Flocanrib and the ambiguity of the word “Trinity” (Dale)

Apr 252013
 
anti botox brigade

Cerberus’ owner takes him/them for a ride?

Our fictional story was necessary, to help us think about some important distinctions about referring terms.

It is easy to forget that “Trinity” was once a puppy, a neologism. But it was. It was born some time in the second half of the second century. We don’t know who coined it, but the earliest surviving mention of it is by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (d. c. 185). Commenting on the Genesis days of creation, in his remarks on the fourth day, he says that

…the three days which were before the luminaries [i.e. the stars], are types of the Trinity [Greek: triados, a form of trias], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. (“Theophilus to Autolycus,” Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. II, p. 101)

One could better translate triados here as Continue reading »

photo by: emdot

Flocanrib explained – Irene’s mistake (Dale)

Apr 242013
 

Irene reflected on how she had got to thinking that her birthday gifts came from one person. She had labelled the source or sources of them “Presenty.” At first she may have been open-minded about whether the gifts came from one or many. But once she’d coined the name, that, in her imagination, solidified the source as being a single person.

This seemed to be confirmed by her discovery of “Flocanrib,” or rather her discovery of her uncles using that term. But she did not see that it was not really a proper name at all. It referred, but not to a particular man or woman. Her breakthrough was seeing the term disassembled into component parts (Flo, Can, and Rib) which corresponded to the gifts; that helped her to see how the referring term “Flocanrib” worked.

bieberPhilosophers distinguish singular referring terms from plural referring terms. Consider the word “Justin Bieber.” The function of it, the use of it, is referring to this one particular fellow. It is what philosophers call a singular referring term. Grammarians called it a name or a proper noun. Now consider a sentence like,

As Justin Bieber shopped, a crowd surrounded him and gawked.

The phrase “a crowd” is also a referring term, but (arguably) not a singular one. You might think it refers to a single thing – to a crowd. But what is a crowd? It is merely a plurality of people. Arguably, the term “a crowd” refers not to a thing (entity, being) but to a mere plurality of entities, more specifically, of people – to Sally, Bill, Martha, Janet, and so on.

Some philosophers claim that any two things whatever compose (are parts of) a third thing. They would say that “the crowd” does refer to a thing, a thing composed of Sally, Bill, etc. But they would have to agree that this thing is not a person, not an individual human (even though it has such as proper parts).

A plural referring term need to refer to multiple entities of the same kind. Let us coin such a term. Many Americans love baseball, apple pie, and freedom – let us call such a thing  thing or mere plurality “bapfree“. I’m a big friend of bapfree. Note that these items belong in very different categories – one is a game, the other is a kind of dessert, and the third is a concept or property. Or a general might exhort his soldiers in the name of the president, the flag, and the constitution – man, a kind or set of physical object, and a writing. One might call it “preflac,” if one had some need to refer to it by one term.   More commonly we’d refer to it by a phrase like “what the general appealed to.”

Next time: what does all this have to do with the Trinity?

Flocanrib – a parable (Dale)

Apr 192013
 

Flower Close Up In DarknessIrene was the only little girl in her whole extended family, and everyone loved giving her girly gifts. Three of her uncles liked to give her certain gifts every birthday. Uncle John always gave her a flower, uncle Jack always gave her a box of candy, and uncle Jerry always gave her a hair ribbon. They always gave together, and in secret. The night before her birthday, the three would meet together in the dead of night with their presents, and together leave them on her doorstep. Irene would awake each birthday morning to find such presents, much to her delight. But she didn’t know who they were from and naturally assumed that it was one giver, not three.

As they coordinated the drop off each year, the conspirators would communicate, and they took to referring to themselves as “Flocanrib.” They would say things like “When is Flocanrib meeting next Tuesday?” and “Can Flocanrib do it again this year?”

When she was little, Irene thought of the source of her yearly presents as her birthday fairy “Presenty.” But later, she thought it must be a single human being – she imagined, a relative – still called, in her mind, “Presenty.” One day, when she was in high school, her birthday came, but the presents did not. They never resumed, and Irene still wondered who Presenty was; she was eager to thank this person. Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 11 – a trinitarian passage in Hippolytus? (Dale)

Apr 032013
 

mrs-butterworthsWas Hippolytus a trinitarian or a unitarian? In the last two posts, I’ve argued that he was the latter.

In the most recent translation of his Against Noetus, though, the translator thinks he is a trinitarian. He entitles this section, “The three Persons of the Trinity are One God”. (p. 74) Is he right? Here’s the passage, pretty much the whole chapter:

Well then, brethren, all this is what the Scriptures point out to us. This economy that blessed John, too, passes on to us through the witness of his Gospel, and he maintains that this Word is God… [John 1:1]

But then, if the Word, who is God, is with God, someone might well say: “What about this statement that there are two gods?” While I will not say that there are two gods – but rather one – I will say there are two persons; and that a third economy is the grace of the Holy Spirit. For though the Father is one, there are two persons – because there is the Son as well: and the third too, – the Holy Spirit. The Father gives orders, the Word performs the work, and is revealed as Son, through whom belief is accorded to the Father. By a harmonious economy the result is a single God. Continue reading »

He is risen… so not reincarnated (Dale)

Mar 312013
 

Jesus is alive, and he still has a real, flesh and blood body. He has had that body continuously – but for a break of less than three days –  for over 2000 years. Because of that, he has not switched bodies, not reincarnated, not been reborn as some present day dude. Jesus is still driving the original model… with a few upgrades, of course.

This is important to know, because of the proliferation of fake Jesuses today, like A.J. Miller in Australia, Sergey Anatolyevitch Torop in Russia, Jose Miranda (also here) in America, Álvaro Theiss (also here) in Brazil, and other assorted crazies.

Acid test: Does this claimant Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 10 – Hippolytus on the identity of the one God (Dale)

Mar 292013
 

hippolytusIncredibly, in 1551 they discovered an intact statue of Hippolytus (pictured here). This may exist because he was revered as a martyr shortly after his lifetime.

In the previous post, we saw that in his theology, the divine (but less divine than God) Logos came to exist from God a finite time ago, so that God could create the cosmos by means of him. On two counts, then, this makes him not a trinitarian – that the “persons” are neither co-equal nor equally divine. But is he a unitarian?

In the most important work we have from him, he says,

The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself… Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first… Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor… He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. …when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed *each object of creation, thus pleasing God.   …[God, via the Logos] formed the ruler of all [creation, i.e. Adam]… The Creator did not wish to make him a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel… but a man. For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou has the example of the Logos. Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 9 – Hippolytus’s two-stage logos theory (Dale)

Mar 272013
 

lonely tree in the snow Hippolytus (c. 170-236) is an interesting, if obscure character. He was a presbyter in Rome, and on some reports, was a bishop of Rome – either a pope on an anti-pope, depending on how you look at it (he would have been a rival bishop, if this is true, to either Zephyrinus or Callistus). (See the entry on him in this book, pp. 164-5)

He was especially concerned to combat “monarchian” theology. In my view, it is a huge undertaking to get clear what on just what “monarchian” theology was all about. In any case, it is clear that the Hippolytus re-asserts the two-stage logos theory against it, the same sort of theory we saw  in Ireneaus. He may have been a disciple of Irenaeus.

God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 8 – Origen on “God” vs. “a god” (Dale)

Mar 252013
 

wordOrigen, many other ancient catholics, takes the Word (logos) of John 1 to be the pre-human Jesus.

For the record, I don’t think that is correct. But I won’t contest it here.

In the quotes here, he’s commenting on “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is from an long commentary on John, this portion of which was probably written in 231-2 AD.

Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods and, for this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as “Son” in name at least, or they deny the divinity of the Son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual to be different from the Father. (Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel According to God, trans. Robert E. Heine, p. 98, bold added)

Permit me to paraphrase: people think that this Word who is with God and yes is God must be another God, a second God. But that seems wrong – isn’t monotheism true? Thus, they either think Father and Son to be numerically one (the same God) or they deny that the Word, that is, the pre-human Jesus to be divine – to be such that the word “God” applies to him.

Immediately following the passage above, Origen gives his solution.

Their problem can be resolved in this way. Continue reading »

One-self Trinity theories (Dale)

Mar 232013
 

I used to call these sorts Trinity theories of “modalism.” I still think that is not a bad description, so long as you specify that it is not by definition heretical or wrong.

But I now think “one-self” is a more neutral term, which even better describes the sort of theory.

The reasoning goes like this.

The Christian God must, after all is said and done, be Continue reading »

Credo House Ministries’ Inaccuracies about the Trinity and the Council of Nicea (Dale)

Mar 212013
 

Unimpressed-Mona-LisaI’ve blogged about these folks before. I do not enjoy criticizing apologists, because I think Christian apologetics is important. And the folks at Credo House Ministries seem like good-hearted and hard working Christians who are doing their best to help Christians love God with their minds. And I think Patton is an excellent blogger and writer.

But I feel compelled to correct some of their inaccurate statements about “the” doctrine of the Trinity. In this video, they want to correct the myth that “The Trinity” – by which they mean “the” doctrine of the Trinity, or rather, the widely accepted catholic creedal formulas -”was invented.”

Well, given that it is a doctrine which we’re talking about, a theory, which didn’t exist in BC times, of course it was “invented,” i.e first formulated and stated by some folks.

But it actually wasn’t in 325, at Nicea! That formula, as then understood, was consistent with Christian unitarian theology.

But let’s go through their video. Continue reading »

John Biddle’s unitarian confession of the Holy Trinity (Dale)

Mar 172013
 

go to jailJohn Biddle (1615-62) (also spelled “Bidle”) has been called “the father of English Unitarianism.” (But he didn’t use the word “unitarian” – that had yet to be coined, as a more descriptive, less polemical alternative to “Socinian.”) When he taught his theology publicly, he ran afoul of the the law, and eventually died in jail, imprisoned for his beliefs.

Here are three of the six articles of his A Confession of Faith Touching the Holy Trinity, According to Scripture. (1648, reprinted in a 1691 book, itself reprinted in 2008.) I have modernized his spelling and use of capitals and punctuation, and have added emphases in bold.

Article I: I believe that there is one most High God, creator of heaven and earth, and first cause of all things pertaining to our salvation, and confessedly the ultimate object of our faith and worship; and that this God is none but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the first person of the Holy Trinity. (p. 1)

Article II: I believe that there is one chief Son of the Most High God, Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 7 – Origen uncensored (Dale)

Mar 152013
 

scissors

Against Celsus is not the only important surviving book by Origen. Origen’s On First Principles is often called the first systematic Christian theology. It was written some time before 231. It is a bold and wide-ranging work, and in Origen’s day Christian theologians could speculate a fair amount.

But the curtain was brought down on this era of freedom by ecclesial-political events of the fourth century. While many still considered Origen a great scholar, the atmosphere was such that one might lose one’s church career if people thought you were too sympathetic to his views.

Among his admirers was the great scholar Jerome (translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible), but Jerome had do distance himself from Origen lest the heresy hunters get him. But still, people wanted to read Origen. Answering this need, Rufinus (d. 410) translated Origen’s On First Principles into Latin. Problem is, Rufinus systematically cut out and/or changed numerous passages that would not fit the new Pro-Nicene hegemony.

How do we know this? Because Rufinus tells us! He argues that heretics must have corrupted Origen’s works, since there just could not be a difference between those and the new catholic orthodoxy. Also, we have from other sources, e.g. letters of his contemporaries, the Greek texts of some of the cut and altered passages. In the excellent modern edition of the book, the editor-translator restores these to the text. Sadly, Rufinus’s Latin version is the only complete version we have of Origen’s book, so as it stands, the book is riddled with suspicious passages that don’t fit what we otherwise know about Origen, but which we have no textual grounds to correct. (On the whole crazy affair, see the above edition, pp. xxxi-lii.)

Here are some of the cut and restored passages; if you’re familiar with the “Arian” controversy and the trinitarian orthodoxy that coalesced and acquired the power of the Roman emperor at the end of the fourth century, you will not need an explanation why Rufinus cut them.

…the Saviour… is an image of God’s goodness, but Continue reading »

“Subordinationism” (Dale)

Mar 132013
 

grammar-vaderIn the recent and ongoing series, I have been showing that famous early “fathers” are not, contrary to popular accounts, trinitarians at all, once we carefully define the term. They are unitarians, again, carefully defining the term.

But these recent comments by reader “Villanovanus” got me thinking.

He finds it outrageous that I call people like Irenaeus and Origen “unitarians,” even though I also call them “subordinationists.” Isn’t a subordinationist by definition a trinitarian? (When one reads the trinitarian authors of histories of theology, they are usually a little more modest, saying that these folks are sort of, kind of, maybe trinitarians, if not good ones, or fully developed ones, etc.)  Am I not grammatically challenged, or perversely unwilling to look up terms in a dictionary? If a “subordinationist” is by definition a trinitarian, then “subordinationist unitarian” is a contradiction in terms.

He cites a number of dictionary type definitions of “subordinationism”, e.g.

  • [subordinationism] the doctrine that the first person of the Holy Trinity is superior to the second, and the second superior to the third. (© Random House, Inc. 2013)
  • [subordinationism] either of two interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity, often regarded as heretical, according to which the Son is subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost is subordinate to both (Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
    Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
  • [subordinationism] the theological tenet of progressively declining essence within the Trinity. (-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.)

The second definition is too narrow. But making “subordinationism” Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 6 – Origen’s Against Celsus – Part 2 (Dale)

Mar 112013
 

creationThe pagan polytheistic monotheist Celsus presses the attack we looked at last time.

If you [Christians] taught them that Jesus is not his [God's] Son, but that God is the father of all, all that we really ought to worship him [God] alone, they [Christians] would no longer be willing to listen to you unless you included Jesus as well, who is the author of their sedition. Indeed, when they call him Son of God, it is not because they are paying very great reverence to God, but because they are exalting Jesus greatly. [Origen answers:] We have learnt who the Son of God is, even that he is ‘an effulgence of his glory and the express image of his person’ …and we know that Jesus is the Son come from God and that God is his Father. There is nothing in the doctrine which is not fitting or appropriate to God, that He should cause the existence of an only-begotten Son of this nature. (Against Celsus 8.14, trans. Henry Chadwick, pp. 461-2, bold added)

Celsus pushes the point that a real monotheist would only worship God, and suggests that Christians exalt Jesus at God’s expense. (Never mind how he might reconcile this with his acceptance of traditional polytheism.)

Origen replies Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 5 – Origen’s Against Celsus – Part 1 (Dale)

Mar 092013
 

number-one-Celsus was a pagan philosopher, essentially a cultural and religious conservative, who wrote a book attacking Christianity, perhaps around 177-80 (though some have argued that it must be no later than 161).

Decades later, it is not clear exactly why, the great Christian scholar Origen (182-254) wrote a massive refutation of this book, quoting substantial portions of it. This is the eight-book Against Celsus, which was probably written aronud 246-8.

There are many, many interesting things in the book. Here’s a quotation relevant to our present series:

[Celsus writes:] If these men [Christians] worshiped no other God but one, perhaps they would have a valid argument against the others. But in fact they worship to an extravagant degree this man who appeared recently [Jesus], and yet think it is not inconsistent with monotheism if they worship His [God's] servant [Jesus]. [Origen responds:] Continue reading »

Leonard Hodgson on “Subordinationism” (Dale)

Mar 062013
 

small-dog-big-dogAnglican theologian Leonard Hodgson’s 1943 book The Doctrine of the Trinity is creative, insightful, and I think believed by no one. It posits what I call a “three self” theory, what others call a “social” theory. But my purpose here is to relay his insights regarding the approach to monotheism in the first three centuries of Christianity.

…”subordinationism.” That term is used to describe theories current in the monarchian controversies of the third and fourth centuries. Those theories were attempts to secure the unity of the Godhead by regarding one Person as ultimately God in His own right and the others as divine in a secondary or subordinate sense. …only one of the three Persons, the Father, was in patristic times regarded in this way as the real God… [the theory is fundamentally an attempt] to find the unity by treating one of the elements as ultimate and reducing the others to terms of it. (The Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 88, emphases added)

Subordinationism… attempts to preserve the unity by making one Person ultimately the real God and the others divine because of their relation to Him. Hippolytus of Rome was notorious for the subordinationism into which he was driven in his efforts to refute Sabellius. Although in this connection Origen is chiefly memorable for the doctrine of eternal generation by which he freed trinitarian theology from one element in subordinationism, i.e. temporal secondariness, yet other elements remained… ( p. 100, bold added)

The notion that in the Trinity one Person may be the fount or source of being or godhead for another lingered on to be a cause of friction and controversy between the East and the West, and still persists into much Christian theology of to-day. …[But in the divine] unity, there is no room for any trace of subordinationism… the thought of the Father as the Source or Fount of Godhead is a relic of pre-Christian theology which has not fully assimilated Christian revelation. (p. 102, emphases added)

A few quibbles; Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 4 – Irenaeus’s reported creeds (Dale)

Mar 042013
 

worldJust one more instalment on Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon at the end of the 100s, a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of Papias, a disciple of the apostle John.

Sometimes in his flailing away at the gnostics, Irenaeus pauses to cite a common creed, presumably baptismal creeds, at any rate, summaries of belief which he says are used by catholic Christians in the late 100s.

Here are parts of three of them:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” [Eph. 1:10] and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow… and that every tongue should confess” [Phil 2:10-1] to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all… Against Heresies I. 10.1, p. 330

The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 3 – Irenaeus’s 2-stage Logos theory (Dale)

Mar 022013
 

two-handsThe earlier 2nd century catholic apologists like Justin, Tatian, and Athanagoras, were clearly two-stage theorists about the Logos/Word/Son.

That is, for them, the Logos existed from all eternity as an attribute of God, and was only at a certain time, just before or at the time of God’s creation, expressed, so as to exist as another alongside God (cf. Proverbs 8), by means of whom God created the cosmos.

So if by “Logos” you mean an intelligent agent, a powerful self that can be God’s helper in creation, then this has a finite history. (J.N.D. Kelly eloquently and accurately sums up their 2-stage view in his Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 95, 100.) The idea, though, that this agent used to be an attribute of the Father is evident nonsense.

A bit later, Origen clearly denies two-stage theory, in favor of a mysterious eternal generation of the Word/Logos by God – a one-stage theory.

Things are bit less clear with Irenaeus.

Frankly, the heavyweights Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 2 – Irenaeus on Jesus’ ignorance (Dale)

Mar 012013
 

Jesus-prayingTrinitarian or unitarian?

You decide.

This time, more Irenaeus (d. c. 202). He doesn’t say the various odd things many later “fathers” say about this passage!

But, beyond reason inflated [with your own wisdom], ye presumptuously maintain that ye are acquainted with the unspeakable mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when He plainly declares, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only.”[Mark 13:32] …the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only…

…if any one should inquire the reason why the Father, who has fellowship with the Son in all things, has been declared by the Lord alone to know the hour and the day [of judgment], he will find at present no more suitable, or becoming, or safe reason than this (since, indeed, the Lord is the only Master), that we may learn through Him that the Father is above all things. For “the Father,” says He, “is greater than I.” [John 14:28] The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions [as have been mentioned], to God, and should not by any chance, while we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God. Against Heresies II.28.6,8, pp. 401, 402.

Is the Father greater than the Son? (unitarian)

Or is the Son as divine as and as great as the Father? (trinitarian)

trinitarian or unitarian? 1 – Irenaeus (Dale)

Feb 282013
 

Saint_IrenaeusIn this series, it is important that you keep in mind clear and (what should be) non-controversial definitions of “trinitarian,” and of “Christian unitarian.”

In this post, some quotes from Irenaeus, late 2nd c. bishop famous for his long treatise against the various gnostics.

I have not modified the translations, other than adding bold type. Some of the clarifying insertions [in brackets] are by the translators, others by me.

Wherefore I do also call upon thee, LORD God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, though the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favour towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee, that Thou art God alone, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.   Against Heresies III.6.4, p. 419.

…neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in his own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and Son; but naming no other as God [than the Father], and confessing no other as Lord [than the Son]: and the Lord Himself [i.e. Jesus] handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; – it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect. …[Jesus] did not declare to them another God, besides Him who made the promise to Abraham… There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner [i.e. John the Baptist]; and His salvation – that is, His Word – He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate…  Against Heresies III.9.1, p. 422.

Next, an interesting deception argument, Continue reading »

 Older Entries

Switch to our mobile site

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech