Arius and the Trinity

[Christopher]

Greetings in Christ,

I have been reading the group's posts over the last month or two and am very impressed by the quality and Orthodoxy of the questions and answers. I don't usually post as I have much to learn and little to teach!

If I may I would like to relay a statement from a zealous "Christian Science" family member with whom I occasionally talk regarding religion. I am not very keen on approaching Orthodoxy from the purely (intellectual) theological angle as I find the lives of Saints easier (and more practical) in terms of theological instruction. However, Westerners interested in theology tend to approach things purely rationally.

I would therefore like to ask if somebody would have a good Orthodox response to the following statement (which is obviously heretical):

Arius "got a bad deal" and "he was right to suggest that Jesus was a human being. He (Jesus) expressed more clearly and completely than any other mortal the divine nature, the emanation of God, perceptible to humanity" and "we can and do all express the Christ to some extent and Christian practice should aim to increase how we do so". Furthermore that "when Jesus said 'I and my father are one' he meant one in nature (quality) not in quantity and by teaching his disciples (and us) to pray 'Our Father' he showed that we are just as much the sons and daughters of God as he was and, being immortal, as all of God's creation is, still is."

I don't have trouble explaining why this is wrong to myself, as for me it is sufficient to know that the Saints believed and knew the Trinity, so why shouldn't I believe in it too. However, I would be grateful for a correct theological response.

Also, I would like to ask regarding Christ's words that "on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades whall not prevail against it." As has been said in a previous posting "the rock" refers to the words of Peter, not Peter himself. But what about "the gates of Hades"? In the "Orthodox Study Bible" is says that it refers to the power of death. Somewhere I remember reading that this is (also?) a statement with regard to the theology of the Church - i.e. that the Church as a whole (as opposed to individuals within the Chruch) will not fall into (theological) error. Is that correct?

Finally, is there any good book about how to deal with people who are close to you, but do not share your religous beliefs? The reason I ask is that on the one hand one does not want to offend them, but on the other hand one wants them too to see the Truth, so I feel it is hard to say nothing.

With love in Christ,
sinful Christopher.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Christopher,

I am no expert on dealing with specific denominations and/or cults. On the other hand I notice that almost everything outside of the Church is slowly drifting towards similiar statements as your Jehovah's Witnesses. Jesus (not Christ) was a 'good man', He reflected the 'divine in all of us', etc, etc.

To begin with, the idea that "Jesus was human", and "and he showed that we are just as much the sons and daughters of God as he was..." is actually a step down from what Arius said. Arius felt that Christ was divinely created by the true God the Father. In this secondary sense Christ is 'divine' for He is still above the rest of creation. Arius was in heretical fashion 'protecting' the sense that God is One while still trying to maintain that Christ is God. Such an explanation may not have much effect on our Jehovah's Witness however- but it is good for us at least to know our theology.

The serious problem that can be brought up I believe is that "Jesus expressed more clearly and completely than any other mortal the divine nature..." First the J.W. (& other humanist 'theologians') maintain that Christ is not divine to the degree that God the Father is; then they say He 'expresses the divine.'. This is a clear self-contradiction; if Christ is not fully God in what way can we say He 'expresses' the divine? Obviously He does not. Rather what we are really saying is that Christ is 'good' morally speaking. How important this point is cannot be stressed enough. Christ is not 'good', He is divine; all that is good flows from and to Him and is only a pale reflection of His divinity.

Of course we know that Christ while remaining true God, became man so that we might become 'as God'. It is only because Christ is God that we can be saved, since then we are enabled to find our life in Him. Here I believe we can see the most serious problem with JW worldly 'theology'; it has redefined what salvation means and brought it down to the level of fallen humanity.

By this standard salvation means 'be good'; but since there is no longer a divine standard to indicate what this 'good' means it can only be a subjective state, 'good' as we each define it. Thus the end point of all this is that this so-called 'good' is in truth the most selfish and thus evil state possible. It has nothing to do with Christ and everything to do with creating a 'theology' which exalts to the heavens our selfishness in the the name of 'good'.

There are other points and questions in your posting but I will leave that to others.

In Christ 'true God from true God'- Fr R

[Daniel Jeandet]

As for your last question concerning a book that would help you deal with unbelieveing friends and family, I recommend "The Ascetic of Love". It is about Mother Gavrilia. She was a lay missionary to India and then became a nun, in the process aquiring The Holy Spirit and leaving a great deal of wisdom behind in her instructions and recollections that are contained in this book.

I always recommend this book to people because it shows how a life lived uncomprimisingly according to gospel transforms and sanctifies everyone who is blessed to be touched by it. Her teachings on how (and how not) to witness to those outside (or inside) the Church are extremely wise and helpful, and show that the witness of our faith to others is as much about our own struggle with passions and ignorence as it is with the blindness of those we wish to enlighten and often requires a greater desire to transform ourselves (and a greater opportunity to do so) than it does to transform or change the minds of those around us.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The best book on Truth you can give someone else is to live your life like an open book. When they can read the Christ in your actions, then they will believe the Christ in your words.

Herman
"Acquire the spirit of peace, and thousands around you will be saved" St. Seraphim of Sarov

[Melissa]

Christopher - I haven't found any such book as you're looking for about how to deal with people you care about who aren't Orthodox and/or don't believe as you do. Maybe someone else will have a title for you, though.

We have family members who range from supportive but not interested, to hurt and hostile to Orthodoxy (because of our change, not because they understand anything real that they object to). The best thing I found was to pretty much stay quiet. When asked a direct question, or when participating in a discussion, I would answer from what I was learning about Orthodoxy, as best I could. I try to focus more on trying to live my faith, and less on trying to share my faith verbally. The relative silence almost seems to fuel more questions.

It's a tough and sometimes lonely problem.
Melissa

[Jim Nee]

These are timely questions for me. I, too, would be interested in the answers of the more wise.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Christopher,

Be careful with what I say, because I am not actually Orthodox, so, of course, I can't be your teacher but I'm paying attention).

Having said that, let me ask, is it because the Christian Science relative of yours has intellectual concerns that you want a book? Usually the monks and priests here recomend your own approach, the practical one, and being a bookish sort myself, it sounds refreshing to hear it from you.

You will not get very far with Christian Science people because Mary Baker Eddy has created an entire false universe, and all their terminology reflects it insidiously because they are our words, like "Christ." But since they don't mean the same, it doesn't work to talk about it with them.

The support of Arius comes from what one might call the hyper-Alexandrianism of the Christian Science camp. To them, nothing is real, and that's the truth! But really, they'd make better Docetists than Arians, since there really was flesh to the Logos even for Arius. Docetism teaches that Christ only appeared to die on the cross but something like the Christ consciousness of Mary Baker Eddy, left Jesus before he died. Of course there are other variations on this theme.

Dealing with the unbelieving who are close:
(a) God is Love
(b) Love does not demand its (sic) own way.

Passion is the problem. The desire for another to be different can too easily fall into one's own need. If it isn't for the other, it isn't really love for them. But of course you share the Lord's own concern at the same time. Here is something: only God can breing about the change, so in your prayers for them continually give them over to Him.

Practical really is better, especially for them since they are so "rarified."

Yours,

Richard

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

At the beginning of this thread, Christopher wrote:


I would therefore like to ask if somebody would have a good Orthodox response to the following statement (which is obviously heretical):

Arius "got a bad deal" and "he was right to suggest that Jesus was a human being. He (Jesus) expressed more clearly and completely than any other mortal the divine nature, the emanation of God, perceptible to humanity" and "we can and do all express the Christ to some extent and Christian practice should aim to increase how we do so". Furthermore that "when Jesus said 'I and my father are one' he meant one in nature (quality) not in quantity and by teaching his disciples (and us) to pray 'Our Father' he showed that we are just as much the sons and daughters of God as he was and, being immortal, as all of God's creation is, still is."

This is an interesting quotation, for it only reflects the vision of Arius in its first part, and even there distorts it rather notably (I refer to the assertion that Arius 'suggest[ed] that Jesus was a human being'). There is of course nothing unorthodox in stating that Jesus was a human being -- this is the whole heart of the Incarnation. To suggest that Jesus was a mere human being (i.e. not divine) would be heresy; but we should point out that even this was not Arius' view. Arius' precise proclamation was that the Son is 'a creature, but not like other creatures'. In other words, the Son is a creation (ktisma) of the Father, not a begotten being; but the Son is of a different, higher 'order' than all the rest of creation and its creatures. And He is certainly 'divine' (so Arius would say).

We must sort out the accurate views of our heretics. This is still heresy, but it is a different heresy. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Part of what made Arius' position so tenable to so many was that it seems more rationally acceptable to proclaim an Arian relationship between the Father and the Son than an orthodox relationship, if only because of conceptual terminology. To claim that the Son is 'eternally begotten of the Father', which is the proclamation of the Church, is, let us be honest, rationally nonsensical. It is akin to saying that the Trinity is 'three in one' or 'one in three' We say these things so often that they come to sound reasonable and rational; but they are irrational and, logically speaking, entirely un-reasonable statements. But this is part of the message of the faith: that the nature of God is beyond rationality, beyond logic -- is a mystery. Its 'rational tenebility' does not define it: God's nature is God's nature. We use language that is always and will always be inadequate to describe it.

Arius seemed to have more trouble with this than some others. It just 'doesn't make sense', to proclaim an eternal begottenness; it makes 'more sense' to claim that the the Father created, in some mysterious and exalted manner, the Son. This is understandable. We can comprehend it. We can apply the rules of logic to it more definitively.

But it is still heresy. Much of the early heretical traditions against the Church were born out of this tendency to render the faith comprehensible: this was the case not only with Arianism, but also with Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, Marcionitism, etc. It is also the case with many modern groups who, like the early heretical factions, wish to make the mysteries of the faith more 'comprehensible' and, as a result, often slip into precisely the same heretical beliefs as their unknown forbears.

INXC, Matthew

[Daniel Jeandet]

What surprises me is that so many people prefer a comprehensible God.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matthew,

Yes accuracy; which involves carefulness; carefulness which involves self-control; self-control which involves an ascetic relationship to words. And to listen to what Christ and the Holy Church says (even about heretics) with all of our attention.

In Christ -Fr R

[Herman Blaydoe]

A god that is comprehensible is a god that can be defined.

A god that is defined is a god that has limits.

A god that has limits is a god that can be contained.

A god that can be contained is a god that can be controlled.

If I can control "god" then am I not a greater god? Therefore I am in control instead of "god."

Isn't that the ultimate heresy?

Just some simple thoughts from a simple mind.

Herman

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Herman,

You sound like Irenaeus.

And you must know: that is among the highest praise I can give. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Andrew M]

It is also the case with many modern groups who, like the early heretical factions, wish to make the mysteries of the faith more 'comprehensible' and, as a result, often slip into precisely the same heretical beliefs as their unknown forbears.

This is what ultimately soured me on post-modern approaches to Christianity. Instead of offering anything new, they just seemed to be retreads of earlier heresies; each ending up in a morass of incomprehensible relativism.

[Christopher]

Dear All,

Thank you very much for your responses to my query on Arius and the Trinity.

Having for many years argued against the Orthodox Church with my own “theological” views (which in retrospect are ridiculous), I can say that one can always argue with the Bible if one does not take the Bible as the word of God. For the unbeliever, any message in the Bible that does not agree with his views could be questioned on the basis that one cannot be sure that text was not corrupted, either because the original author mis-understood, or followed his own knowledge (rather than God’s) or because a scribe altered the text.

For me personally, once one believes in the Bible and the word of Christ, there can be only one true Church, not a cacophony of Christianity. And there is no better way to see how Christianity is lived than in the lives of the Saints. If only one could emulate them in a little way…

As regards Jesus Christ being God incarnate and co-eternal with the Father, I found that this is directly referred to in the opening chapter of St John’s Gospel.

Finally, I wanted to ask again if there are any insights with regard to the Bible reference that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.

With love in Christ,

sinful Christopher.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Earlier in this thread, Daniel J. wrote:


What surprises me is that so many people prefer a comprehensible God.

Indeed, yet the fallen human mind tends to favour its rationality above all, since it seems (seems) above all to be the means by which we can 'make sense' of the disordered cosmos in which we live -- though 'disordered' only by our own doing. Reason and comprehensibility become 'keys' to 'understanding', and with them we become quite comfortable.

This, however, is a mindset that has much to say to the fact that the majority of major heresies throughout history have been the result of attempting to make God more comprehensible. Arianism is a case in point, as we've discussed above. But we might look just as easily to Nestorian visions of the dual-personhood of Christ, which are in essense attempts to make comprehensible how two natures might truly exist in a single being. Or to Apollinarianism, which again is an attempt to make understandable the single-personhood of Jesus.

Comprehensibility and understandability are not to be shunned. We are, after all, God's 'reason-endowed creatureds'. Yet the task of the human mind is to comprehend what it can of reality, and not to re-define reality to fit with what we find ourselves able to comprehend.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Daniel,

"You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it." (Mt.16:18) We see so much evil around us & within us it seems impossible at times to accept or understand such words. Evil not only in the world but within the Church seems to cause such turmoil & scandal- we wonder if perhaps these words of Christ refer only to the future at His Second Coming when all things shall be restored.

Against this there is the optimistic approach, "things will turn out alright." This however lowers Christ to the level of a psychologist; 'simply adopt a bright attitude towards life'. Christ refers to the gates of hell; when we experience such evil it is not only difficult to 'just put on a happy face'; we begin to understand that evil is far more powerful than simply something being 'bad'. A cheery attitude does not negate the fact of evil.

St John of Damascus explains that, "evil is no more than a negation of good and a lapse from what is natural to what is unnatural, for there is nothing that is naturally evil." He then goes on to say, "For evil is not some sort of a substance," but, "a deviation from the natural to the unnatural, which is just what sin is." To reject what is of God is to reject life and our very being & existence itself; it is a fall into an abyss of non-existence preceded by the disintegration of our being. This indeed is hell for it is the power of sin & death at work.

Seen in this way the grace of Christ found within His Holy Church is the only thing which is real; it is the only Truth; it is the only Life. Hell & sin are a 'twisting out of shape' of reality, truth & life; no matter how much this evil is present it is not less twisted and degenerate (rather it is more) whereas the Truth of Christ is the opposite going from 'glory to glory' among the faithful.

Therefore even before the Second Coming of Christ restores all things the 'gates of hell',ie evil does not overcome the Church. For in fact evil has no power over the the good of Christ. No matter how much evil there may be, the grace of Christ is the only thing which is Life, and this Life is truly the only thing which Is.

In Christ-Fr R

[Daniel Mark Pech]

First, to warn my reader, I do not necessary represent Orthodoxy, and I happen to know that I am classed as Heterodox by the Orthodox.

Now, about what Jesus said: 'I and my father are one' . I believe that he was not addressing a question of his own ontology, but rather a question of who he represented. He had, on occassion, said to the Pharisees things like 'if you knew my father, then you would have known me'.

The common-sense subject of Jesus' day concerning who was Jesus was in regard to who his father was, since, it had been supposed, he had been conceived illegitimately. Joseph had made no claim to being his biological father.

Thus, in saying things like, 'I and my father are one', I personally believe that Jesus was challenging this supposition in his doubting hearers---challenging them to prove that he was NOT the Christ.

You see, the Pharisees never gave him a fair hearing, because had they done so, they would have had to admit their hypocrisy, and even to admit the essential truth of what he had charged them with at the start: that they were conspiring to kill him. While they may very well have had no such conspiracy at that point in time, yet it was still the essential truth, because they were absolutely opposed to everything else that he was going to say and do (and he knew this because he knew them, and that he was soon going to say and do these things). They were evil because he was good.

I personally do not believe that when Jesus said, 'I and my father are one', he was implying anything about the Trinity. Now, suppose that this is indeed the case, as I believe it is. Then, in arguing that Jesus was here making an ontological claim, it may be that such an argument produces a certain intellectual reaction on the part of some who disagree with this argument, namely a reaction in favor of what has come to be called Arianism.

In principle, the Trinitarian/Arian debate upon such passages would then be a case of a debate between two wrongs. Such a debate tends to reinforce the opposing positions in their respective castles, just as does the debate between male and female chauvinism, or any number of other two-wrong-sides debates.

[Daniel Jeandet]

Father Raphael and Matthew, thank you for responding to what I posted. You are right Matthew, about how our thoughts want to able to contain everything they think about, including themselves. It wierd isnt it? Its kind of like, we dont realise that what we are, and what we were designed for is essentialy the same thing. We are the image that is to contain the archetype. My feeling is that Orthodox Christianity, and by that I mean, living according to our purpose, as if we really are the image of the creator and are destined to participate in Him, its just too much for people. Who can accept this doctrine and live as if it is true?

The lies the devil tells about God! They start as ideas, thoughts, in a world as real and living (if not more) as the one we sense through the body. They become words, intefacing between that world and this, transfering, sliding between the levels of existence and finally become acts. Physical, audible, visual, violent lies, until almost everything around us, every word, act, sight, sound is a part of the lie. Lies on every level, but deeper down, reality springing from the eternal and utterly powerful, indestructible Uncreated person of Christ. By a type of feedback that spans the divided worlds, visible and invisible, we act speak and think according to our Saviours commandments, each moment the flow of this grace, the grain of reality to which we strive to conform, and make our own being, becomes more and more clear as the worlds unite and we see a little more clearly, how pathetic and powerless our enemy really is. His real power lies in our similarity to him, just as Gods purpose for us lies in the image of Himself within us.

Sorry, dont want to be a downer, but I live in Australia http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Those posts just got me thinking about the nature of evil and how our very concept of evil and what constitutes illusion and deception and sin can contribute to the very blindness that it is. As long as we sin, we conform to darkness and as long as we repent, we conform to the light, the pure perfect and ireversable destruction of all lies.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Daniel Pech,

Thank you for your post. Your reflections are interesting, and there is certainly some sense in which what you say is correct. For Jesus to proclaim that He and the Father are one is indeed to manifest His being as the Christ, and to set forward to His hearers the reality of that relationship.

Yet the overwhelming witness of the patristic corpus is that this comment also reveals important truths about the 'ontology' (to use your term in this context) of the Son in relation to the Father. Indeed, part of what made the comment so scandalous to Jewish hearers and readers was that to proclaim equality with the Father is not something that was predicated of the Jewish Messiah (='the Christ'). It was seen as blasphemy, not a proclamation of one's status as the Christ. In this sense, the comment has less to say about that revelation than it does to the relationship between Son and Father in an ontological sense, which is how a great many of the Fathers read it.

INXC, Matthew

[Teo Kia Choong]

Matthew wrote:
"part of what made the comment so scandalous to Jewish hearers and readers was that to proclaim equality with the Father is not something that was predicated of the Jewish Messiah (='the Christ')."

Indeed, I second that. Part of the reason why this claim can be so scandalous is not that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but rather that in claiming to be the Messiah, he was at the same time claiming identity on par with God the Father. The use of "I AM" in the New Testament by Jesus Himself to highlight his messianic status is unique because in the history of the Jews, no man--not even Moses himself as recorded in the Septuagint or Masoretic Text--has done this, that is, to use the very name of God(that unpronounceable string of four Hebrew letters without the vowels in them)to describe Himself.

The Council at Nicaea did not invent the Trinitarian formula, because even from the days of Polycarp of Smyrna(who was by the way a disciple-student of the Apostle John, and would be very much acquainted with the true import of what the twelve disciples truly believed and wanted to communicate of Christ's Deity), the mentions of the Trinity, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit in greetings were extant in letters circulating between him and the Christians and many others.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Christopher,


I would … like to ask if somebody would have a good Orthodox response to the following statement (which is obviously heretical):

Arius "got a bad deal" and "he was right to suggest that Jesus was a human being. He (Jesus) expressed more clearly and completely than any other mortal the divine nature, the emanation of God, perceptible to humanity"

The person who says this believes that human beings reflect divine nature. This is the "Christ consciousness" Mary Baker Eddy and Xxxx? speak about. There may be some affinity of this to the Orthodox teaching that man retains the "likeness" (as potential to achieve, with God's help, becoming the "god" we were all meant to be), but it immediately puts Christ as creature human.

Arius' concern with the Logos was more focused on its (sic) relationship to its source than what we might call its "destination," the incarnation except insofar as to answer the question "How can the the uncreated interface with creature? by saying, not, but rather only created emination, while yet "rarified" is unitable to gross creature.


and "we can and do all express the Christ to some extent and Christian practice should aim to increase how we do so". Furthermore that "when Jesus said 'I and my father are one' he meant one in nature (quality) not in quantity and by teaching his disciples (and us) to pray 'Our Father' he showed that we are just as much the sons and daughters of God as he was and, being immortal, as all of God's creation is, still is."

First we'll have to decide how we intend to use the word "nature" in our religious conversation. You are right in how your "partners in dialogue" dare I say, are using it. The English word is from the Latin word "natus" which refers to birth, but it is the one chosen to translate the Greek word "physis." Just a side note here: this is one of the reasons for the difficulties between Orthdoxy and Rcatholicism --, for RC nature (if taken from Latin) refers to what one is born, but "physis" is what one is, regardless of birth, therefore the sinful condition is not "natural" but "unnatural." We might begin the rescue of this dilema by pointing out that both agree that humanity is mortal, i.e., dying – but we'd best leave it there for now and return to our discussion with our neo-gnositc neighbore sna relatives.

Truly, he teaches his disciples, and that would be us, not any neo, or otherwise gnostics, to pray "Our Father" because in Chrst (and only in Christ) he is our Father, by adoption, not "nature" i.e., "physis," meaning "ontologically", as Matthew pointed out.


I don't have trouble explaining why this is wrong to myself, as for me it is sufficient to know that the Saints believed and knew the Trinity, so why shouldn't I believe in it too. However, I would be grateful for a correct theological response.

I think it would be helpful to keep in mind why the saints beileved this. They believed it because that's how they experienced it, in a practical sense. Theology, in the western sense of "God words" is really only descriptive of "theology" in the Orthodox sense, the experience of the Divine, and I don't mean "qualitatively." Divinity is experienced as Tri-unity, or it turns out not to be the divine one was experiencing! It is good to believe their words, of course, becaouse they're true, but sometime along the way follow their path and "replicate" their experience. This is why it is so good that you are a practical man.


Also, I would like to ask regarding Christ's words that "on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades whall not prevail against it." As has been said in a previous posting "the rock" refers to the words of Peter, not Peter himself. But what about "the gates of Hades"? In the "Orthodox Study Bible" is says that it refers to the power of death. Somewhere I remember reading that this is (also?) a statement with regard to the theology of the Church - i.e. that the Church as a whole (as opposed to individuals within the Chruch) will not fall into (theological) error. Is that correct?

I don't know but somehow I think the ikon of the harowing of hell might give us a clue. There we see Christ depicted smashing the gates of hades. They did not prevail against him, against the onslaught of very Life! And so they could not prevail against that of the church held there until then, whom he lead forth to Paradise taking captivity captive. And of course, as the Resurrection and the Life, none who believe in him ever see death, so, the gates of Hades cannot prevail against what some call "the church militant." Having said that, is this not the teaching of Orthodoxy? I don't mean, "doesn't Orthodoxy theach this?" I know it (sic) does, I mean, isn't the teaching of the Truth the very presentation of this Gospel of Life, the very Christ himself!? Ah, as I try to learn Orthodoxy, I think so.

Yours,
Richard

[Daniel Mark Pech]

I believe it is clear that Jesus did indeed claim to be on a par with God. But, I'm not yet sure for myself whether this is the case when he said, "I and my father are one".

You see, at one point early on, after Jesus began referring to "my father", the Pharisees had asked him "Who is your father?" They were assuming that he had been begotten illegitimately, and thus that his father was a man.

My tentative idea at this point is that if they were to have agreed that Jesus' biological father was God and not a man, then they would somehow be admitting that Jesus was on a par with God. Elohim did not beget Adam in the human sense, Elohim formed Adam from the dust. In begetting a man by way of a woman, the man begotten is naturally on a par with the man who begot him. The Pharisees already knew that Jesus was born of a woman.

.

As for some of the comments in this thread about the incomprehensibility of God:

When we say that God became a man, we are not saying that God thus ceased to be God. If, in becoming a man, God did not cease to be God, then in what sense of 'become' did he become a man? It is like this: "Golf ball became red." We already deny that God exchanged his essence for that of a man. That is, in saying that God became a man, we are not asserting an exchange of catagories. This is why we say that Jesus was both man and God.

Further, if 'God' is synomymous with the 'Creator', then God is the one prime catagory here, even though both man and God are personal beings. Thus, it is not the case that, in saying that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, we must be saying that 100% + 100% = 100%.

A little logic is dangerous without the insight to go with it, and I am sorry to have to say that even many church leaders often have more logic than insight. A little logic + even less insight + a lot of zeal = a lot of nonsense (and, zeal is unable to provide needed insight). The human mind will not abide with nonsense, even though the fallen heart may make logical errors in very reaction against the initial nonsense. There is nothing new under the sun---fundamentally.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Thank you, Richard (Leigh), for an enjoyable and insightful post. If I might make a few additional comments on Mr Daniel Pech's follow-up message. Daniel, you wrote:


I believe it is clear that Jesus did indeed claim to be on a par with God. But, I'm not yet sure for myself whether this is the case when he said, "I and my father are one".

Let us be very, very careful with language. Jesus was not, nor did He claim to be, on par with God. He is God. This is a point of fundamental importance. And He in fact never claimed to be 'on par' with the Father: over and again He emphasised His submission of will and obedience to the will of the Father -- equality as respects divinity (or ousia, to speak in later terms), but submission as respects order or taxis in the intra-Trinitarian relationships.

You also wrote:


My tentative idea at this point is that if they were to have agreed that Jesus' biological father was God and not a man, then they would somehow be admitting that Jesus was on a par with God. Elohim did not beget Adam in the human sense, Elohim formed Adam from the dust. In begetting a man by way of a woman, the man begotten is naturally on a par with the man who begot him. The Pharisees already knew that Jesus was born of a woman.

Again, I find the language of 'par' here to be subtly misleading. Jesus as incarnate was not 'on par' with or 'equal to' a man: he was man. (As a less important aside, I also find use of 'Elohim' as a name to be equally as inaccurate: the term simply means 'God' in a generic sense. But this is of little import.) The genuine humanity of Jesus was easy enough to ascertain via the knowledge that He was born of a human mother, and in the process of begetting, nature/ousia (I'll use the terms loosely here, taking Richard's comments to one side for the moment) is passed along from begettor to begotten. This is in fact precisely why Jesus' comment that 'The Father and I are one' has such deep ontological implications. The statement has little to do with messianic proclamation (as we discussed above, current perceptions of the coming Messiah were that he would not say such a thing), and far deeper implication for the ontological relationship of the Father and Son.

You later wrote:


Further, if 'God' is synomymous with the 'Creator', then God is the one prime catagory here, even though both man and God are personal beings. Thus, it is not the case that, in saying that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, we must be saying that 100% + 100% = 100%.

Forgive me, but I do not follow.


A little logic + even less insight + a lot of zeal = a lot of nonsense

I like this equation better. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Teo Kia Choong]

The last few mails recalled to me how the word "par" can be misleading indeed.

The whole point that Arius and his latter-day descendants, the Jehovah's Witnesses, are guilty of lies in the reading of John 3:16 in a very literal fashion. The whole word "monogenos"(only-begotten Son) is not to be taken in the context of generation, and if one takes a hard look at the other books of the New Testament, especially the beginning exordium in Hebrews, one would realize this. God has called none of His angels His only Begotten Son(if I can remember the gist of it), and in that case, the view of the exordium would open itself up onto another early controversy surrounding the adoptionism view of Christ. That too reduces the Deity of Christ, because in essence He is God(insofar as He shares the same essence as the Father and the Holy Spirit), but he is not the same "prosopon" as the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Greek original of "prosopon" means "face" and more accurately is against what Russell, founder of the JW, tried to argue mistakenly by saying that he cannot imagine a three-headed god sitting on the throne of God in heaven.
That is a basic flaw of trying to perceive God in an anthropomorphic sense.

[M.C. Steenberg]

The whole word "monogenos"(only-begotten Son) is not to be taken in the context of generation, and if one takes a hard look at the other books of the New Testament, especially the beginning exordium in Hebrews, one would realize this. God has called none of His angels His only Begotten Son

Pardon: we can't have the term 'monogenes' and not have it discuss generation: the term itself means 'only-generated' (keep in mind that 'begotten' and 'generated' are synonms)!

INXC, Matthew

[Teo Kia Choong]

Actually, what I mean is that 'monogenos'(which actually is approximated in English as 'only begotten') cannot be simplified to a case of reading it as that Christ is the One and Only being or person created above the angels and humans by God. This is the error of Arius and the JW Watchtower Society.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Teo Kia Choong, you wrote in clarification:


Actually, what I mean is that 'monogenos' (which actually is approximated in English as 'only begotten') cannot be simplified to a case of reading it as that Christ is the One and Only being or person created above the angels and humans by God. This is the error of Arius and the JW Watchtower Society.

This being your point, it is certainly correct. The Father did not create the Son -- this is the whole point of the 'begotten not made' clause of the symbol of Nicaea, and one which modern-day neo-Arians still fail to understand.

But we must be careful with our own distinctions in language. It is not accurate to say that monogenes "actually is approximated in English as 'only begotten'" in distinction to 'only-generated'. These are the same: one is not more accurate than the other. Generation and begetting are theologiclly identical. It is the distinction between begetting/generating and making/creating that is of importance.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

To Teo,

To further clarify on Matthew's point, it is because there is no (or at least was no) sex specification in the generation in Greek as there is in English where men beget, women bear. In Greek both sexes generated. I suppose this is still true but I don't know modern Greek.

Richard

[M.C. Steenberg]

Given the reference to Arius / Arianism recently in another thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2613), I was reminded of this thread. I'd be keen to revive the discussion here, should others be interested; it sort of faded away amongst other things before, but there is plenty left to reflect upon.

XB, Matthew