek Testament Vol. III by Eerdmans pg. 436, 437 with regard to the use of harpazo at Philippians 2:6: "We cannot find any passage where [hARPAZO] or any of its derivatives has the sense of "holding in possession," "retaining." It seems invariably to mean "seize," "snatch violently." Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense "grasp at" into one which is totally different, "hold fast." This is why the NIV translates this verse as "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped." (or pulled, or taken by force). Some say that this is because he already was God. This view point, however is not taught in the text. Keep in mind the verse says "[Jesus] did not consider equality with God, a thing to be grasped." If he already was God, then he would internally possess being God, and would have been able to "consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, because he already was God! But that is NOT what Paul wrote. Paul said that [Jesus] "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped."
Let me tell you how I read the passage, paraphrasing:
"Jesus COULD HAVE regarded His equality with God something to be considered, BUT He did not and became a servant instead."
"...although He existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, BUT emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant…" Notice the conjunction "BUT" in the passage which demonstrates a contrast between what Jesus really is - God - to what He made himself like - servant.
A couple of other points. If, as you were saying, Jesus was only in the form of God in an *extrinsic* or *forensic* sense and not an *intrinsic* sense, than you would expect that the same to apply to the last part of the verse: "form of a servant". Was Jesus a servant in an *extrinsic* sense only, or was He truly a servant in the full sense of the word?
Secondly, notice the verse says that Jesus "emptied Himself". Of what did He empty Himself? What is the nearest referent to this phrase? To me, Jesus "emptied Himself" of all of the glorious things that would rightfully belong to God.
Let's look at another instance of the word "harpazo" at John 10:28. There we read: "And I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."
Here "harpazo" is translated as snatch. So are we to imagine that one can "cling to" those in Jesus hand? No. Jesus is telling us that no one will be able to "pluck, or take by force," hose within his hand.
Perhaps. But even if you use the word "snatch", it still can be used in support of the Trinity even though "cling to" would be a stronger rendering for the Trinitarian position.
Or at Jude 22,23 which reads: "Also, continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save [them] by snatching [them] out of the fire. But continue showing mercy to others, doing so with fear, while YOU hate even the inner garment that has been stained by the flesh."
Are we to imagine that those in the fire "cling to" the fire and cannot be released? If that was the case, then of what benefit are Jude's words? Why even bother to try to save those that have doubts? The word "harpazo" means to "steal, pluck, take by force." And there is not one single verse in the Bible, where the word "harpazo" means to "cling to," not one.
But I am using the RSV which has the rendering you prefer, and I am still saying that the word can be used, quite effectively, to support the orthodox position. Let me ask you. How many beings that you know of are even able to "grasp" at equality with an infinite being? Could that mean, that if Jesus did grasp, He would be in reach of it?
Yes, Jesus "gave no consideration to a seizure," or "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped," because he was NOT equal to God.
But you are omitting the first part of the verse, “ALTHOUGH he was in the form of God”, He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped..." THAT MAKES A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. It shows a contrast between what He is and what He made himself.
Finally, the thought about Jesus claiming to be equal with God. From the above, it is obvious that there is no claim at all by Jesus to be equal to God. Rather, just as Jesus himself declared at John 14:28: "YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am." By Jesus' own admission, he was not equal to his Father. The Greek word here translated "greater" is "meizon." It means to "surpass others in nature and power," (Thayer's Greek Lexicon pg. 395) "of rank and dignity....greater of God." (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek-English Lexicon pg. 499).
Greater? Well. If Jesus was only “one in purpose” with the Father in John 10:30, than it is equally possible that the Father was “greater than” Jesus’ human nature in this verse. But a little bit more on this later on.
Keep in mind that the context of Phil. 2:5 is dealing with Jesus "mental attitude." We read in verse 5: "Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus." Thus it was his humility that Paul says we would emulate. Paul goes on to say regarding Christ in verse 7: "No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men." Yes, although he [Jesus] was a mighty, powerful spirit person in heaven, he gave that mighty spirit body up, or emptied (Greek "kenoo," meaning 'to empty, evacuate, divest one's self, evacuate, neutralize, to make void' {The Analytical Greek Lexicon by Moulton pg. 228; Strong's Greek Dictionary pg. 41; Thayer's Greek Lexicon pg. 344} ) himself of that mighty spirit body, to become a man of flesh, and was obedient as far as death. This very same Jesus, who was in heaven, came to earth and died for us. (God however cannot die 1 Tim. 1:17; Habakkuk 1:12) This attitude of humility is what true Christians imitate.
Is this a "dump" from the JW's database? It sure sounds like it. Jesus was emptying himself of his status as God - as the context clearly confirms.
If the Son of God were equal to God, the Father, it would have been unnecessary for Clement to say that Jesus was superior to the angels, since that would have been obvious. And his wording shows his recognition that while the Son is superior to angels, he is inferior to Almighty God.
No. It wouldn't. In fact, it would be very necessary to correct people like you who harboured subordinationist tendencies. :)
Please explain why this would be necessary. Also explain why based on the context and grammar that it would be necessary to state that Jesus is above the angels in nature.
Well, have you considered that Clement could have been addressing certain strains of thought which held that Jesus was on par or even below an angel? If Gnostic belief was around, then I would suspect that any kind of ridiculous doctrine could be floating about as well.
Clement’s position is quite plain: The Son is inferior to the Father and is secondary to him.
No. I don't think it's clear at all. What is clear is that you believe that the Son is inferior to the Father, and You believe that Clement MEANS this.
No, what is clear is that the Bible supports the view that Jesus is inferior to his Father. Clement also believed this, and anyone who reads Clement would understand this. Furthermore, it is not only me that believes that Clement means this, the vast majority of Biblical scholars agree.
Ad populum arguments don't appeal to my sensitivities, SB. If you want to play the numbers game, do it 'somewheres else'. When the telescope was invented around the seventeenth century, it completely destroyed the Ptolemaic theory of planetary orbit Opinions change, and even in this area, modern biblical scholarship with its anti-orthodox tendencies is being ITSELF undermined by an increasing number of brilliant scholars ON OUR SIDE.
Clement never viewed Jesus as sharing in a godhead with the Father. He shows that the Son is dependent upon the Father, that is, God, and says definitely that the Father is ‘God alone,’ sharing His position with no one.
Well, then, if God the Father shares His position with no one, then why did Jesus blaspheme? "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit..." (Matt 28:19). Seems to me Jesus is putting himself and this "holy spirit" force on par with the Father.
This has been explained above already. However, it seems that you are breaking one of your own rules. Are you not making a presumption about the definition of the word "blaspheme"? It may "seem" to be correct to do so, but is this sufficient proof that it is?
No. I have not slipped into appealing to sufficiency fallacy at all. If Jesus is put on the same level or plane as the father, He is, BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD, equal to him.
And nowhere does Clement give the holy spirit equality with God. Thus, there is no Trinity at all in Clement’s writings.
Again, Mr. SB, arguing from sufficiency does not work on me.
I have argued from the text and from history, but you have not cited any rational support for your views. In fact, you also may be cited as arguing from sufficiency.
No. Mr. SB, I have not done so at all, and please remember that if I were to offer my own treatise instead of responding to yours (although there is overlap of course), we would be here forever. In fact, Clement did show he understood the rudiments of the doctrine when he wrote: "Do we not have one God, one Christ, and one Spirit of Grace poured out upon us?" (Letter to the Corinthians 46,6)
Please John! You are doing the very thing that you accuse me of. How do you know what was in the mind of Clement when he wrote these words? Where does he explain that he thinks these three separate persons are "one being"?
Splendid. How do either of us know Clement's mind? Or better yet, how do any of us know who Jesus' true identity is? I have an answer for you that will not involve falling into the pit of hopeless human opinion. I suspect you know what that answer is too so I won't mention it (again) here.
Again, to be subject to the Father does not mean to be less than him. Why is a Christian wife subject to her husband (Cf. Ephesians 5:22), yet equal to him (Cf. Ephesians 5:33)? Well, for the same reason that Jesus is subject to His Father, yet equal to Him.
True, Ignatius calls the Son “God the Word.” But using the word “God” for the Son does not necessarily mean equality with Almighty God. The Bible also calls the Son “God” at Isa. 9:6. John 1:18 calls the Son “the only-begotten god.” Being vested with power and authority from Jehovah God, the Father, the Son could properly be termed “mighty one,” which is what “god” basically means. Compare Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2.
Nice try but no cigar. Jesus was called God because He is God, and the references you provide (Isa. 9:6, John 1:18) and the multitude that I could add, refute your position rather well. They are so strong that you attempt (rather badly I must say) to obfuscate the meaning of "the only begotten God" to mean "mighty one" only.
If they are so strong, make your case with reference to each one based on the underlying grammar and context. Otherwise you are merely stating an unsupported opinion. Do you actually understand the usage of "theos" in the Bible? Do you understand its usage from the historical context or from your own presupposition pool?
Let me demonstrate: John 1:18 refers to Jesus as "the only begotten God". You say that God really means "mighty one". Mighty one does not necessarily mean God. Therefore Jesus may really just be vested with God's authority only.
I'm sorry John, but you are not making sense. Everyone that is familiar with the Greek (as well as Aramaic and Hebrew) knows that the word "theos" LITERALLY means "mighty one."
Yes. Thank You. I understand that, but you have not understood my objection. Your whole argument rests on the *application* of "theos". Where *theos* refers to the Father, you translate it "God", when it's referring to Jesus, it's "mighty one". My question to you is, WITHOUT appealing to YOUR preconceived theology, how can you justify translating (or applying) "theos" differently? That is, your treatment should be CONSISTENT which it is not.
Boy, if there were ever a circular argument, this is it. Moreover, if "mighty one" only really means "god", then how do we know God the Father is not just a "god" also?
We know it because of the context in which it is given. The Father is called "Almighty God," "the one true God," etc. Where is Jesus ever called "the one true God"?
The context? Well, that all depends on one's interpretation, doesn't it? Where does the bible teach "sola scriptura"? The bible was never meant to be a complete discourse on Christian theology, but there's plenty of references which certainly point to it, and none that reject it.
By the way, the phrase "Jehovah God" gives you away. Not just an Arian, but a Russellite to boot!
Well your not only a trinitarian, but also a Roman Catholic to boot! Does ad hominems help your argument? However, the 15 letters attributed to Ignatius are not completely accepted as authentic. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, editors Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson state:
Yes. I know this. So what? The quotes you were so excited about are part of those that are most likely forgeries.
Oh yes. Which ones are those? I would be very interested to know which ones I was "so excited about" - the ones below? Well, let's take a look at what St. Iggy says: Ignatius of Antioch: "[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
Yes the Father's will is reflected in his Son.
[oops i mean "Jesus Christ our "mighty one'" - sorry.]
No problem.
"Jesus Christ Our God" How else do you want it said?
Ignatius of Antioch: "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).
Great point, was Jesus conceived of his own plan? If you say so, please provide a scripture that indicates this.
The point is Ignatius' reference to Jesus Christ, "our God".
Was Jesus conceived of his own plan? I would say yes, and might give you a more in depth explanation from Catholic theology. There's no point in appealing to only Scripture, SB. Again, I am not influenced by Luther's hatchet.
Polycarp of Smyrna was born in the last third of the 1st century and died in the middle of the 2nd. It is said that he had contact with the apostle John, and he is said to have written the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. There is nothing in Polycarp’s writing that would indicate a Trinity. Indeed, what he says is consistent with what Jesus and his disciples and apostles taught.
"I do glorify you through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved Child: through whom be glory to you with Him and with the Holy Spirit, both now and though ages yet to come. Amen." (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, 14,3) Now, what do you think of St. Polycarp giving the same glory to the Father as he does to the Son and to the Holy Spirit? And why is Jesus referred to as *eternal* if He was a created being? Do you still believe there is "nothing in Polycarp's writing that would indicate a Trinity"?
Absolutely nothing. Again you make presumptions that are not supported.
But you did not answer the question, SB: why is Jesus referred to as *eternal* if He was a created being?
For instance, in his Epistle, Polycarp stated: “May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, . . . build you up in faith and truth.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, page 35). Note that, like Clement, Polycarp does not speak of a Trinitarian “Father” and “Son” relationship of equals in a godhead. Instead, he speaks of “the God and Father” of Jesus, not just ‘the Father of Jesus.’ So he separates God from Jesus, just as the Bible writers repeatedly do. Paul says at 2 Cor. 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He does not just say, ‘Blessed be the Father of Jesus’ but, “Blessed be the God and Father” of Jesus.
This makes no sense to me. The fact that God is explained as the Father of Jesus cannot be denied, and it certainly emphasizes Jesus' Sonship to the Father. He is, after all, the SON OF GOD. And God is the Father, right? Why do you divorce what is clearly united?
Let me try to keep it simple. If Jesus has someone that is God to him, how can he be equal to that person in authority and nature?
Let me try to help you out. Jesus was fully divine and fully human. You seem to forget that, focusing only on the Trinitarian's belief in Jesus' full divinity. It is totally proper to for Jesus' human nature to be subject to His divine nature.
Also, Polycarp says: “Peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour.” (Ibid., page 33). Here again, Jesus is distinct from Almighty God, not one person of an equal triune Godhead.
Indeed, Jesus is Our Saviour, but "they forgot *God* their Saviour." (Psalm 106:21)
Again you miss crucial points. Notice that Jesus cannot be considered "God Almighty" because of the use of the conjunction. If Jesus is not God Almighty, then who is?
Look at where the quotation mark starts. The conjunction is ****MY**** insertion, it is not in the Psalm. So if Jesus is Our Saviour AND God is Our Saviour, what does that make Jesus?
Another Apostolic Father is Hermas, who wrote in the first part of the 2nd century. In his work the Shepherd, or Pastor, he does not say anything that would lead one to believe that he understood God to be a Trinity. Note some examples of what he said:
“Nor when man wishes the spirit to speak does the Holy Spirit speak, but it speaks only when God wishes it to speak. . . . God planted the vineyard, that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His angels over them to keep them.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume II, pages 27, 35).
Here Hermas says that when God (not just the Father) wishes the spirit to speak, it speaks, showing God's superiority to the spirit.
How does "wishing the spirit to speak" mean that the Father is superior to the Spirit? I could as easily appeal to the unity of the Trinity and say that they are all in one accord. The fact that one Person initiates the Word does not detract from the Word itself so that "the words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His works." (John 14:10).
Sorry, but please don't confuse the issue by referencing Jesus when the point being discussed is God's holy spirit. The spirit never speaks independently of God.
Yes. And your point is? You see, Mr. SB, if you really know who Jesus is, "you would have known My Father also; from now on you know him, and have SEEN Him." (John 14:7)
Let's look a little more closely at John 14:9: "Jesus said to him: "Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, 'Show us the Father'?" I am aware that this verse is often used by trinitarians, to promote the trinity, though I am not really sure why. See, the doctrine of the trinity does NOT teach that Jesus WAS the Father. That is in part, the teaching (though not exactly) of what some call the "Oneness People." (And that's another subject)
Yes, that is another issue - an amusing one in the ever mutating heresy of Protestantism.
But the point that Jesus was trying to make is his substantial unity with the Father. I cannot see how you can escape that.
The only reason a Trinitarian would use this scripture is to support the unity between Jesus and his Father. Yes, Jesus perfectly represented his Father. Yet, the Bible clearly shows at John 5:36,37 that Jesus was of course, not the Father: "But I have the witness greater than that of John, for the very works that my Father assigned me to accomplish, the works themselves that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father dispatched me. Also, the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. YOU have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his figure." Notice please, that Jesus said of the Father, that these persons, to whom he was speaking "neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his figure." Now if Jesus WAS the Father, they clearly would have seen the Father's figure, and would have heard his voice, for they beheld, and were listening to Jesus.
Agreed. So we can both agree that "Oneness Pentecostals" are wrong.
Jesus made it plain many times that he "never" spoke of his own originality. This is bore out in Jesus' response to Philip where he said in verse 10: "Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to YOU men I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works." Here Jesus explained that he was in union, or harmony with the Father, the one who taught him what to speak and do. (see also John 8:28)
Au contraire, mon capitain. Jesus frequently teaches based on His OWN authority (Cf. Mt.5:18-34, Rev. 1:17-3:22, etc.), whereas the prophets in the Old Testament did not do so.
Thus Paul was later inspired to say at Col. 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Yes Jesus was indeed the "image of the invisible God." The word translated "image" is "eikon." It means the "reflection of," "not the original."
Who is the invisible God? The Father. Who is His reflection? The Son. Is the reflection (Jesus) also the original (the Father)? No. When you look into the mirror, you see an image of yourself. It is not a real person, but it is a true and proper reflection except for one thing - it lacks substance and reality. However, the Father's reflection IS a *real* person - Jesus. The Son is a true and proper reflection of the Father AND does NOT lack substance. It is like *your* own image in the mirror stepping into the real world.
Jesus also here tells us that he does NOT do his own works, but rather, he does the works of the "Father," that is in "union with him." In fact, he says in verse 12: "Most truly I say to YOU, He that exercises faith in me, that one also will do the works that I do; and he will do works greater than these, because I am going my way to the Father."
Here we see that Jesus tells Philip that they (his disciples as well as all those that put faith in him) would do works greater than the works HE DID. Now think about this for a moment. If Jesus WERE God, could anyone do works GREATER than God?
No. But the passage does not say that the disciples would do great works without God. What Jesus is saying is: "My disciples will do greater things than I did while I was on earth - not because of their own works but because I will be in them." Remember, SB, Jesus said: "without me, you can do nothing."
Jesus was the "reflection of," or "image of" the invisible God. He was not the invisible God. Jesus perfectly reflected all the attributes and qualities of the invisible God to mankind. Thus if you "see" Jesus, you "see" the Father. Today Christians see the Father "through" the deeds, actions, and speech of Jesus while he was on earth, as recorded in the Bible.
Or maybe, Jesus is truly God, and that is why you see a perfect reflection of His Father.
And he says that God gave the vineyard to his Son, showing God's superiority to the Son.
But the relationship between the Father and the Son is not one of subordination. You are unduly influenced by a worldly relationship of power and domination so you naturally apply this to your biased conception of that relationship. A Father giving his vineyard to His Son is an expression of love not the fulfillment of a contract. Do you say, 'I gave a present to my son, THEREFORE, I am SUPERIOR to him?
If I have the power to give to him, but he cannot give to me, YES I am superior to him in a fundamental respect.
But you are not staying within the biblical paradigm of the Father-Son relationship since that is not the Son’s role in the Trinity. Neither do I agree with your utilitarian view of this relationship, nor do I subscribe to your anthropological impositions on the biblical text.
“The Son of God is older than all his creation.” (The Apostolic Fathers (Loeb’s Classical Library) with an English Translation by Kirsopp Lake, 1976, page 249).
Who is the creator? God, right? So how can Jesus, the Son of God, (who is not God according to you), be the creator?
Jesus is never called the "Creator." This is evident from Col. 1:15-16, where we see that Christ is indeed the AGENT of creation. I understand that you will argue that this may not exclude him being the instrument as well.
However, it is understood that the Greek differentiates between the "direct agent", most commonly expressed by hUPO and the intermediate agent, expressed by DIA. Matt 1:22 is a good example of the difference: TO RHQEN hUPO KURIOU DIA TOU PROFETOU. Jesus is never in the NT said to be "creator" but is always portrayed as the intermediate agent. This is particularly clear in Col 1:13-20 (cf DIA in v 16). The preposition DIA is also used in John 1:3, making Jesus an intermediate agent if we make a stop after hO GEGONEN. If we take hO GEGONEN with verse 4 the preposition EN makes him the instrument in creation. In any case he is the intermediate agent.
Here is something that a colleague and I prepared on the subject:
---------------------------------------
Christ is called creature not Creator in Colossians 1.
Summary of main points:
The phrase 'first-born of all creation' or 'first-born of every creature' (KJV) functions as a partitive genitive (figure 2) thus making Christ part of the class of "creatures" in the same manner that the phrase 'firstborn of your sons' (Ex 22:29; Ex 34:20) includes the firstborn in the class of 'your sons'.
The all things (figure 3) is not in reference to the "all creation" for the following reasons.
1.The TA PANTA in Colossians 1:20 is not inclusive of 'all creation'.
2. They do not match in gender. (figure 3) Some take the stance that the TA PANTA in Col 1:16 has as it's DIRECT reference (i.e. is identified) as the KTISEWS of verse 15. This is an assumption that cannot be proven grammatically. In order to be proven grammatically the 'all things' would need to be 'hAI PASAI' and match the KTISEWS in gender.
[It is of course also perfectly natural grammatically that TA PANTA could refer back to KTISEWS, however it is not mandated by grammar but on ones theological presuppositions.]
It is this readers belief that since Jesus is a part of KTISEWS (creation) grammatically that the TA PANTA that is created in him by the Father cannot be inclusive of himself.
TA PANTA frequently excludes the subject in KOINE.
Grammatically, the person who does the action of the verb 'create' is the Father, not the Son for the following reasons.
1. The reference to the Son is in an adverbial prepositional phrase (figure 4) and therefore cannot be agent who does the action of the verb create.
2. Grammatically, the Father is the agent who does the action of the verb 'create.'
3. The Son is mediator of creation by virtue of the nature of the instrumental dative used in the prepositional phrases.
---------------------------------------
Preceding context shows Father is subject(active) and the Son is the agent(instrument).
An active clause may be transformed into a passive one by making the verb passive and making the object subject.
FIGURE 1
VERSE 12 thanking the Father (...) <----- subject is the Father 13 He <----- the Father delivered <----- active verb with
Father as agent us (...) <----- predicate (object) 14 by means of whom <----- instrumental [EN hW] dative, through Christ
The Father is the subject, the verb is active and so the action is performed by the subject. The Father uses the Son instrumentally.
An active clause may be transformed into a passive one by making the verb passive and making the object subject as in :
We <----- subject were delivered <----- passive verb requires an agent by the Father <----- agent performs the action by means of the Son <----- prepositional phrase (adverbial)
---------------------------------------
Partitive Genitive
There is not a single instance of the word 'firstborn' followed by the genitive construction in either the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures where the 'firstborn' is not a member of the class defined by the genitive that follows. In this instance, the genitive places the Christ in the class of 'creation'.
FIGURE 2
15 OS (he) <----- subject, is Christ ESTIN (is) <----- active verb, copulative (linking) ^
--EIKWN <----- image (noun, completive) | | TOU QEOU <----- of the God | | TOU AORATOU <----- the unseen | | -- PRWTOTOKOS <----- first-born (noun,completive) ^ | --------------------------------------- ---- | PASHS <----- of every (genitive adjective) | | KTISEWS <----- creature (noun,genitive) | | | | (partitive genitive) | -------------------------
Christ is the subject, the verb EIMI (is) is being used copulatively in a predicate nominative construction, thus describing him with the dual predicates (completive,nouns). He is therefore both an "image" (EIKWN) and "firstborn of every creature" (KTISEWS). These two descriptions of Christ both complement and explain each other. 'firstborn of every creature' further describes Christ who is the 'image of the unseen God'
The phrase "firstborn of every creature" is a partitive genitive, which means that as the "firstborn" Christ is "part of" the created order. In every [other] instance where the construction 'first-born of <something>' appears, without exception, in biblical Greek, it is indisputably a partitive genitive.
Examples from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) which illustrate this usage include the phrase 'firstborn of your sons' (Ex 22:29; Ex 34:20)where the firstborn is a part of the class of 'your sons'. Note the exhaustive list of the usages of 'firstborn of [a class]' in the Greek Septuagint.
To posit that this verse is the only exception to this grammatical construction is quite frankly, special pleading. See Smyth's Greek Grammar for description of genitive constructions.
---------------------------------------
"All things" does not have as it's referent "All Creation" figure 3 16a hOTI <----- because (hOTI clause) EN AUTW <----- in him (instrumental dative) EKTISQH <----- was created (passive verb) TA PANTA <----- all things (subject) --- ^ | TA PANTA (all things) is not in apposition to the | PASHS KTISEWS (every creature or all | creation) of verse 15, but is explained in the | clause to follow. There is not agreement in | terms of gender between "every creature" | (fem) and "all things"(neuter). |
-->EN TOI OURANOI <----- [things] in the heavens KAI EPI TH GH <----- [things] on the earth ---------- ^ | EITE QRONOI<----- whether thrones | EITE KURIOTHTES<----- or lordships | EITE ARCAI<----- or governments
-EITE EXOUSIAI<----- or authorities
---------------------------------------
The subject who does the action of the main verb cannot be found in a prepositional phrase
As we did in verse 12 above (figure 1) , A passive clause may be transformed into an active one by making the verb active and making the subject object:
figure 4
Therefore, [subject] created all things in (by means of) him.
16a hOTI <----- because (hOTI clause) subject <----- subject cannot be Christ created <----- passive verb made active all things <----- subject made object in him <----- preposition phrase (adverbial)
The subject or agent who performs the action of the verb cannot be found in the prepositional phrase, which eliminates Christ from performing the action (creating), and shows the Father to be the creator with the Son the instrument.
Therefore [subject], <------ the Father, see v12 created <------ active verb by agent Father all things <------ TA PANTA in him. <------ in Christ (instrumental dative)
Colossians 1:16b is in the same form as 16a and can be diagrammed as:
16b TA PANTA <------ all things, subject DI AUTOU <------ through him (instrumental) KAI (and) EIS AUTON <------ for him EKTISTAI <------ were created (passive)
Col 1:12-14 starts out with the Father as the subject (figure 1) who performs the action through His Son.
Just like in Col 1:12-14, here in verse 16, the subject is 'all things', the passive verb (were created) which is performed by the agent (the Father, implied in 19,20), and through (DIA) and for (EIS) the Son. The Son cannot be the agent of the action as he is found in the prepositional phrase.
The Son is therefore a part of (figure 2) the PASHS KTISEWS (all creation) but not 'part of' the TA PANTA or "all things" which were created by the Father with the Son as mediator.
Could Christ as the 'firstborn of every creature' refer to his pre-eminence over all creation and not refer to his origin ? The explanation for why and how he is the 'the firstborn of all creation' is found in the hOTI clause that follows. He is firstborn hOTI (because) he preceded the rest of creations TEMPORALLY. Theuse of temporal terms to describe his title as 'firstborn' militates against the view that he is only pre-eminent with regards to all creation. He is pre-eminent, but this does not nullify the temporal language used. The two qualities, first in time, and first in rank are not mutually exclusive, but they rather complement one another.
Also, see how TA PANTA frequently excludes the subject in KOINE.
That TA PANTA does not always mean all things in the sense of "all creation" can be proved by it's use in verse 20, where TA PANTA is "all things". Satan is part of the "all creation", but not part of the "all things" which are to be reconciled to Christ.
Here is the response from our gentleman scholar:
Dear John,
I'm glad to help. You might also check out the Christian Research Institute (Hank Hannegraff) for materials on this. I realize that he can be taken as anti-Catholic, but some of his materials on JWs are very good.
------------------------- A general response:
The obscurantism of this poor man is breathtaking. The whole point of Col. 1:13-20 is the central nature of Christ to all of God's essence and plans -- creation, redemption, and God's very image. To turn all this on its head to claim that "Christ is called creature" is not only poor exegesis, it is, frankly, a lie. Christ is nowhere "called creature." The fact of the matter is the following: "An individual exegete CLAIMS that such and such MEANS that Christ is a creature."
In response to the first paragraph:
1.) The dia/hupo distinction is not always so plain as the writer claims. In 1Cor.1:9 dia is used with God.
2.) As the writer admits, "In any case he [Christ] is the intermediate agent." Even so, the point of vs. 3 is still clear: "All things [emphatic position]...and without him [emphatic position]..." Christ cannot have been the intermediate agent for his own creation. Christ cannot have been created. Period.
In response to the Colossians portion:
3.) "Firstborn of all creation" (v.15b) is simply a genitive. What it means is dependent largely upon context.
4.) The context is v.15a and v.16ff, clearly showing that Christ is the ultimate INHERITOR of all creation and has SUPREMACY over it. This is so because he is: the image of God (15a); the "means" of creation (16); the sustainer of creation (17); the head of the church (18); the possessor of all God's fullness (19); the means of reconciliation (20).
5.) As Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament confirms regarding prwtotokos: "the "for" clause [of Col. 1:16] brings out the meaning, namely, that all things owe their creation to Christ's mediation. The point, then, is not that Christ is the first creature. This would demand a stress on -tokos and would also bring birth into conflict with creation. What is stated is Christ's supremacy over creation as its mediator. The term prwtotokos is used, then, because of its importance as a work for rank."
6.) Here is another case where JW theology would relegate to a creature the attributes of God. By their own word, their theology is blasphemous. Since God does not give his glory to another, Christ is God.
7.) The rest of the explanation given is just straw around a burning house of falsehood.
As in John 1:1-3, the bias of "JW theology" blinds the exegete to the obvious truth. What is sad is that such people try to blind others.
The Greek word for firstborn is “prototokos”, which means "preeminence" and "eternal preexistence". It does not mean "first-created" as is made abundantly clear from the succeeding verses in the passage.
Furthermore, pay close attention what Dave Armstrong, a Catholic Apologist, points out:
“The Hebrew usage of firstborn is also instructive, since it illustrates its meaning as "preeminent." David is called firstborn in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. Likewise, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, whereas Manasseh was the first child born (Gen 41:50-52). The nation Israel is called my firstborn by God (Ex 4:22). The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning "firstborn of all creation," that is, the Creator. This is precisely how St. Paul uses the firstborn phraseology in Col 1:15.”
J. N. D. Kelly, in his Early Christian Doctrines, a book that your friend recommends, writes about the view of Hermas regarding the Son of God: “In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God’s inner council, and who is regularly described as ‘most venerable’, ‘holy’, and ‘glorious’. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael.”
Well, that is Mr. Kelley's interpretation of the passage. He could be right; he could be wrong. The passage is highly speculative. And even if this is what he did mean, I am not so rigid as to expect that *all* of the early Christians would agree with precise mathematical unanimity on a dogma that was yet to be defined.
Of course you aren't, how could you have any other opinion?
Of course. Christ claimed me for Him when I was baptized. No obfuscator of the truth is going to change that. And, may I inquire as to when an early Christian witness rubs you the wrong way, what is your recourse?
“There is evidence also . . . of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign.” (Early Christian Doctrines, by J. N. D. Kelly, Second Edition, 1960, pages 94-5).
Yes, I agree that the doctrine of the Trinity was still under development. There was no definition of the belief - no "strict sense". But there most certainly was a sense of his divinity - and the traditional and orthodox one at that.
It was not under "development" at all. There was absolutely "no sign" of it. It was understood that Jesus was divine and it was also understood that he and his Father were separate beings.
Well. If you let this dialogue go public, we’ll let the readers decide that question based on what they have read here. Sounds reasonable, don’t you think? However, I don’t think it serves your credibility to deny something that was there. But that’s OK - the more obstinate you are, the better I look - especially to the more orthodox Protestants reading this.
Papias is also said to have known the apostle John. Likely he wrote early in the second century, but only fragments of his writings exist today. In them he says nothing about a Trinity doctrine.
Maybe the fragments that were lost were about the Trinity?!?! Good grief, Mr. SB. Claiming that because two fragments of Papias' writings did not expound the full-blown doctrine hardly proves that he did not believe in it. In fact, this argument, which you repeat throughout this post, is a mixed hypothetical syllogism, and it is one, I may add, which is endemic in anti-trinitarian arguments. In an argument of this form, the second premise is categorical; it affirms the antecedent of the hypothetical premise. This affords you the luxury to infer the consequent, which is also categorical. Let me demonstrate…
Come now John, you are oversimplifying my position.
No. I am merely demonstrating that you have an untenable one.
You are also arguing from a lack of evidence. I have clearly stated that the doctrine of the trinity is not present in the earliest Jewish/Christian writings. It is not because the doctrine was still in development, it simply was understood that so such doctrine was found in the scriptures. It was not until the philosophical underpinnings were present that the doctrine was invented.
Again. That is your opinion. There is plenty of evidence which shows a strong belief in Jesus’ divinity and his substantial union with the Father. The fact that you do not acknowledge this irrelevant to its truth.
…If my car is out of gas, it will stop running. My car stopped running. Therefore, my car is out of gas.
Quite a silly reduction of the many points that have been made.
I was not attempting to use this as a rebuttal of the many points you have made. I was merely allowing our readers to see how your appeal to Papias is a fallacious argument. I don’t think that is silly. It is simple but effective.
In the matter of God’s supremacy and his relationship with Jesus, the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers is fairly consistent with the teaching of Jesus, the disciples, and the apostles, as recorded in the Bible. All of them speak of God, not as a Trinity, but as a separate, eternal, almighty, all-knowing Being. And they speak of the Son of God as a separate, lesser, subordinate spirit creature whom God created to serve Him in accomplishing His will. And the holy spirit is nowhere included as an equal of God.
Hardly. Show me where the bible or even the majority of the Fathers regarded Jesus as a creature? Go read some of MY goodies below at the end of this post. At the very LEAST, it is a CONTROVERSIAL doctrine, and by no means "unanimous". To even hint that it was is, to me, laughable.
Great, I will be happy to read you resources.
From near the middle of the 2nd century CE through its end, there appeared churchmen who are today called Apologists. They wrote to defend the Christianity they knew against hostile philosophies prevalent in the Roman world of that time. Their work came toward the end of, and after, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.
Just the Romans? Ever heard of Marcion, Arius or Nestorius?
Please read carefully before you make a comment. I wrote about philosophies that were prevalent in the "Roman world at that time," I did not limit their efforts to just Roman philosophies. Among the Apologists who wrote in Greek were Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria. Tertullian was an Apologist who wrote in Latin.
I said that I was an amateur in Apologetics, not totally ignorant.
Are you sure? It seems clear that you are as regards the original source languages. Dr. H. R. Boer, in his book A Short History of the Early Church, comments on the thrust of the Apologists’ teaching: “Justin [Martyr] taught that before the creation of the world God was alone and that there was no Son. . . . When God desired to create the world, . . . he begot another divine being to create the world for him. This divine being was called . . . Son because he was born; he was called Logos because he was taken from the Reason or Mind of God. . . . “Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. The Apologists were subordinationists.” (A Short History of the Early Church, by Harry R. Boer, 1976, page 110).
Well, Dr. Boer is entitled to his opinions, and the early Church is entitled to hers. But, just in case you have not read St. Justin Martyr's real views on the Trinity, here are some writings:
A rather shallow response again. Dr. Boer researched the early church, that is how he formed his conclusions.
You know, there is a former Protestant Presbyterian did the very thing Dr. Boer did. Now he is a Catholic Apologist. His name is Gerry Matatics and his website is:
www.gerrymatatics.org
Does the fact that this man did the same and remained Trinitarian have any influence on you? No? Well, then why do you call my response “shallow”?
"…nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." (First Apology of Justin, Ch LXIII).
Yes, the word was "first begotten."
How does this support your position? It supports mine. And “IS EVEN GOD”. "…by now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called by God and the Lord of hosts…" (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. XXXVI).
Indeed, Jesus is called "God" or "theos," as others are in the Scriptures.
“Of course…how could you have any other opinion?” Does this sound familiar?
"…Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. (Ibid. Ch. LXIII).
Understandably you would cite such a passage in support of your views.
What did you expect me to do? Conveniently disregard them because they are so obviously Trinitarian?
Unfortunately, the word translated "worship" did not mean "worship" as our modern presupposition pool now would dictate.
Give me a break. Worship whom? As “GOD and CHRIST”. How atrociously predictable that worship cannot mean adoration in this case!
‘Proskuneo’. This word literally means to prostrate oneself, to bow down or to kiss the ground before someone. In the NWT, every time the Greek word “proskuneo” is used in reference to God, it is translated as “worship” (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time “proskuneo” is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as “obeisance” (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek. Especially compare the Greek word “proskuneo” used with reference to God in Rev. 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17.
The problem, as you know, is that the word ‘proskuneo’ can mean either. It CAN mean to pay reverence, and it *can* mean worship. That is why you need a definitive teaching authority to tell you WHAT THE WORD DOES MEAN. In the case of St. Justin’s passage it is crystal clear that worship is adoration.
In the book The Formation of Christian Dogma, Dr. Martin Werner says of the earliest understanding of the relationship of the Son to God:
“That relationship was understood unequivocally as being one of ‘subordination’, i.e. in the sense of the subordination of Christ to God. Wherever in the New Testament the relationship of Jesus to God, the Father, is brought into consideration, . . . it is conceived of and represented categorically as subordination. And the most decisive Subordinationist of the New Testament, according to the Synoptic record, was Jesus himself . . . This original position, firm and manifest as it was, was able to maintain itself for a long time. ‘All the great pre-Nicene theologians represented the subordination of the Logos to God.’” (The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, 1957, page 125).
Forgive me. I did not get the answer to my question: which scholar should I listen to when they contradict one another on the Trinity?
Perhaps the best answer is to pray concerning the varying views and await the proper guidance. Of course we should also use our intellect to attempt to come to a fuller understanding of the issues involved so that we may view them critically. A problem with your question is that it both supports and destroys your position at the same time.
No. What my question does do is to remind you of an ironic fact. The only scholar among the original 12 Apostles was Judas, and Judas got Jesus’ identity wrong. That is a very telling fact because the human intellect should always submit to God’s Church. You see, you can *never* have closure on this issue because there is no *definitive* authority you can appeal to without it being contested. The only authority that you really appeal to is yourself, or others who share your views, but that always begs the questions that must come. What authority do they have?
And more importantly WHY should I listen to them?
This seems to be a silly question. You should listen to anyone you respect in the hopes of learning principles or arguments that you previously did not have access to.
No. It’s not a silly question at all (Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:4). It is a very necessary one if you want to ensure you are not being blown hither and thither by pernicious and false doctrines. The early Christians listened to a VISIBLE, APOSTOLIC, and INFALLIBLE Church, and I do the same.
I have provide you with a real scholar's view on the Trinity near the end of my post.
Using your own logic, "Why should I listen to him? And what makes him a _real scholar_ and others not real?"
Well, I am providing you with his opinion because *you* place a very high opinion on scholarship. So I was just using your own standards. For me, any scholar’s opinion should be compared to Sacred Tradition and the Living Magesterium of the Catholic Church. I don’t discount scholarship - it’s a wonderful tool that God uses, but it is not sovereign.
In agreement with this, R. P. C. Hanson, in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, states:
“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.” (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, by R. P. C. Hanson, 1988, page 64).
Well, I don't agree. So it's his opinion and yours vs. mine and the Catholic and orthodox Christian Churches. Me - I follow Christ and His vicar.
How do you define orthodox? Were Protestant denominations who believe in the Trinity always considered orthodox?
The “orthodox” Christian Churches are those Churches which agree with the Catholic Church on any issue. Truth must always have a center of belief.
I follow Christ only because he needs no vicar.
I agree that CHRIST needs no vicar, but WE need His Vicar! Protestant Christianity is sufficient to prove that all by itself.
Dr. Alvan Lamson, in The Church of the First Three Centuries, adds this testimony regarding the teaching of church authorities before the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.):
“The inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers . . That they viewed the Son as distinct from the Father is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. . . . They considered him distinct and subordinate.” (The Church of the First Three Centuries, by Alvan Lamson, 1869, pages 70-1).
..."generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers". But you see, your position would be a lot more tolerable if you did not cite such embarrassing and clearly false claims.
Come John! I cite such sources not as an absolute proof that the vast majority of ante-Nicene theologians did not believe in the trinity, but to show that many scholars have came to the same conclusion.
Yes. That is quite legitimate. But I could do the SAME THING, and we are left at a stalemate. Let me ask you something. When St. Paul was arguing against with his fellow countrymen-scholars on the true identity of Jesus as the Messiah, would you believe them bec