Incredibly, 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. His [God’s] will, however, was, that you should be a man, and He has made thee a man. But if thou art desirous of also becoming a god, obey Him that has created thee… The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. (Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, ch. XXVIII-XXIX, p. 151.)
Who is the one God here? It’s the Father.
One can be distracted by the fact that he calls the pre-human Jesus (the Logos) “God”. But we see also that he was given that status by God. And God, he says, could have made more such derivative deities – but chose not do. “Having the substance of God” – in his, pre-Nicene usage this is a status one can have by the free choice of God, and not eternally.
Here’s how he ends the book:
[Becoming a Christian,] You shall escape the boiling flood of hell’s eternal lake of fire… being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And thou shalt possess an immortal body… And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven… And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou has become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou has been deified, and begotten unto immortality. …Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has been arranged to wash away sin from human beings, regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning… And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions… thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory! (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, XXX, p. 153)
This is a dense passage, and translators have disputed over the text and translation of that second to last bolded phrase. But this much is clear. The true God is the Father of Jesus. But the Christian will “become God” (or: “become a god”). He thinks of salvation as deification. God, he thinks, can deify others. But he can’t pass on all divine attributes – such as being the ultimate source of all else, and existing independently of all else. It would be a contradiction to suppose properties like those to be passed along, as it were. Really, in his view – though he’s not explicit about it – there is a gradation of deities – with the one true God at the top, then the Son, then saved/deified Christians. As creatures, the derive from the Son (and ultimately from the Father). And as Son, Christ derives only from God. God derives from no one. Is Christ, in his view “the God above all”? Yes – above all humans, or above all creatures. But not above the Father, the one God in the highest sense.
This sort of God-talk is quite different than that of the Bible, though not without precedent in it.
The question again, is:
- is Hippolytus a trinitarian (the one God contains or consists of three equally divine persons)
- or unitarian (the one God is numerically identical to the Father, and not to the Son)?
Hi Dale and everybody else,
I agree that Hippolytus and all other early church Logos theologians were not Trinitarian as later defined by ecumenical councils. The Logos theologians could be called “unitarian” or “trinitarian” in general. Regardless of calling them unitarian or trinitarian, they were inadvertently tritheists with a drastically different polytheism compared to other polytheistic ancient Mediterranean religions.
Corrections
469 => 489 (70×7 -1)
The text of the P.S. was not meant to be bolded
Villanovanus
Sorry about the spelling.!
Keep on with the good work, but be gracious to us lesser mortals!
Best
Angela
Angela,
however harsh, otoh, I was not in the mood for inquisition …
Anyway, you are forgiven, and you are still entitled to 469 more … 😉
MdS
P.S. My nickname, Villanovanus (with two “l”) comes from the pseudonym that Michael Servetus adopted to keep his identity secret, and is tied to his birthplace, Villanueva de Sijena in Aragon, Spain.
Vilanovanus
Sorry!
I must say I was naughty – on something of a ‘fishing trip’
Best
Angela
Angela [#10, April 8, 2013 at 3:46 pm]
This is an area for debate, and debate can become harsh. Anyway, I believe that, in my discussion with Helez, I showed more restraint that you did in your first post here, jumping to the (insufficiently supported) conclusion of some alleged “Helez’s J.W. theology” …
MdS
John [#9, April 8, April 8, 2013 at 2:26 pm]
In the Opening Post, Dale quoted from Hippolytus. This is what we read in the second quotation:
“For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. ” (The Refutation of All Heresies, Book X, Chapter XXX)
At the end of his OP, Dale made the following remark …
“This sort of God-talk is quite different than that of the Bible, though not without precedent in it.”
… in reply to which I wrote:
“… while I agree that Hippolytus’ “God-talk is quite different than that of the Bible”, there are two strong and clear “precedents” in it: [Phil 2:9-11; cp. Acts 2:36 and 1 Cor 15:28]
IOW, although that of Hippolytus may seem theological tall talk, it is fully supported by what the Paul says: with the Resurrection to Life Everlasting, God’s Elect will have “become God”. NOT in an allusive, metaphorical sense, BUT literally.
Or, putting it in a more theological way, the Trinity is NEITHER eternal NOR protological, BUT eschatological: what was NOT true “in the beginning”, what is only partly true now, (when the Resurrected and Ascended Jesus Christ is “seated at the right of the Power” and Lord himself) will be fully true “… when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).
MdS
Vilanovanus,
I am full of admiration for your knowledge of theological matters.
I am completely unimpressed by the way you have treated Helez!
You come over as an overbearing narcissistic buffoon without humility or grace.
Time to examine yourself and ask “what would Christ think of what
I have just said”.
You have so much to contribute but…
Tant pis!
Best
Angela
Villanovanus
And how would youintegrate 1 Corinthians 15 : 28 into your analysis?
Every Blessing
John
John [#7, April 8, April 8, 2013 at 11:44 am]
First, YHWH God, in His omnipotence, can do anything (except something impossible, like someone else being self-existing as Himself), so he can decide to have a Son who shares (genetically, so to speak) His very same divinity. More he can decide to raise him from the dead, take him up to Heaven and have him seated at his right, equally sharing His Kingdom, Power and Glory. Who (man, angel or demon) can oppose that?
Second, as I have already said, while God condemned the worship of “other gods” (actually, mere idols, or, worse, demons), His condemnation certainly doesn’t apply to what He has willed, namely a Son (a proper, literal Son) who would be, therefore, fully God AND fully man, and Mediator between God, the Father Almighty, and humans.
Is what is described above bi-theism? I don’t think so, and anyway I don’t care. Who can tell God what he can do or not do?
Blessings,
MdS
Villanovanus,
I must say I am perplexed.
You say that Christ is fully God – fully man.
Yet Christ has a God who is also his Father.
So we have two Gods?
Blessings
John
Helez [#5, April 8, 2013 at 9:40 am]
[r] Big bluff …
[s] Well, how convenient …
[t] That’s is exactly what I think …
MdS
MdS,
Thank you for clarifying that your advocated “Strict Monotheism” indeed isn’t really monotheism at all.
I can reply to your questions, but I don’t feel like doing so anymore because of your unpleasant fashion of approach. I don’t mind if you think it is because I don’t know what to say.
Helez.
Helez >[#3, April 8, 2013 at 4:02 am]
It is entirely obvious that you keep confusing the difference between creature (you and I are creatures) and being (properly, literally) a son, like ONLY Jesus is. I cannot help you any more than I have already done. So I am quite happy to leave the question.
It is equally evident that, while God condemned the worship of “other gods” (actually, mere idols, or, worse, demons), His condemnation certainly doesn’t apply to what He has willed, namely a Son (a proper, literal Son) who would be, therefore fully God AND fully man, and Mediator between God, the Father Almighty, and humans. I cannot help you any more than I have already done. So I am quite happy to leave the question.
OTOH, I take good notice that you have carefully ignored ALL my requests of clarification (see m, n, o). Clearly you don’t know what to say. No surprise …
MdS
MdS,
If you believe God is a species, and the Son of God is God because his Father is God, you proclaim two Gods. You start of with one God (“In the beginning, ONLY One”), but now you have more than one. It seems to me that your flavor of “strict monotheism” actually isn’t monotheism at all.
YHWH is the only true God. YHWH’s Son, or anyone else, isn’t also the only true God. YHWH isn’t created. Everything else is. That is strict Christian monotheism.
Helez
Helez
In the genealogy of Jesus according to Luke we read:
“… the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”
Do we have to read that “Adam, the son of God” literally? I leave that idiocy to others. For my part, I follow this understanding of the filial relationship of all humans (except for Jesus, who is a unique case, monogenês) to God, the Father Almighty:
“And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)
Let’s see:
[m] Are you suggesting that YHWH God, the Father Almighty is not a person? Or that He has a “body” (like LDS affirm)? Or what?
[n] What is your scriptural source for this claim?
[o] So what happened to the “spiritual body” that the “prehuman Son” would have had? Was it … er … left behind when “[h]is life was miraculously transferred from heaven to the womb of the virgin Mary”? Or what?
[p]As I reject the doctrine of the “trinity” (whether the “later” dogma of the “co-equal, co-eternal and tri-personal trinity” or the earlier subordinationist versions); more, as I affirm that ONLY YHWH God, the Father Almighty, exists/subsists from Himself (aseity) I consider myself an advocate of Strict Monotheism.
[q] In the beginning, ONLY One: YHWH God, the Father Almighty, who, though, has two eternal “arms” (or “hands”): His Word/Logos/Dabar and His Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach (see Deut 33:27; Psalm 33:6).
Inasmuch as he is the Incarnation of God’s Eternal Word/Logos/Dabar, Jesus is both God and man. With his Resurrection and Ascension he has been proclaimed Lord by the Father, fully sharing his Kingdom, Power and Glory (see Phil 2:9-11)
All humans who will be resurrected to Life Everlasting will be fully inhabited by God’s Spirit and deified, “so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).
MdS
MdS,
You consider yourself a monotheist? How many are God?
“you have become nervous because you realize that you are incapable to explain how your created “pre-human Son” would have become fully human in/as Jesus.”
The Son is person. A person has a body. They cannot exist without one. In his prehuman existence the Son was a spirit person with a spiritual body. His life was miraculously transferred from heaven to the womb of the virgin Mary. Subsequently, the person of the Son was born as a human being with a physical body. That is all I know. This is what I understand Scripture is showing us. I’m sure you’re able to make fun of it, but to me it sounds much more reasonable than ending up with someone who is both Almighty God and a human being at the same time.
Helez
Was Adam a son of God. Isn’t he created?
Helez,
you have become nervous because you realize that you are incapable to explain how your created “pre-human Son” would have become fully human in/as Jesus. You are obviously incapable to give a sensible account of how that would work (logically, biologically, psychologically, theologically …) …
… and nobody, least of all Dale, could possibly help you there … 😉
MdS
MdS,
Ok, I think we’re done here. I don’t appreciate your tone, nor your ludicrous misrepresentations of my position.
I explicitly affirm (in contrast to “refuse to consider”) that Jesus is Son of YHWH God, the Father, and son of Mary. We differ in understanding about the Son being a creature. The Son is brought into existence/created/generated by YHWH as the firstborn of creation. YHWH is the only true God. The Son isn’t also the only true God. YHWH isn’t created. Everything else is.
I reject the binitarian concept (most definitely influenced by Hellenistic philosophy) of two hypostasis in one ousia, two distinct persons in one God. And if you believe God is a species, and the Son of God is God because his Father is God, you proclaim two Gods, not one. And God cannot be Almighty God and a human being at the same time. That’s both unscriptural as well as nonsensical.
Bye,
Helez
Helez,
what is the difference between Jesus being a son or a creature? Simple: that Jesus is “generated, NOT created”.
There is a perverse, masochistic pleasure that you seem to take in resorting to the same verses that the “trinitarians” invoke. While you probably read them without sophistication, but a-critically, the “humanitarian unitarian” Dale cannot possibly follow you there, lest he contradict his “humanitarian unitarianism”.
I fully agree with you that the problem with the dogma of the Trinity is the idea that the Son and the holy spirit are pre-existent persons, that would be “one Almighty God, YHWH, as is the Father”. But you shoot yourself in the foot when you say that this idea is “later” and, at the same time, that it is “the very root of the problem”. How can something that is “later” be “the very root of the problem”? Think, Helez, think …
But there is another grotesque paradox: while you refuse to consider that Jesus is Son of YHWH God, the Father, AND son of Mary, you seem perfectly at ease with how your created “pre-human Son” would have become fully human in/as Jesus. I’d love to hear how that would work (logically, biologically, psychologically, theologically …) according to you …
And no, I have no idea how “our resident trained philosopher”, Dale, could possibly help you there.
Once again, the Son of God was NOT created by YHWH God, the Father Almighty, but generated, which means that he was “conceived by means of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary” and that God’s eternal Logos, which (which ..) is an “arm” of God (viz. a proper part of God, NOT a “pre-existent person”), became incarnated (sarx egeneto – John 1:14) in/as Jesus.
As for your crass blunder on “the daughter of the President”, the answer is that God is NOTa “title” BUT a reality: even humans at the Resurrection, will be deified, “so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).
(All the above, while perfectly scriptural, is irreconcilable with Hellenistic philosophy)
MdS
P.S.
If you agree that the Son of God was brought into existence by God, how can the Son himself be that one God? (That is, if you view “God” as a species, you end up having two Gods…) There is only one who is the only true God, and that is YHWH, the Father of the Son.
However, if you view “God” as a title for the one who is truly the eternal God, YHWH: I’m sure you agree that the daughter of the President is not President, right?
MdS,
Neither John 1:1-2,14 nor Luke 1:35 dissaffrim that the Son is a creature. That is simply your projection on the Scripture. As Scripture explicitely speaks about the Son being the firstborn of creation (Col 1:15), the beginning of the creation of God (Re 3:14), and the one through whom God made all things (1Co 8:6, Heb 1:1-2, Col 1:16), while being of ancient origin (Mic 5:2), it seems that Scripture is not against me, but against you. (Are we repeating ourselves?)
The crucial element of the dogma of the Trinity that is the very root of the problem, which should definitely be rejected, is the (later) idea that the Son and the holy spirit are persons that are the one Almighty God, YHWH, as is the Father.
Reducing nationality to a “mere label stuck upon a thing” is the only way to allow your three children to be fully Italian and fully British. If it is about what they are instead, they are neither fully Italian nor fully British, but a mixture of both. (At least, because if they live in Austalia, without having the Australian nationality, they might still be more Australian then you think.)
If you’ve regularly vistited this blog, you could already have a picture of what “our resident trained philosopher,” Dale, has to say about the impossibility of being the literal Son of God (that is, in the dogmatic way you as interpretated by you) and son of Mary. But I wouldn’t mind hearing another explanation.
Peace,
Helez
Helez
That you “unambiguously affirm the Son is a creature” is neither here nor there. It is the Scripture that is against you: see, in particular, and for the umpteenth time, John 1:1-2,14 and Luke 1:35.
Actually, the true and literal Sonship of Jesus (in time, though, NOT from eternity or even “before all creation”) is the ONLY element of the “trinity” that should be retained, having preliminarily chucked the “pre-human son” thingy.
Even assuming that “some of the ante-Nicene Fathers (…) speak of the prehuman Son of God as being created” (for which you would have to provide the “explicit” quotations, BTW …), this, again, is neither here nor there. What matters is that there is NO evidence that ANY Christian theologian before Justin Martyr spoke of Jesus as of a pre-existent “minor divinity”, deuteros theos, an expression that Justin obviously filched from that hybrid of Judaism and Platonism that Philo of Alexandria was.
That you affirm that “emanation” is no[t] necessarily contradictory to “creation” shows another of your problems: the incapacity to discriminate between the Hellenistic “emanation” and the Scriptural creation, which entails that YHWH God is entirely free to create, and that creation is contingent.
It is interesting that you reduce nationality to a “mere label … [stuck] upon a thing” …
… and it would be fascinating to hear what our resident “trained philosopher” has to say about the impossibility of being the literal Son of God and son of Mary …
MdS
MdS,
“It is me who accuses Christian theologians of meddling […] with heathen Hellenistic philosophy, including, first and foremost, the “graduality” between Creator and creature, or more appropriately, between “emanator” and “emanated”.”
I unambiguously affirm the Son is a creature. You, however, view him as “of the essence/substance” as the Creator as well as, quite contradictorily, a human being at the same time. From my perspective, the dogma of the Trinity is much worse than your view. Still, you have something in common with trinitarians, and that what you have in common is the very root of the problem.
“Arius, who, contrary to the established theological status quo affirmed (explicitly, for the first time) that the Son of God was “not generated but created”.”
To say it in our words: “for the umpteenth time,” yes, Arius affirmed the Son was created in a way contrary to the theological status quo of his time. However, not distinctly contrary to the ante-Nicene Fathers in general, as some of the ante-Nicene Fathers (explicitly) speak of the prehuman Son of God as being created as well, as has been demonstrated. (Talk about stubbornness…) Before Origenes, no one talked about “eternal generation” in regard of the Son as far as I know. And “emanation” is not synonymous with “eternal generation” nor necessarily contradictory to “creation”. Neither is the word “generate” contradictory to “create.” Rather, they overlap in meaning. Still, I fully agree that under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy, and more specifically, the causing of a “graduality” between “emanator” and “emanated”, resulted in shifting the Son from one being created/being brought into existence, towards one being God, as is the Father Himself. Which is the root of the problem.
“I am Italian, my wife is British, our three children are all fully Italian AND fully British …”
One cannot be fully God and fully man like a human being can be fully Italian and fully British. These are totally different things. Being God or being man is not at all comparable to a mere label or a nationality sticked upon a thing, but is about the very essence of the thing itself. A trained philosopher can articulate this more accurately, yet, it is something anyone should understand.
Peace 2u,
Helez
@ Helez [# 40, April 6, 2013 at 6:34 am]
[a] You have committed a clumsy and superficial error, here, because, while “trinitarians” (which, AFAIAC, and as the dictionary says, include BOTH the advocates of “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal trinity” AND “subordinationist trintarians” like Origen) affirm that Jesus in his “pre-human state” is a person, I specifically deny that God’s eternal Word/Logos is a “person” until it (it …) incarnated in/as Jesus, until it (it …) became (egeneto) a person: Jesus of Nazareth.
[b] This is simply grotesque! It is me who accuses Christian theologians of meddling (very soon, at least starting with Justin Martyr – certainly NOT with Paul and John) with heathen Hellenistic philosophy, including, first and foremost, the “graduality” between Creator and creature, or more appropriately, between “emanator” and “emanated”.
[c] As you know perfectly well the (un-scriptural) homoousios was resorted to, in desperation, at Nicea 325 AD as the ONLY way to (try to) isolate Arius, who, contrary to the established theological status quo affirmed (explicitly, for the first time) that the Son of God was “not generated but created”.
[d] What is “illogical” about that? (BTW, I don’t care for “orthodox” sophistications like communicatio idiomatum etc.)
(I am Italian, my wife is British, our three children are all fully Italian AND fully British …)
MdS
MdS,
Obviously, it is not coincidence trinitarians and subordinationist unitarians refer to (some of) the same texts, because they agree on the Son’s personal prehuman existence.
But you are thoroughly missing the point. The point is, your argument is not a valid argument, let alone sound. Because subordinationist unitarians agree with trinitarians on the Son’s prehuman existence, and refer to the same scriptural texts to establish their belief, doesn’t demonstrate that affirming the Son’s prehuman existence is the root of the problem.
The root of the problem, and the very thing that is common between trinitarians and (temporary) binitarians alike, is affirming the Son IS God like the Father is God. This is the serious and most fundamental issue, caused by a misapplication of Scripture under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy. Proclamations like: the Son being “of the same essence” as the Almighty God. Or the illogical: “Jesus is both God and man.”
Helez
@ Helez [# 36, April 5, 2013 at 4:52 pm; #37, April 5, 2013 at 4:59 pm]
It is NOT true that the verses used by the advocates of the “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal trinity” would merely “overlap” with those used by the advocates of the “personal pre-human Son of God”. ALL the proof-verses in your list (see https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4468/comment-page-1#comment-97947) appear in the list of “Common Verses” used by “trinitarians” (see http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses: the ONLY –rather irrelevant–exception is 1Jo 2:13,14). Check …
I didn’t expect you to admit that it is NOT a coincidence that the proof-verses used by the advocates of the “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal trinity” are essentially the same as the proof-verses used by the advocates of the “personal pre-human Son of God” until you’d been confronted with the evidence. BUT now, denying the evidence would be only a sign of stupidity, and/or of stubbornness and/or of bad faith. Once again, the reason for the coincidence is evident: it is NOT the (late, end of 4th century) “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal trinity” that is the root of the problem, BUT the (early, at least as early as Justin Martyr) “prehuman existence” of the Son of God that IS the problem, common to both groups.
You are simply fooling yourself, and you show all your uncritical bias, if you (try to) include Paul and John in the “subordinationist unitarian” camp.
As for my “temporary binitarianism”, what really matters is NOT the (more or less felicitous) expression, BUT the scriptural and creedal FACTS:
• Jesus IS God inasmuch as he is the in-carnation (sarx egeneto) of God’s eternal logos (John 1:1-2, 14)
• With the Resurrection and Ascension, “God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow – in heaven and on earth and under the earth – and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [Kyrios] to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:9-11)
MdS
Hi Angela!
I’ve never met you before, so I have no idea where you come from. The only thing I can guess about you is that you haven’t got much affinity for the JW. In this we agree, although I appreciate the sincere effort of many JWs to do away with the “trinity” mumbo jumbo.
I am not sure that Andy and Helez, while they manifestly share a pre-existing, subordinationist view of Jesus, are JWs. Maybe things are not so simple and straightforward.
As for “Jesus was an angel” you are certainly right for the JWs, who affirm that Jesus is some sort of “avatar” of the archangel Michael.
Again, things are never so simple and straightforward, because even that arch-advocate of the “trinity”, John Calvin, was quite openly in favor of the idea that Jesus is some sort of “avatar” of the archangel Michael. (It’s somewhere in his Institutes)
You may ask: how did Calvin reconcile that bizarre idea with his staunch “trinitarianism”? Well, that’s a good question, for which I am not sure I have the answer …
MdS
P.S. I object to your phrase “personal pre-incarnated existence of the Son of God” . The prehuman Son of God is not “pre-incarnated,” but created/brought into existence.
MdS,
although the question of whether the “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal trinity” has some scriptural foundation is different from the question of whether the “personal pre-incarnated existence of the Son of God” has some scriptural foundation, the advocates of the latter resort exactly to the same verses as the advocates of the former.
Yes, the question is quite different. No, the advocates of the latter do not resort exactly to the same verses as the advocates of the former. However, they overlap.
So, perhaps, you, and all the rest, should start realizing that the real problem, even before the “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal trinity”, IS with the projection on the Scripture of the “personal pre-incarnated existence of the Son of God”.
That doesn’t follow. Because trinitarians refer to some on the same inspired texts as the unitarians who agree with trinitarians about the Son’s prehuman existence, yet disagree with them about the Son being the Almighty God himself, affirming the prehuman existence of the Son becomes the root of the problem? That is not correct thinking. Further, affirming the prehuman existence of the Son is not “simply a projection on the Scripture” but simply accepting the most natural meaning of Scripture. (Not isolating John 1:1 from the rest.)
The real problem is not with the inspired writings of subordinationist unitarians like Paul and John, but with those deviating from their view, claiming the Son of God is the only true God. (A deviation which, so it seems, is also more or less affirmed by “temporary binitarians” like you, advocating nonsense like Jesus being ontologically Almighty God and a human being at the same time.)
Helez
Vilanovanus,
I was tracking this site for about six months now, and wondered if you would make the connection between Andy and Helez’s J.W. theology.
The ultimate ‘drift’ is towards a conclusion that Jesus was an angel.!!
Best
Angela
Andy,
thank you for your further expansions on the ho theos vs theos question, although I obviously didn’t need them.
Thank you also for confirming my suspicion that “[your] thinking is the same as Helez’s”.
A sudden realization has dawned on me: Dale’s proclaimed “humanitarian unitarianism” is just a smokescreen for his hosting of a lair of subordinationists who affirm and uphold the “personal pre-incarnated existence of the Son of God”.
MdS
Hi MdS
In John 1:1 – TON THEON is, of course, the Father – the only true God.
The anarthrous THEOS, in this verse, relates to the word.
BUT THEOS, as a word, can also apply to other beings, such as the angels.
My point is that once this last point was ‘forgotten’ then the Word/Jesus == THEOS became confused with the Word/Jesus == HO THEOS.
I would say that the misunderstanding that monotheism meant that only God could be THEOS contributed to the misunderstanding that Jesus == THEOS so Jesus == Almighty God.
I don’t agree with your statement “The logos, on the contrary, being an “arm” or YHWH God, enjoys exactly the same divinity, BUT, before the Incarnation (John 1:14), is NOT a (distinct) person (= self-conscious self, endowed with reason, freedom and will).”, but am happy to agree to disagree.
I would say, from looking closely at the terminology he/she uses, that my thinking is the same as Helez’s.
Andy
Andy,
I’m not quite sure what your point is.
Are you suggesting, with reference to the phrase ho logos ên pros ton theon kai theos ên ho logos in John 1:1, that, NOT ONLY ho theos (with the article) is referred to the One and Only YHWH, the Father Almighty, BUT ALSO that the second theos (without the article) “could rightly be applied to beings other than YHWH”, and that, therefore (this would be your presumed implication) ho logos is (a) divine (person), whose divinity, though, is different from the (full) divinity of ho theos?
If my interpretation of your thought is correct, you are essentially thinking as Helez (and even Dale).
My point, for the umpteenth time, is that the “personal pre-incarnated existence of the Son of God” (whether in the “co-equal” trinitarian version or in the Subordinationist version) is simply a projection on the Scripture and, in particular, on John 1:1.
The logos, on the contrary, being an “arm” or YHWH God, enjoys exactly the same divinity, BUT, before the Incarnation (John 1:14), is NOT a (distinct) person (= self-conscious self, endowed with reason, freedom and will).
MdS
Hi
Maybe an alternative statement could be:
“the real problem, even before the “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal trinity”, is with the mis-application of the Scriptures concerning the “personal pre-incarnated existence of the Son of God”.
I remember reading in Dan Wallace’s Greek Grammar that he was ‘happy’ with the translation of John 1:1c as “the Word was divine”, providing it was understood that ‘divine’ could only mean the One supreme being – a classic example of the problem.
Once Christians ‘lost sight’ of the fact that ‘divine’ (THEOS) could rightly be applied to beings other than YHWH then the Word/Son being divine/THEOS was incorrectly used to make it appear that the Word/Son was identical to HO THEOS…
Andy
Helez,
you missed the key point of my comment: although the question of whether the “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal trinity” has some scriptural foundation is different from the question of whether the “personal pre-incarnated existence of the Son of God” has some scriptural foundation, the advocates of the latter resort exactly to the same verses as the advocates of the former.
So, perhaps, you, and all the rest, should start realizing that the real problem, even before the “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal trinity”, IS with the projection on the Scripture of the “personal pre-incarnated existence of the Son of God”.
At least you should start wondering …
MdS
P.S. Even more so, BTW, people who, like Dale, claim to be “humanitarian unitarians” …
MdS,
Oh, I didn’t know you actually really expected me to refute the things that website you referred to says about those texts in the comment section of this blog. Indeed, I didn’t, and do not, intend to.
However, I don’t have to do so to make my point: to claim there is “not the slightest hint” in Scripture in regard of the Son’s personal prehuman existence, is simply, obviously, and as a matter of fact, not true.
Peace,
Helez
@ Helez
As you are equally perfectly aware, I have responded to your comment with my comment (see: https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4468/comment-page-1#comment-97969).
You never came back on my comment, so let me repeat herebelow the key part:
“As for all your Scriptural quotations, interestingly enough, the objections that can be raised are the same that Biblical Unitarians raise against the interpretation in a trinitarian sense of most of those “Common Verses” (see http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses).
Which confirms my point: the real problem is with a personal interpretation of the pre-incarnated Word/Logos/Dabar.”
So, instead of arguing aimlessly, let’s agree to disagree … 🙂
MdS
MdS,
This is not fair. As you are perfectly aware, I cited some of these verses in one of my recent conversation with you and your response was referring me to a website that provides the standard “Biblical Unitarian” gymnastics in regard of them. (See: https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4468/comment-page-1#comment-97947)
I do not expect you to agree with my understanding of these texts, of which some indeed speak explicitly about the Son’s ancient origin and existence and about the agency of the Son as the one through whom God created all things, but what truly reveals once more all your bias and dogmatism, is boldly pretending such texts do not even exist while claiming “there is NOT the slightest hint ” in Scripture in regard of the Son’s personal prehuman existence.
Helez,
to speak of “normative, or most natural meaning” of verses that would “explicitly speak about his ancient origin and existence, and about the agency of the Son as the one through whom God created all things”, as though it was all so obvious that it is not even worth citing them reveals once more all your bias and dogmatism.
MdS
MdS,
You’re in denial, I know, but the Holy Scriptures do not merely contain “slight hints” refering to Jesus’ personal prehuman existence, they explicitly speak about his ancient origin and existence, and about the agency of the Son as the one through whom God created all things. They also contain quotes of Jesus himself speaking of ascending to where he was before.
Of course you can go in all sort of gymnastics to interpret such verses in a way divergent of their normative, or most natural meaning, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there anymore.
Helez
@ Helez
If I really had to define myself through your categories, perhaps I would say “temporary binitarian”, because I believe that God, the Father Almighty, has bestowed upon the resurrected Jesus, authority, power, and glory equal to His own (see Phil 2:9-11).
BUT, with the General Resurrection and Final Judgment, His Elect will be deified, so we may say God will be articulated in a Trinity: the Father, Jesus His Son, and the Holy Spirit fully embodied in His Triumphant and Glorious Church (see 1 Cor 15:28).
OIOW: the Trinity is NOT protologic, BUT eschatological.
(1) Of course, with the ante-Nicene subordinationists, I affirm that the Son of God is divine but, unlike them (the question is suspended for Irenaeus), what matters is that I deny that the “Son of God” personally pre-exists the incarnation of God’s Word in/as Jesus.
(2) There is no doubt that both Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18,20 affirm precisely that. OTOH, in Scripture there is NOT the slightest hint to some “pre-incarnated personal existence” of the Son of God.
(3) Certainly during his earthly life Jesus, the Son of God, is subordinated to the Father, Yahweh. OTOH (and once again), with the Resurrection and Ascension, God, the Father Almighty, has bestowed upon the resurrected Jesus, authority, power, and glory equal to His own (see Phil 2:9-11).
MdS
As it seems that you and the ante-Nicene subordinationists affirm that:
(1) the Son of God is divine
(2) the Son of God is brought into existence by the Father, Yahweh
(3) the Son of God is subordinated to the Father, Yahweh
MdS,
One more question: do you view yourself as being a binitarian as much as you view the ante-Nicene subordinationists as trinitarians?
Thanks,
Helez
@ Helez [#18, April 2, 2013 at 11:03 am]
While I am aware of their origin and use, I simply do away with ALL that metaphysical terminology.
I am satisfied with what John 1:1-2,14 AND Luke 1:35 say. Together. Inseparably. Mystery AND miracle. God AND man.
Jesus, the incarnation of God’s eternal Word. God’s true, unique and literal Son. God’s Anointed King. Conceived in Palestine, ca. 6 BCE, where he lived for ca. 30 years and where he died. Resurrected, ascended to Heave. Seated at the right of the Power, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead.
MdS
I do. 🙂
Peace 2u.
P.S.
“one ousia in three hypostases” of the Cappadocian scoundrels”
While one ousia in two hypostases is perfectly okay?
@ Helez [#18, April 2, 2013 at 8:16 am]
I see no other way of understanding John 1:1-2,14, together with Luke 1:35.
MdS
Yes, for example, MdS (Villanovanus) seems to affirm that God and his Son are homoousios, as he thinks the Son is a personal incarnation of one of God’s attributes and a human being at the same time.
@ John [#15, April 1, 2013 at 12:39 pm]
I believe that Helez and Villanovanus (me) have very different ideas on the relationship and compatibility between the God the Scripture and the God of Greek and Hellenistic philosophy.
MdS
@ Helez [#14, April 1, 2013 at 9:04 am]
Please, provide a scriptural affirmation on the “prehuman Son of God as being created” …
… of course other than Proverbs 8, where Wisdom, in its appearing as a speaking “person”, is obviously a rhetoric figure of speech, viz. personification.
As for the creation ex nihilo being Scriptural, if the Canon approved by your denomination does not allow you to consider this …
“I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.” (2 Maccabees 7:28, KJV)
… there still certainly is this …
Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created. (Psalm 148:5, KJV)
… were it is evident that it was sufficient for the Lord to will heavens, angels, sun and moon, waters, and to utter His creative Word, and they came into existence.
Your disclaimer that “things that are brought into existence by this emanation/creation process are not of the same nature as the Creator Himself”, would require, at least, that in the “emanation” process, “emanated” things get, somehow, “depotentiated”. Which, while it has nothing to do with Gnosticism, has certainly ALL to do with neo-Platonism …
Finally, I most certainly do NOT indulge in “substance-talk”, BUT, once one starts along that way (as the Nicene Fathers did) the result is inevitable: EITHER Word and Spirit as “hands” of God, OR “one ousia in three hypostases” of the Cappadocian scoundrels. Unfortunately, as we all know, the second alternative was chosen, out of compromise, and became the established “truth”.
MdS
Helez/ Villanovanus
Thank you both for your ‘sanity’.!!!
Noi-one has been able to define precisely what is meant by ‘substance’ – and those who try define it, do so in terms which are themselves meaningless!!
.
The Hellenistic philosophers thoughts on this subject ( together with their modern cohorts) do not merit much debate – and to do so only implies some form of tacit acceptance of their worth.
As you both assert, all these thoughts of ‘substance’ and ’emanation’ are the product of human speculation and rationalisationand have no scriptural support.
Time to relegate these ‘antiquities’ to the museum !
Every Blesing
John
.
MdS,
“could have not underlined any better the distance between”
Which, again, for an important part explains the conflict between Arius and certain contemporaries who, unlike Arius, believed that the Son was of the same essence, or substance, as the Father. (True, Arius’ position implied a disaffirmation of Irenaeus’ two-stage Logos theory or Origen’s later new eternal generation theory as well. Still, speaking of the prehuman Son of God as being created by God wasn’t at all new.)
“the distance between the “wholly other” God of the Scripture, Creator ex nihilo, and the progressive “emanation” of the world from “God” according to Hellenistic philosophy imbued with heathenism.”
Where exactly does Scripture teach the “Creator ex nihilo”-concept? Isn’t this idea merely a response to the rising pressure of Gnosticism and emanation theories that do not take into account Abel’s warning above? This might sound a little bold coming from me, especially as I’m, clearly, not a trained philosopher. But in my view the Holy Scriptures simply teach that things exist because of God’s abundance of energy, because of his great power and mighty strength (Isa 40:26). God used his holy spirit, the dynamic force behind creation. We owe our existence to God’s use of this spirit to produce all his works (Ge 1:1-2, Job 33:4, Ps 104:30). From my perspective, this is not really “out of nothing” (there is no “nothing”), but “out of God”. One could refer to this as a form of “emanation,” as long as one realizes that the things that are brought into existence by this emanation/creation process are not of the same nature as the Creator Himself. It is given its nature by the Creator.
I think all this substance-talk is pretty messy and a cause of many misunderstandings and deviations from Scripture.
Peace.
@ Helez [#11, March 31, 2013 at 8:06 pm]
Thank you for your question. You could have not underlined any better the distance between the “wholly other” God of the Scripture, Creator ex nihilo, and the progressive “emanation” of the world from “God” according to Hellenistic philosophy imbued with heathenism.
MdS
Helez
Most people I know would agree with you – but be very careful NOT to allow this reasoning to extrapolate to the conclusion that ‘we are God”
This conclusion,they would argue , is the ‘original sin’ (Genesis 3v5)
Every Blessing
John
Isn’t, according to the Gnostic “Great Chain of Being” everything (created) essentially an emanation of God and as such somehow “of the same substance”? The Stoics didn’t see an incompatibility in saying that God and man were “of the same substance”.
@ Helez [#8, March 30, 2013 at 5:48 pm; #9, March 30, 2013 at 6:04 pm]
The problem, for the umpteenth time, is NOT so much with the monstrous Cerberus that the Church, after the Arian Controversy found herself inevitably stuck with, BUT with the mix of genuine Apostolic faith and of heathen-philosophical “interpretations” that Christianity made gradually room for, at least since Justin Martyr filched from Philo the notion of deuteros theos.
Neither you nor Dale still have managed to provide a reasonable explanation of how, if the difference between Arius’ theology and that of his contemporaries was so menial (“Arius’ ideas weren’t as radical as some of his contemporaries depicted them”), he found his doctrine condemned by ALL of the 318 Nicene Council Fathers … except 2 …
More, neither you nor Dale still have managed to provide a reasonable explanation of how the Arian Controversy continued, as fierce as ever, for several decades, until the Cappadocian scoundrels provided the “compromise formula” to the (by then extenuated) semi-Arians and neo-Nicenes
It is entirely evident that you haven’t the faintest idea how radically different is the idea of the “wholly other” God of the Scripture from the heathen-philosophical Great Chain of Being.
MdS
P.S. Emanation and creation are not necessarily contradictory to each other as you seem to suggest.
[a] it almost sounds as if you view these subordinationists as being “unitarian trinitarians”, lol. Arius also expressed belief in “the Trinity” – not meaning one triune god.
[b] No, that is not the determinative difference (as has already been demonstrated), as some of the ante-Nicene Fathers speak of the prehuman Son of God as being created as well. However, there are many other possible differences, for example, not all pre-Arian subordinationists viewed the holy spirit as a distinct person as Arius did.
The Arian controversy was not a conflict between Arius and the Church Fathers, but between Arius and certain contemporaries who, unlike Arius, believed that the Son was of the same essence, or substance, as the Father. Arius ideas weren’t as radical as some of his contemporaries depicted them.
@ Dale [#6, March 30, 2013 at 12:23 pm]
[a] Only if one artificially restricts the meaning of “trinity” to the final step of the process, to what it came to mean ONLY with the Cappadocian scoundrels, viz. “one ousia in three hypostases“, “co-equal” and “co-eternal”. (But of course, you perfectly know this, and you are just being argumentative pro domo tua …)
[b] That’s what I said. Which, though, in case it escapes you, implies that there MUST be some difference between “non-Arian [in fact, pre-arian] subordinationists” and “Arian [and post-arian] subordinationists”. (Hint: the creation, rather than the emanation/eternal generation of the “Son”)
[c] LOL!
[d] What matters, once again, is the evident opposition between Modalists and Logos-Theologians (certainly Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen of Alexandria, and perhaps also Hippolytus), under the spell of the respective heathen-philosophical reference schools, namely Stoicism and Platonism.
MdS
“I have amply proved that Dale’s insistence on the expression “subordinationist unitarianism” is a clumsy oxy-moron, and that virtually ALL dictionary definitions of Subordinationism include its reference to the “trinity””
Referring to “the Trinity” does not make one a trinitarian. https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4476
“non-Arian subordinationists”
Nothing wrong with that term. Of course, the Arians too were unitarians.
I agree that ancient “modalism” is an important topic; apparently it had a significant portion of catholic Christianity from the late 100s through the mid 200s, more or less.
P.P.S. I believe that Dale should revive the debate on how Monarchianism (in its two “flavors”, modalistic and dynamic) was confronted and gradually crushed by Logos-theology, which, abandoning the pure and simple scriptural basis (the Logos of John and the Dabar of the OT) and beefed up by heathen-philosophical additions, prepared the inevitable ground for the full-fledged (co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal) “trinity”. A good base of discussion is this: The SCM Press A-Z of Patristic Theology, by John Anthony McGuckin, 2005, entry on Monarchianism at pp. 225–226–227.
Only one criticism of the cited entry. This sentence …
“These theologians [Dynamic Monarchians] followed the path that the divinity was one and indistinguishable, but was manifested in different modes of operation in the Christ etc. etc.”(op. cit, Monarchianism, p. 227)
… and, in particular the use of the expression “different modes of operation in the Christ” is a blunder, because it blurs the (correct) distinction and difference between modalistic and dynamic Monarchianism.
MdS
P.S. Let me take the opportunity for suggesting to Dale to abandon his clumsy oxy-moron (“subordinationist unitarianists”), and, if he really needs an expression (different from, simply, “subordinationists”) for those Fathers/theologians who, before Arius affirmed pre-existing, subordinated divine “persons”, to return to “non-Arian subordinationists” that he had adopted HERE.
MdS
I have amply proved that Dale’s insistence on the expression “subordinationist unitarianism” is a clumsy oxy-moron, and that virtually ALL dictionary definitions of Subordinationism include its reference to the “trinity” (see HERE).
MdS
MdS: “you are perfectly aware that you need to give a restrictive definition of “trinitarian” to keep your insisted “dilemma” (which is obviously a a false dilemma) going …”
What is obviously false, is insisting that theologies in which the Almighty God is not one triune entity, but one person, the Father, and one person only, are nevertheless Trinitarian, as you seem to do. 😉
First of all, with your first comment and question (“On two counts, then, this makes him not a trinitarian– that the “persons” are neither co-equal nor equally divine. But is he unitarian?”) you confirm that you are perfectly aware that you need to give a restrictive definition of “trinitarian” to keep your insisted “dilemma” (which is obviously a a false dilemma) going …
Then, as I have done in my comment to your previous post, let me provide the link to “the most important work we have from him”, where your quotations come from: The Refutation of All Heresies, Book X, Chapters XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
The two relevant points of the first quotation, from ch. XXVIII-XXIX (largely imbued with un-scriptural, philosophical fantasizing), are that:
• God “articulated” his inner Logos for the sake of creation – BUT there is no evidence that Hippolytus (like Irenaeus), considered the pre-incarnated Logos a distinct person;
• God did not make man divine (that is, first of all, incorruptible, imperishable): this is stated mainly so as to make man aware of the possibility of divinization (theosis as expanded in the following chapter XXX), which can only be achieved through obedience to the Creator.
With reference to the second quotation, and relative comment, the ONLY divine attribute that God, the Father Almighty, “can’t pass on” is aseity, purely and simply because of a logical limitation.
And, while I agree that Hippolytus’ “God-talk is quite different than that of the Bible”, there are two strong and clear “precedents” in it:
“9 As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow – in heaven and on earth and under the earth –11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:9-11; cp. Acts 2:36)
“And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:28)
MdS
Comments are closed.