 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Open Theism & "Begotten in Eternity." | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 6:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | The doctrine of the Trinity is:
- ultimately irrational: “beyond rational understanding,” a “mystery”
- something revealed to us by God, not demonstrated to us by our own reason
- something in which, in the end, our "argumentation and analysis must give place to wordless prayer, 'Let all mortal flesh keep silent, and stand with fear and trembling.'"
(Bishop Kallistos Ware)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 6:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Sahid: Excellant! Do you remember where you got the Lewis quote from?
Thanks, Harold. I have to go buy lumber for cement work. My contribution to the dialog will have to be the "I understand it" bit above. (Sorry.  ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
If the Son's eternality depends on being "begotten" outside of time and it cannot be affirmed without it, what about the eternality of the Father? Can that be affirmed in time, or must it also be denied because it too is in time. It would seem (to me at least) that if the Father is eternal, the Son is begotten by the Father and depends on the eternalness (if I may use that word) of the Father, not on the Father being outside of time.
POW, one cannot experience the Trinity without some knowledge of it and, given that the Bible implies the Trinity and does not specifically state it, one has to theorize about it in order to have a concept of it.
St. Gregory theorized about the Trinity just as much as SAINT Augustine did. Simply because you agree with one saint and not the other doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong.
Try to dialogue on the subject not propagandize.
H. Can you say that again. I didn't understand the first time. Sorry.
P. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 6:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I think God can exist in time and the Son can be eternally begotten. ...
Does God derive existence from outside God?
God ACTS in time. But does God's existence depend on time?
Is the Son as the Image of the Father best understood as a series or infinitely small actions? ("Eternity" seems to be a time measurement.) Or is it something else. Is time the right way to approach that. "Begotten not made" seems to say something else.
quote:
"...the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/6/2004 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But the point is, and we should recognize it as obvious, that Scripture and the Christian life revealed God. Theology is merely contemplation of that revelation. It is not philosophy, or metaphysics.
I've seen you write stuff like this a few times now, until now I've ignored it, because I didn't want to hear the accusation that it implies. Yes, I could pray more. No, I'm not perfect. But just because the word "Saint" isn't in front of my name doesn't mean that my theology is not based on scripture, Christian life, and revelation. You can't assume that those who disagree with you are only doing philosophy. It's not the case.quote:
“No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the One. . . When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light.”
- St. Gregory Nazianzen (Gregory the Theologian)
quote:
“When I speak of God you must be illumined at once by one flash of light and by three. Three in Properties, or Hypostases, or Persons, if any prefer so to call them, for we will not quarrel about names so long as the syllables amount to the same meaning; but One in respect of … the Godhead. For they are divided indivisibly. . . and they are conjoined dividedly. For the Godhead is one in three, and the three are one. . .”
- St. Gregory Nazianzen
I don't think these quotes necessarily conflict with the basic idea of the social trinity. In fact they can be used to futher clarify it. quote:
The doctrine of the Trinity is:
ultimately irrational: “beyond rational understanding,” a “mystery”
Maybe this is true, but how can we start with this assumption? Is it scriptural? For every scripture you find about the mystery of God there is another about God revealing that mystery. This assumption automatically precludes anything that makes sense. The problem is God wants to be known. At least by me. The main story of my life is that when I open myself to Him, He forcefully cuts though the fog to bring about a closer and "realer" relationship. Is God so loving that He would die for us but so aloof that He won't let anyone get to know Him as He truly is? I know it would take a miracle, but couldn't God arrange a close relationship with those He loves? quote:
God ACTS in time. But does God's existence depend on time?
God brings order from chaos. God's very existence brings order. Dividing before from after could conceivably be part of that order. I might concede that God is outside of the time of this universe, but that doesn't mean that God is outside of time all together. What about those other intangibles? Is God outside love; is that his creation or his nature? Did he create wisdom, or is he eternally wise. I'm just arguing that God in time does make sense and shouldn't be dismissed off hand. quote:
Is the Son as the Image of the Father best understood as a series or infinitely small actions? ("Eternity" seems to be a time measurement.) Or is it something else. Is time the right way to approach that. "Begotten not made" seems to say something else.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what you're asking, but I agree with the creed. The idea from Edwards is that when the Father loves himself, the image that he loves is so exact, so perfect that it is God himself. Heb 1:3 - "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature..."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
[quote]But the point is, and we should recognize it as obvious, that Scripture and the Christian life revealed God. Theology is merely contemplation of that revelation. It is not philosophy, or metaphysics.
[font=Book Antiqua]
I've seen you write stuff like this a few times now, until now I've ignored it, because I didn't want to hear the accusation that it implies. Yes, I could pray more. No, I'm not perfect. But just because the word "Saint" isn't in front of my name doesn't mean that my theology is not based on scripture, Christian life, and revelation. You can't assume that those who disagree with you are only doing philosophy. It's not the case.
Whoa!
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. And I'm assuming that most here hold the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD far higher than the KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GOD! Most of us here have said so!!!!
So, just plain trust me when I include MYSELF to be one of those who might be reminded of that.
Unless you have NEVER gone off into things philosophical, logic games, etc, where the subject was God (You have.) then don't point fingers at me while I'm pointing fingers at myself. (Sorry if I just failed to be funny!  )
But the scientific test has to be to take an instance where you are SURE that you are "contemplating revelation" (like my identifying with Greggy-Z's piece about 3-s and 1-s), and then use that as a benchmark to compare other things.
If we find ourselves saying that something is cleaner, simpler, etc., while that is not necessarily a strike against it, it neither is necessarily a recommendation. Revelation is the Gold-Standard.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 8:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
“No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the One. . . When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light.”
- St. Gregory Nazianzen (Gregory the Theologian)
[quote]“When I speak of God you must be illumined at once by one flash of light and by three. Three in Properties, or Hypostases, or Persons, if any prefer so to call them, for we will not quarrel about names so long as the syllables amount to the same meaning; but One in respect of … the Godhead. For they are divided indivisibly. . . and they are conjoined dividedly. For the Godhead is one in three, and the three are one. . .”
- St. Gregory Nazianzen
Sahid: I don't think these quotes necessarily conflict with the basic idea of the social trinity. In fact they can be used to futher clarify it.
PoW: Be sure that I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just beleive that these are useful -- as you concluded. And as I asked, maybe what you originally thought far apart isn't.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
The doctrine of the Trinity is:
ultimately irrational: “beyond rational understanding,” a “mystery”
Sahid: Maybe this is true, but how can we start with this assumption? Is it scriptural?
PoW: "No man knows the Father except the Son, and many more in NT and OT. That's easy.
Sahid: For every scripture you find about the mystery of God there is another about God revealing that mystery.
PoW: Really? I'm not sure that's true. God revealed himself. But how much of God do YOU know -- personally. Knowledge OF GOD, and not just ideas "ABOUT" God (the Gold-Standard).
Do you know the Spirit's name? Is the Spirit not a mystery to you at all? S/he is the most mysterious of the Trinity. We know ABOUT the Spirit, that S/he reveals Christ. And Christ reveals the Father. Or theologians have contemplated that based on their experience the Spirit "IS GOD." So, they expressed it as "consubstantial with the Father and the Son.
But there is a lot of mystery that you just DON'T KNOW.
Far more OF God CAN be known than you or I have alread. Moses knew more, Elijah, Enoch. David knew something. But "getting there" can be a long road. The part about "of-versus-about" is a roadsign to advise against stopping half-way.
Sahid: This assumption automatically precludes anything that makes sense. The problem is God wants to be known. At least by me. The main story of my life is that when I open myself to Him, He forcefully cuts though the fog to bring about a closer and "realer" relationship.
STT: And that works this way: that when you or I are less consumed by distractions, and are humbler of heart, then we become better mirrors to reflect God's likeness.
Sahid: Is God so loving that He would die for us but so aloof that He won't let anyone get to know Him as He truly is?
PoW: John 3: 16-21. The problem is with Us, and not with God.
In fact, mankind was created just FOR relationship with God. But before we matured much, we decided we wanted to be God's ourselves.
Sahid: I know it would take a miracle, but couldn't God arrange a close relationship with those He loves?
Read C.S.Lewis' "The Great Divorce" or think of Aslan's claws. "Our God is a consuming fire." If we "come into the light" before we are ready, it is like fire. Remember the glory of God in the OT, and how those who would look on God would die? Compare that to the end of Revelations, where HE will be their day...
.
quote:
God ACTS in time. But does God's existence depend on time?
Sahid: God brings order from chaos. God's very existence brings order.
PoW (who doesn't know much): This sounds pagan Greek -- involuntary creation is "emination"... Right?
Sahid: Dividing before from after could conceivably be part of that order.
PoW: But if you go that far -- farther than most OV-ers here, haven't you stepped beyond the place we call "creation exnihilo?" I think the combination of these two statements of yours might amount to pre-existent order.
I'M JUST HAVING FUN WITH YOU RIGHT NOW -- PUTTING THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT.  BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT BE FAIR.
OOOOOOOOPS, my son needs picked up!
I might concede that God is outside of the time of this universe, but that doesn't mean that God is outside of time all together. What about those other intangibles? Is God outside love; is that his creation or his nature? Did he create wisdom, or is he eternally wise. I'm just arguing that God in time does make sense and shouldn't be dismissed off hand. quote:
Is the Son as the Image of the Father best understood as a series or infinitely small actions? ("Eternity" seems to be a time measurement.) Or is it something else. Is time the right way to approach that. "Begotten not made" seems to say something else.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what you're asking, but I agree with the creed. The idea from Edwards is that when the Father loves himself, the image that he loves is so exact, so perfect that it is God himself. Heb 1:3 - "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature..."[/font=Book Antiqua]
MORE FUN LATER!!!!!!!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 7/6/2004 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | | POW: my tone was a little harsh (I do apologize to you), but I think many times your contributions are obscured because you seem to frame your Orthodox views as the "end all and be all" of Christian theology rather than simply presenting them as an excellant choice. That said, I am reading both Being As Communion and God For Us and find the Eastern Fathers case for the Trinity a much more attractive alternative view of the Trinity than Augustine and his followers. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 7/6/2004 9:32 AM (GMT -6) | | | POW: Thanks for the different models click. Works well with a class I am in right now. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 9:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
POW: my tone was a little harsh (I do apologize to you), but I think many times your contributions are obscured because you seem to frame your Orthodox views as the "end all and be all" of Christian theology rather than simply presenting them as an excellant choice. That said, I am reading both Being As Communion and God For Us and find the Eastern Fathers case for the Trinity a much more attractive alternative view of the Trinity than Augustine and his followers.
I HAVE BEEN ADMONISHED BY SOMEONE THAT I RESPECT!
I'LL TRY. AND I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT FUN, AND NOT TOO MUCH OF A CONTACT SPORT.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/6/2004 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | | No, I don't know everything of or about God, but that doesn't mean it is not availible to me. Saying I don't know doesn't mean it can't be known. quote:
Sahid: Is God so loving that He would die for us but so aloof that He won't let anyone get to know Him as He truly is?
PoW: John 3: 16-21. The problem is with Us, and not with God.
In fact, mankind was created just FOR relationship with God. But before we matured much, we decided we wanted to be God's ourselves.
Agreed, but God fixes the problem. John 3: 16-21 quote:
Sahid: God brings order from chaos. God's very existence brings order.
PoW (who doesn't know much): This sounds pagan Greek -- involuntary creation is "emination"... Right?
Sahid: Dividing before from after could conceivably be part of that order.
PoW: But if you go that far -- farther than most OV-ers here, haven't you stepped beyond the place we call "creation exnihilo?" I think the combination of these two statements of yours might amount to pre-existent order.
I'm not saying it's involuntary any more that the begottenness of the Son is involuntary. I think God not only creates but sustains. He constantly suports his creation through his choice, but there's no chance that he's gonna stop. I know this is getting sloppy, but maybe there is less division between nature and will in God than there is in us. God is loving, he never chooses to be unloving. He always chooses in harmony with his nature, unlike sinful man who, though made good, chooses evil.
Creation exnihilo doesn't imply the creation of everything exnihilo. Again, is love "created"? Did it come out of nothing or is it as eternal as God? To say time was created is to say, at very least, that there was a time when God was timeless. (The shear nonsense of this statement is inconsistent with my relationship with God) To say love was created is to say that there was a time when God was loveless. So are divine attributes created? Is there a problem with seeing temporality as a divine attribute. The Bible does say he is the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. This is, to me, the language of being in time.
I've studied lots of math and mathematicians sometimes use similar language to describe infinities. They talk about curves reaching zero that never quite make it to zero, and they talk about curves reaching infinity when obviously infinity can never be reached. To people who have not been tainted by modern or theological thinking, the idea of a time when there was no time before is absurd. To a lesser degree time that has no time after is also absurd. It is my contention that time is endless in either direction, there is no beginning or end, but at the beginning and end God is there. (God being at the end is a promise that has not been actualized yet, but will be.) Sorry. That was long and disorganized.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW: "No man knows the Father except the Son...
John interjects: Please quote the entire verse, PoW.
RSV: Matt.11:27 "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
PoW: I didn't mean to imply that the Son didn't reveal the Father through his Spirit. (I think I said as much.)
But, who out there has been revealed-to in-the-Spirit and through-the-Son that God is "in time." Any takers???
John interjects: It is a fact that the Scripture itself says the mystery is CHRIST, and that He has most definitely been revealed. ... the Scripture says that "God hath revealed it unto us by His Spirit."
PoW: Agreed. And none of that is false or trickery. But how fully has it been revealed to you?
Actually, it is the Orthodox, with St. Gregory Palamas that say that we CAN know the revelation of God directly. That we CAN participate "BY GRACE" in the Life of the Trinity. (Barlaam, a Thomist said we can't, that we need an intermetiary--created grace.)
My point here is, if I wish to be a stand-in for the fact that no one here goes to an Orthodox Church outside of Saturday evenings, that None of us here are so spiritual that we have had a direct vision of God, like some monks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/6/2004 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW: Agreed. And none of that is false or trickery. But how fully has it been revealed to you?
John says:
Quite obviously, no one can say that they have reached a point where they know God (experientially OR theoretically) completely. Our knowledge of God will of necessity always be finite, forever and ever, even in our glorified state, for we by definition will always be created beings, not the Creator.
In addition, our experiential knowledge of God will always be limited to our...well, experience with God. ("Duh" to myself).
quote:
None of us here are so spiritual that we have had a direct vision of God, like some monks.
So monks are the only ones spiritual enough for God to give a vision to? Isn't a biblical charism a grace gift?
I know a brother who has seen an open vision of Jesus returning on a white horse, just like the Apostle John describes in the Revelation (and he's not a monk).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
God ACTS in time. But does God's existence depend on time?
Sahid: God brings order from chaos. God's very existence brings order.
PoW (who doesn't know much): This sounds pagan Greek -- involuntary creation is "emination"... Right?
Sahid: Dividing before from after could conceivably be part of that order.
PoW: But if you go that far -- farther than most OV-ers here, haven't you stepped beyond the place we call "creation exnihilo?" I think the combination of these two statements of yours might amount to pre-existent order.
I'M JUST HAVING FUN WITH YOU RIGHT NOW -- PUTTING THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT. BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT BE FAIR.
RETURNING FROM PICKING UP SON...
Sahid: I might concede that God is outside of the time of this universe, but that doesn't mean that God is outside of time all together.
PoW: The main thing I think I see is that you don't like the STYLE of that concept.
Again, what is time; what is it for; what is its end?
And does the Creator of all fit that?
PoW: Does the Social Model have God bound by his attributes?
Sahid: What about those other intangibles? Is God outside love; is that his creation or his nature? Did he create wisdom, or is he eternally wise.
PoW: I accepted it when I read that NOTHING WE CAN SAY, NO DESCRIPTION can begin to define God. We can know things ABOUT God. (Don't be surprised that this sounds at first like a reversal of what I said before.) But we can never define God. As soon as we say "God is Love" it is US who are saying that. Part of the problem is that it is OUR concept of Love. If we stick to the Love that is revealed to us, then the statement is self-evident. But God is properly even more than "God" as the word God itself is limited.
Specifically, God's "nature" is what he does -- or something like that. (C. Yannaras and V. Lossky come to mind.) But what I can say more sure that I understand what I'm saying is that...God's Person is "not anterior" to his nature. If I said that correctly it means that God is not compelled by the "nature" of what he does. God is free. God is Personal. What God IS he is because that's what he does by free choice.
So, not only are we so unwise so as to not understand God's ways the way that Moses did; but also, were we to try and define God, we would miss it. God can't be studied and predicted. God is not a stone-collumn.
Sahid: I'm just arguing that God in time does make sense and shouldn't be dismissed off hand.
PoW: I'd say it is an experssion that makes internal sense, as an expression. But is it true? Besides some anthropomorphic statements in scripture... Besides what happens if you bring a basically calvinistic framework in and try to attack calvinism with it -- that is if you aren't really respecting the place of human freedom in the essence of all of creation as part of God's original design......THEN, maybe you can begin to make that point.
But it is entirely unnecessary. You are free to think its true. I won't try to convince you otherwise. But I don't buy it. 
Sahid: The idea from Edwards is that when the Father loves himself, the image that he loves is so exact, so perfect that it is God himself. Heb 1:3 - "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature..."
PoW: As beautiful as Edwards statement is -- and Edwards should be read a lot more than he is -- I think that it is basically one of Augustine's ideas. I think that -- at least to my taste -- it depersonalizes the Son, in a way similar to how Augustine begins to depersonalize the Spirit. (And the filoque reduces the Spirit to second class, paving the way to Papal supremacy when the emesary of Christ is superior to the emasary of the Spirit--the Congregation.)
Been fun. Hope all's well! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
POW: Thanks for the different models click. Works well with a class I am in right now.
You are welcome.
Let that be exhibit one that i'm not trying to convince anyone. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: Creation exnihilo doesn't imply the creation of everything exnihilo.
PoW: The salient part is that it is not created from something God did not create.
Sahid: Again, is love "created"? Did it come out of nothing or is it as eternal as God?
PoW: Sloppy, yes. Love is not out of noting; nor is it eternal parallel-ly removed from God. Love is "of God."
Sahid: So are divine attributes created?
PoW: Observed. unless you mean that the attributes "are" the nature.
Sahid: Is there a problem with seeing temporality as a divine attribute. The Bible does say he is the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. This is, to me, the language of being in time.
PoW: That is, in my eyes, a really bad interpretation. Sorry.
Sahid: It is my contention that time is endless in either direction, there is no beginning or end, but at the beginning and end God is there.
PoW: That model is "enless in either direction" but only in the mind of the one who is imagining it. It doesn't exist, except as a free creation of mankind. We are co-creators. Not creators. But by analogy, the "creator" encluses the model. (Unless you watch "TRON" or the Matrix.)
But, what do you KNOW?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
So monks are the only ones spiritual enough for God to give a vision to? Isn't a biblical charism a grace gift?
I know a brother who has seen an open vision of Jesus returning on a white horse, just like the Apostle John describes in the Revelation (and he's not a monk).
RIGHT YOU ARE!
Laymen can use "the prayer of the heart" -- "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 10:30 AM (GMT -6) | |
I should step out for a while, and let others have a chance...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/7/2004 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey John,
I'm already unsettled in a definition of God as three persons yet as one God. Three persons? Doesn't "person" denote individual identity in some regard? If it does, then we're buttresing against the pressures of polytheism. Of course, the Fathers worked through all this, but I'm still suspicious; not of what they composed to resolve the dilemma, but in what they left out. I think the "begotten" concept helps here.
If the Son is eternally begotten, eternity, by definition, cannot have reference to the physics of time (sequence); for when did the Son ever not exist? There is left, then, a theological understanding of begotten, and this perspective, I think, would have flavored the Fathers' qualification(s) of the received creeds as to an understanding of the Trinity.
If God is one, and He is, then, though there are three persons who constitute the Godhead, there must be a cohesive element that eliminates the three from being three. After all, there is only one will and one mind of God; however, three (full) persons, as I understand person, would mean something quite different: multiple wills and minds. Therefore, it is my thought that the Father, as Scripture reveals (I Cor 15:24-28, et al.) is the origin and source of thought, of idea, of principle, etc. of all; the Son is the expression of all; the Holy Spirit is the presence of all. The Father has, in eternity, always brought forth (begotten) the Son. Not in some birthing process, but in the ontological sense. It is, in other words, the way things are. There has to be some sort of subordination (I'm careful in using this word) among the Trinity, as revealed in passages such as I Cor 15, or, inevitably, we are pushed into polytheism. The Son's eternal begottenness is an ontological state of being within the Godhead, not a one-time event. Likewise, the procession of the Spirit (within or without the filioque).
This, I submit, is a way to explain "begotten" and to do so in order to keep oneness within the Godhead. Others do not hold to the Son having been eternally begotten, which is fine, but then one is still left, in my opinion, to explain a better resolution for the Three as One.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/7/2004 10:33 AM (GMT -6) | |
I like how you expressed this, Starkman. You put yourself, and us, into the shoes of the Fathers who also had to struggle. And history shows (Meyendorff is a good read on this.) that what seemed fixed in one quarter quickly started to unravel in another.
May I add that it was the Empiror who suggested "hypostasis" to replace the less than other-wise-less "prosopon" (mask of a person). Hypostasis means -- if I'm remembering right -- "beyond-thrown." Hypostasis (And if I'm getting this al screwed up I'm sorry: its painting day at our house!) was first (Again, I hope this is right.) employed to describe the ONE hypostasis of Christ's two natures. Both natures had one hypostasis, one beyond-throw. One expression. I'm not sure that's 100%. Christ held our humanity so-close that he lived through it too. (Rough--and I'm sure opening the door to criticism.) It was THAT word that found usefulness when the Truth of the Trinity was challenged. Christians already knew what they meant. Basil knew about the Holy Spirit by experience, by worship, etc. But how to defend it against obvious error -- that was the challenge. Maybe in a slightly different sense, or not, the three "hypostasis" of the Godhead were not modes, or separate god's. God in Tri-unity is one God in three persons. When we say "eternally begotten, how dare we take sci-fi/metaphysical ideas and IMPORT them into a discussion having nothing to do with them.
Starkman, somewhere in there you said it very well. I have to get back to painting now, before the brushes dry out.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/7/2004 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Starkman,
Thanks for your comments. My approach (and I don't recall exactly from whom I got it) is the following:
The Scripture reveals that:
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father has personal attributes and is therefore a person. (Ditto for the Son and the Spirit).
I am quite uncomfortable with the idea that the Jesus is not a person, or that the Holy Spirit is not a person.
#4 is where I come at the "God in three persons" issue from.
It is of course possible that the "begotten" term simply refers to the dynamic, relational nature of God. The Father did not exist as a Father until the Son existed (Awkward wording, I know, but what I mean is they are coeternal by definition).
The most important issue seems to me to be the issue of the Deity of Jesus Christ. If Jesus is not coeternal, coexistent, and consubstantial, then He by definition is not God.
I'm having a bit of allergic fogginess today, so if my thoughts seem incoherent, that's why. Perhaps later tonight I will be able to make more sense and be able to respond in more detail to your excellent thoughts.
Thanks,
John
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:56 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|