Posted on 04/16/2013 8:20:04 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Of course the spirit of God exists! The spirit of God IS, as the phrase indicates, the spirit OF God...it's not a different person. It IS the spirit of the father in Genesis. Your understanding of it's reality wasn't the understanding of the church until 300 years after the death of Christ.
Thank you for the prayers though...I'll take all I can get!
Dear Friend,perhaps you have not seen the following Early Christian writings that prove your statement wrong...
"The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the TRINITY , GOD [the Father], HIS WORD [the Son], AND HIS WISDOM [the Holy Spirit]."-(Theophilus of Antioch To Autolycus 2:10; 2:15; 2:22; Jurgens, p. 75-76)-[c. 116-181 A.D.]
"He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother. If anyone outside the ark of Noah was able to escape, then perhaps someone outside the pale of the Church may escape.... The Lord says, 'THE FATHER AND I ARE ONE' [John 10:30] and again, it is written of the FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT, 'AND THE THREE ARE ONE.' -Saint Cyprian 1 John 5:7-8 (c. 250 A.D.)
"It is necessary, however, that the Divine Word [Jesus Christ] be UNITED WITH THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE; AND THE HOLY SPIRIT MUST ABIDE AND DWELL IN GOD. THEREFORE THE DIVINE TRINITY must be gathered up and brought TOGETHER IN ONE, a Summit, as it were -- I mean, the OMNIPOTENT GOD OF THE UNIVERSE.....we must believe in GOD, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, His Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the WORD IS UNITED TO THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE. 'For,' says He, 'THE FATHER AND I ARE ONE' and 'I AM IN THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IN ME.' Thus both the Divine Trinity and the sacred proclamation of the monarchy will be preserved."-262 AD(Dionysius of Rome to Dionysius of Alexandria 1-3; Jurgens, p. 249)
I wish you a Blessed evening!
Thank you for sharing these quotes...this shows that there was an evolution of thought throughout history that finally culminated in official pronouncements made later. I'm not arguing that this didn't happen. ..thanks for your best wishes and you have a great night too.
Well, “be still and know” is what Roy is “peddling” and is true wordless prayer. You are the one that is peddling the apostasy, but you WILL not know it!
“Finally, you claim that basing one’s faith on a book is “idol worshiping.” Well, by that definition (which I do not accept) you leave two possibilities only: your “idol worshiping” or navel gazing (whether yours or someone else’s).”
So, you choose to be guided by Roy Master’s navel gazing.
Actually, dear friend , it shows that the Trinity was always believed in the same fashion that Jesus is God was always believed and in the same fashion we use to authenticate the Gospels.We authenticate these things through the writing of the early Church Fathers
Early Christian beliefs were already considered dogmatic before the council of Nicea based upon united traditions from the Apostles to the early Church fathers
What developed after The first Council of Nicea after Christianity became legal was things like Macedonianism(similar to your belief) that ended up being condemned at the Council of Constantinople to protect people from this rising error.
Sadly ,over time error's like Macedonianism got resuurected again to gain ground to mislead people due to the reformation.
Well friend I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I see an overwhelming support of the binity in scripture and I think the historical record is clear on the development of the trinity doctrine. Last word is your if you want it and thanks for the conversation.
I guess I don't see The NC Creed or the bogus but delightful Athanasian creed as limiting Him. I don't see HIM being in the box. But, bearing in mind your strong cautions about sapientia, I think they help prevent incoherence by, so to speak, clumping up the places where we have to say, "Okay. Mind officially blown. I can say no more."
Clearly there can be no adequate depiction of God. But clearly there can be something that is nothing more than babbling. We want to avoid both extremes, if we can.
I don't think creeds give principles, I think they maintain limits.
I find that they limit discourse, and usefully. I think I've told you of a time, I can't even remember what was at issue, when I was arguing with my professor. And, referring to Chalcedon, I said, "You're confusing the natures!" And he retorted, "I am not. YOU'RE dividing the person."
And we both laughed. And then we set about the question again.
We both found that Chalcedon helped us frame the question and see where answers would probably go wrong. Or, to put is another way, we both saw that whatever we were discussing ( I WISH I could remember) was at heart Christological.
Let-me take one more stab, from another direction. I used to have a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness. And as it happens I used to be pretty familiar with their stuff.
Now, they're Arians, and very up front with it. The "Son" is a creature in their view. He is on our side of the Creator/creature divide.
So, when he ascends, he can only ascend so high. He is restored to his pre-Incarnation angelic state.
So the best that is offered to humanity, which cannot rise above the Son, is that 144k are "lost in wonder, love, and praise" in heaven, and the rest of the redeemed are at some distance from heaven on a delightful new earth.
Against this is Nicene/Chalcedonian Christianity which maintains that the Son is God, and in him human and Divine nature are united without being blurred. The Incarnate Son crosses the Creator/creature divide, and when he ascends he brings humanity to the heart of God, so that, as we feelthy papists like to say, God now loves us with a human heart. (This is the theology behind the "Sacred Heart' devotion.)
So, in our view, heaven is an ever closer intimacy with God himself, an ever increasing unity, which is hard to see as the "finale" of a work accomplished by an incarnate angel, a creature, even if he is the first-created.
Now, I don't think I am limited. Intellectually I can appreciate the integrity of the Arian understanding as proposed by the Witnesses. And I didn't reject it (at first) because the Magisterium told me to. I rejected it because it seemed a tawdry, unimaginative, and, compared to orthodoxy, even demeaning point of view. Over here we have God so loved the world that he sent his favorite creature to redeem it, and we are redeemed, most of us, into a delightful life on a new earth. And over HERE we have God so loved the world that He himself came to redeem it into an ever closer and more wonderful union with himself, a deeper participation in the love which flows among the members of the Trinity.
To me, that is consonant with Scripture, at least as coherent as anything else that's offered, and way cooler. THEREFORE I embrace orthodoxy.
ALL things should be thrown upon the altar continually - That which burns away is better left undone.
So we be saved if only as through fire.....
Therein lies my point, precisely: If it is something that cannot be settled this side of the Jordan, then it should not be a prerequisite toward orthodoxy. That which is neither declared, nor provable, should not be there to divide the Body... And I would submit, with all candor, that the observable fractures between us are, for the main, contained among those things which cannot be proven. And those same things also serve to keep us at arms length from our brothers in Judaism (notwithstanding their own similar notions which grieve us).
Such a mindset will put a much different spin on Col 2.
Furthermore, let me once again affirm that we are not in disagreement, at least on the basic premise. That all three are divine is provable in the end. That there is only one God is declared, ergo IF all three are divine, AND there is only one who is divine, THEN we are left with the solution that all three are the one God. Any mechanics beyond that lead to division. How that works is *not* defined, and is therefore beyond our ken. It is enough for me that it is declared that 'Our God is ONE God'.
So let us look eagerly thither.
Maranatha! (d00d! Thither! Nice.)
I guess I don't see The NC Creed or the bogus but delightful Athanasian creed as limiting Him. I don't see HIM being in the box. But, bearing in mind your strong cautions about sapientia, I think they help prevent incoherence by, so to speak, clumping up the places where we have to say, "Okay. Mind officially blown. I can say no more."
Understand that I do not intend for you to draw from my words the idea that YHWH is limited in any respect - That being the point - And in that, I think we would be wise to take a page from the Hebrews, holding above all reverence even the idea of God. They try to be very careful (to a fault, I might admit) to refrain from defining that which cannot be defined. I think one is best served to couch one's opinions upon what YHWH has declared and defined on His own terms. To speculate further is a form of hubris, and can quite easily lead to blasphemy.
Clearly there can be no adequate depiction of God. But clearly there can be something that is nothing more than babbling. We want to avoid both extremes, if we can.
Sure. But it is not extreme to 'let' YHWH define Himself - The purpose He is about is in revealing Himself to us - Repairing the rift so that we may know Him. Wouldn't it be best to take Him at His word, assured that He will reveal as He will?
[roamer_1:] I don't think creeds give principles, I think they maintain limits.
I find that they limit discourse, and usefully. I think I've told you of a time, I can't even remember what was at issue, when I was arguing with my professor. And, referring to Chalcedon, I said, "You're confusing the natures!" And he retorted, "I am not. YOU'RE dividing the person."
And I, were I there, would cry, "A pox on both your houses!" Either position is just as lacking in proof as the next.
To limit discourse is fine in debate, but on the whole, in defining doctrine (nay, dogma), I think it a monumental error. The discourse should be limited by the facts. What we 'think we know' is indefensible.
Let-me take one more stab, from another direction. [Arianism v. Nicene/Chalcedon Trinitarianism]
I understand your position, but Trinitarianism has it's problems too - How is it that El Elyon can experience temptation, fear, and death? How is it that Yeshua does not know things that only the Father knows? How is it that Yeshua is granted authority which by right (if He is the Father), is already His anyway? Here's the answer: WE DON'T KNOW. And to assume we do know in the face of such errata is an act of intellectual lunacy.
And by asserting what we don't know as fact, we open ourselves to the argument against the 'fact'. Therein, the limitations set forth by the definition become assailable, and division becomes inevitable. To wit: BECAUSE of Trinitarianism, Arianism. And rightly so, as the Trinitarian model is not defensible. That is not to say that Arianism IS defensible, but rather that neither of them can be right.
What is right? YHWH is God. That is the fact. If one cannot define Him (as you rightly admit), how then can one define as absolute the mechanism of the trinity?
I may not, am not able to, insist I know every contour of Everest. But I can insist it's not a hole in the ground.
Work with me. It's a weak analogy. I think the Nicene->Chalcedon stuff is like that: It's not a hole in the ground.
I want to chew on your post for a day or two. I think we need to read Fides et Ratio or something similar.
Ahh, but one must be cautious of the unintended consequence, my friend. Look at the inverse/reverse. When one declares TRUE, all else (that which is in opposition) must be made false. Things that are declared are necessarily enforced and defended, and suddenly a bright line develops... EVERYTHING outside of that line becomes heretical in an instant.
Look at what has happened on this thread. Our FRiend DouglasKC is not an unthinking man. Whether I agree with him or not, I appreciate his thoughtful approach to things, and his willingness to examine things in a thoroughgoing manner. And in the big picture, the formulation he adheres to is only incrementally opposed to trinitarianism - He does not deny the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit - and his view is quite defensible according to the Word. In fact, his notions wrt the Holy Spirit are directly in line with the older tradition of the Hebrews - The Ruach HaKodesh is defined by them in nearly identical terms.
Yet on this thread (and others), he has been excoriated, and thrown outside the camp. He has not been met with intellect and reason. He has been met with acolytes clamoring.
That is what creeds do.
...of Zen where an entity is considered to be comprised of three components: mind, body and spirit. Mind - analogous to God the Father, body - Jesus, Spirit - Holy Spirit. Interesting that metaphysics around the world has more so much in common.
Well, first, I agree that DouglasKC has managed to maintain an wonderfully civilized level of inquiry here. It's a blessing.
The word heresy is too often used of folks who aren't smart enough to agree with me -- even though they ARE wrong, and on purpose too. ;-)
BUT I think this. While I hold that non-Nicene blah blah theology is a heresy, that does NOT mean that all who hold it are heretics. It is consistent with my view to hold merely that they are in error. The ACT of heresy involves a willfulness hard to muster in so skeptical an age and, strangely, there are those who for quite good reasons can disagree with moi with no grave sin attached to that disagreement.
But second, and this to me is VERY important, somehow conversation falters when I just swagger into the room and say, "You, you, and you over there: you're all wrong. Have a nice day."
I mean seriously that to enter into conversation, REAL conversation, is an act of intellectual hospitality. To have this conversation with you is, for me, too re-examine my view on what we might call "articulable orthodoxy," while talking with DouglasKC means trying to go over Trinitarian thought de novo. One reason I really scaled back my participation here in that too often both sides fall into a mutual exchange of rants, like an artillery duel.
I would say that my years of swinging the cudgels here has brought me to a deeper appreciation of reason (and a more persistent wondering just what exactly the heck reason IS) than I came in here with, just as the conversation about "idols" led me to read John of Damascus and to a deeper appreciation of the Incarnation.
So despite the heat and noise, these conversations CAN be helpful. But they are less so when the attitude is not peer to peer, brethren in seeking to know Truth better.
Sorry for preachiness. In haste....
Hear! Hear! DouglasKC's faith should not be in question, even if his orthodoxy might be. I am happy to call him my brother, and his contributions hereon would be sorely missed, were he not here.
While I hold that non-Nicene blah blah theology is a heresy, that does NOT mean that all who hold it are heretics. It is consistent with my view to hold merely that they are in error. The ACT of heresy involves a willfulness hard to muster in so skeptical an age and, strangely, there are those who for quite good reasons can disagree with moi with no grave sin attached to that disagreement.
Such a position is an admirable exception among your fellows, and one of the reasons why I consider you one of a handful of 'the opposition' that is open to reasonable exchange - This is what leads to real ecumenicism - Pointed, even heated argument can lead to learning on both sides. And that is what I love the most in the rough-and-tumble of the FR Rel forum... The absence of kum-bay-yah, happy-birthday, touchy-feely, plastic-banana ecumenicism. It is in the crucible that metal is tried and tempered.
But in that, reasoned debate must guide the process. For that, I thank you, and very much.
As to the heretic, I would draw your gaze to what Ezekiel must have looked like, lying naked in the streets, playing with his sandcastles, and eating his dung-cooked bread. What a spectacle! One can quite easily imagine that the people passing by had him in derision... And the haughty priests snatching back their clean robes, that no impurity would rub off on them, as they declared and mumbled invective at the unorthodoxy of the whole thing. Do you think they listened to his preaching? Yet who was the man of YHWH?
Yeshua himself was an heretic and a blasphemer in the eyes of the keepers of 'orthodoxy'. Yet who was the Man of YHWH?
In this I would suppose that orthodoxy has it's ultimate disadvantage - Historically, it has always wound up being wrong. Warning and correction come on the lips of the unorthodox, every time... the 'foolish things'... As it MUST. It is a caution: Who is it that always kills the prophets?
These things we bandy about are things of YHWH. Fear and trembling, friend, fear and trembling...
First, thanks for your generous words. I would say that if our love and solicitude for Truth makes us irascible and hostile we're doing it wrong.
I think “heretic” is a word that should be used rarely and cautiously. It assumes knowledge difficult to attain about the inner will of someone else — when we scarcely know our own!
“Heresy,” though, is a term of art and can be used dispassionately. It is largely movies and such that make us hear the seething sneer which does not really belong to the word — or need not.
One of MY exercises,neglected of late — I hope because I've milked it dry — is to try to understand what it is that an “error” seeks to preserve. Even if it were true that all heresy comes from some kind of corrupt intellectual selfishness, still it would draw proponents because they saw some good (or thought they did) in it.
So we can say, for example, that Arius wants, commendably, to assert the unity of the one God, or that the Mormons want to assert (1) the sanctity of marriage, of the entire gestalt of marriage, and (2) the promise of theosis. These are GOOD things to assert.
I observed this: pretty good professors, when you ask them a question, give you an answer. REALLY good professors, when you ask them a question, say,”Oh! What a great question! What do YOU think?”
Also, in my three year seminary, we all studied the history of the early Church the first semester of our second year. and for months we're all going around responding to one another by saying, “THAT’s Nestorianism,” or “THAT’s Pelagianism,” etc.
Nietzsche's remark about how despising youthfulness is itself youthfulness somehow applies. If people get STUCK saying, “That's such-and-such a heresy,” with the air of someone crying “Checkmate!” then we're looking at arrested development.
Not that there is not error, nor that some embrace error willfully, stubbornly, and pridefully... But they do so, generally, for some perceived good and their perception is rarely entirely false.
So I think.
Here my latest doggerel:
Why Preachers Pray
Was it Cassandra's crimes made her ignored?
Rejecting light, rebuffing reason's sun,
Torn and raving, she saw what had begun
To spoil, stir up, distress, to bring the sword.
The startled chorus flinched at her raw word,
Attended in diffident respect as one,
Hearing madness and knowing all peace gone,
Still listens to anguish from broken beauty poured.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.