Justin evidently does not acknowledge the ontological equality of the Father and the Son of the Holy Spirit. To the contrary, he apparently makes a sharp demarcation between the Father and the Son in Dialogus cum Tryphone 127. Fortman adds that Justin: "has no real doctrine of the Trinity, for he says nothing of the relations of the three to one another and to the Godhead" (47). Additionally, he most certainly comes nowhere near affirming the famed VERE DEUS of Chalcedon or homoousion to patri of Nicea.
Finally, in a book edited by Nigel M. de S. Cameron entitled The Power and Weakness of God: Impassibility and Orthodoxy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1990), Peter R. Forster also informs his readers that "the textbooks are widely misleading" when it comes to explaining the pre-Nicene LOGOS theory since "To take the case of Justin, with but few exceptions (1 Apol 59 (?), 64; 2 Apol 6) he attributes creation entirely to the transcendent 'Father of all'" (page 30). Forster also has other perceptive observations that I encourage you to read for yourself. He demonstrates how Justin is laboring under Middle Platonic and Stoic philosophical conceptions.
6 comments:
What is your take on homoousion vs. monoousion in Chalcedon?
Sean, I don't see a major difference between the two, and it seems that both terms could be acceptable to a pro-Nicaean. However, I guess homoousion stuck because it seemed to be a term, which avoided heretical leanings (i.e., modalism). Karl Rahner has also emphasized that the oneness of God (the triune God) is not about numbers, but rather, the idea concerns divine unicity. Rahner thinks that it is a mistake to import number into conceptions of the Godhead. Clearly, the terms have differing semantic value; but I also see how they're related to one another as well.
Is there any work that specifically covers "pre-Nicene LOGOS theory" in detail?
I would highly recommend Harry Wolfson's text for this subject. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers.
Karl Rahner has also emphasized that the oneness of God (the triune God) is not about numbers, but rather, the idea concerns divine unicity. Rahner thinks that it is a mistake to import number into conceptions of the Godhead.
Hi Edgar. Are you able to post some of those comments from Rahner?
And if possible, if you could post anything interesting from Wolfson, if he has anything to say on Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Theophilus, (in particular), in his "Philosophy of the Church Fathers"?
If you can find the time, would be really great.
Hi Matt13weedhacker,
I posted some material from Rahner, pp. 45-6. Unfortunately, I do not own Wolfson, so I might not be able to post quotes readily from his work. However, it might be possible to get his book from the uni. library and check it out when we have winter break. Best!
Post a Comment