Monday, September 14, 2015

Dale Tuggy on Latin and Social Trinitarianism

Dale Tuggy and the Trinity Doctrine

Edgar Foster
Jan 6, 2003

There is a young philosophy scholar named Dale Tuggy, who has evidently taken an avid interest in Social and Latin Trinitarianism (ST and LT). This professor claims that there are serious logical difficulties with ST and LT. One problem that Tuggy points to in connection with ST is mentioned below.

In the manner of Richard Cartwright, he lists six propositions which do not seem to logically cohere. These propositions are:

1. God is divine.
2. The Father of Jesus Christ is divine.
3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is divine.
4. The Holy Spirit is divine.
5. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit is not God.

That is, these four - Father, Son, Holy Spirit, God - are numerically distinct individuals.

Tuggy then contends that (5) can be broken into two parts:

5a. These three are numerically distinct: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

5b. God is numerically distinct from any of these: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

5a-b are then followed by the proposition:

6. Whatever is divine is identical to at least one of these: the Father, the Son, or the
Holy Spirit.

Tuggy is working with a particular definition of
"divine" that he makes clear at the outset of his
study. Tuggy observes that there are two senses of the
adjective "divine," but he is working with the priamry
sense in his study. He writes:

"The word 'divine' has primary and secondary uses. In
the primary sense, the word 'divine' refers to the
property of being a divinity or being a god, some sort
of supernatural personal being. In secondary senses,
'divine' is used to describe things somehow related to
or associated with things which are 'divine' in the
primary sense. Thus the church, the scriptures,
angels, and various people may be called 'divine'.
According to the biblical writers, God is divine in
the primary sense. Thus, if we accept their testimony,
we must accept 1, understanding 'divine' in this way."

When discussing LT, Tuggy reworks 5, however. Since
the claims of LT significantly differ from ST, Tuggy
now introduces what he calls 5I in order to adequately
delineate LT. LT posits:

5I. The Father is identical to God, the Son is
identical to God, and the Holy Spirit is identical to
God, but the Father is not identical to the Son, the
Son is not identical to the Holy Spirit, and the
Holy Spirit is not identical to the Father.

Tuggy then writes:

"All of 1-6 can't be true because 5I is a
contradiction, and so a necessary falsehood. By its
very structure, it is false, because the identity
relation (=) is transitive. For any a, b, and c
whatever, if a=b, and b=c, then a=c. By this rule of
inference, it follows from 5I that the Father is the
Son, the Son is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit
is the Father, all of which are expressly denied in
5I. In other words, 5I is equivalent to this
statement: 'The Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and God are
just one thing, and they are not.'"

What do you think of Tuggy's argument against LT? Does
LT wind up positing that a=b, and b=c, therefore a=c?

24 comments:

David Waltz said...

Hi Edgar,

Most EO scholars/theologians I have read distance themselves from both ST and LT; and rightfully so (IMO), for they begin their reflections on God from a different starting point—i.e. the "one God" is the Father—as such, they avoid the logical inconsistencies of ST and LT.

The position that the Father is "the one God" includes the teachings that the Father alone is autotheos, and the Son and Holy Spirit owe their existence and divinity to the Father.

I would further add the teaching that the Father is "the one God" is what is found in the Bible and every Church Father prior to the end of the 4th century.

You may find the following threads of some interest:

Back to the Bible

Is 'the one God' of the Bible the Trinity, or God the Father

'The Monarchy' - God the Father or the Essence/Godhead

The Monarchy of God the Father - Goad vs. Dr. Beeley

'The Lord God' and 'the Almighty' in the NT - two more titles reserved for God the Father alone

5 propositions concerning God and the Godhead


If you have the time, I would be very interested in you thoughts on my musings...


Grace and peace,

David

Sean Killackey said...

Craig, in his lecture seemed to agree that a positive identification of the Son as God (proper noun) would make them each other. I do not necessarily agree, for it would seem that the difference between any given person is their personal attribute is their own, and the difference between the Trinity and any of them is that the Trinity has two more personal attributes. So by definition each cannot be each other, or none by themselves can be the Trinity. (Before I go on let me say that by itself such statements seem to determine that each person is the other, but it depends upon what “God” means, the thing which they all “are.”)
I think that it is illogical to say that the Trinity is God and that each person by himself is God, especially since God is said to be triune – is Jesus triune by himself, or the Father or themselves? No, so it would seem that they cannot be God.
Some try to save it by saying that they share the essence in its full. However, this seems to make God a mere essence. And if the essence is the entirety of God, encompassing the persons, well then, it seems that each person could not possess the essence (without possessing each other in some infinite regression), since they’d be a part of it. But if they are not a part of it, but possess the essence, they would not be God, since the essence is God; they’d only possess God. Further God would be a mere essence, an essence without a mind, but God has a mind, and he speaks, saying “I am Jehovah your God.”
I feel that the idea that rather than being one unit, per se, that each is numerically separate persons, each an expression of the divine nature (as we are expression of our own nature, but manifest as individual persons). Is this the “backbone,” or part of the Social Trinity? In what way does the distinctness of the persons vary from model to model (I assume that the ST is a tri-consciousness based model)? Are the persons numerically distinct in the Latin Trinity, I think not; what about the Social Trinity? And in the Social Trinity does this numerical distinctiveness translate as separation of the persons, in that they are not contained in one unit (the being or essence), but are three unites (separate persons), who are expressions or forms of the divine nature?
It seems that the LT says that each is part of one numerically singular whole, (I picture this as one circle) that is the essence of God, but the ST says that each is an expression of one single nature, or essence. The latter almost, to me, borders on tritheism. However I assume that they’d say that they are an expression of one nature, they are still one (would they be one being, or would being and essence no longer mean the same, or almost same thing?). Further, even if they share the same nature, it would seem hard for me to see them as being “one God,” for they’d each be a god, just as some suppose that we all have one nature, the human nature, yet we are each a human, nor the Human. Further, if this essence is God, would each expression, or form, have the complete essence, or just a portion?
My understanding of the Social Trinity is limited, so it is likely wanting in places. However, regardless of its veracity, it seems that these models developed to answer questions like those. My understanding of the Latin Trinity is better, however, I am still foggy about how God exists, for example, I view the Trinity (to approximate) as one circle with smaller circles inside, God is one essence with three persons, more or less. However the ST seems to present God as one essence expressed as three persons.
If the ST is not the idea that God is three forms of one essence, then what is it?

Sean Killackey said...

Hello David,
I find your idea interesting, seeing as you appear to be a Trinitarian (though If you aren't, don't fault me since I am only guessing). If the Trinity is true it would follow that it could not be true in the general forms it is today, for they seem to deny themselves either in justification of some original contradiction, or what the original self-inconsistency is. Yes the Trinity would have to be radically different in form (or at least in explanation, though I see no explanation that will keep the doctrine as it is alive).

In regards to the Father being 'our one God' as per 1 Cor 8:6, as you undoubtedly know, it is assumed that Lord (here as is elsewhere) is said to be the same - I of course disagree.

I don't know how profound my thinking is (here - http://bibleselfharmony.blogspot.com/2015/08/how-can-jesus-and-not-jehovah-be-our.html), but I feel that Jesus' Lordship is different than God's, namely, that is is under his as a Son, in a similar, though exalted, position as Moses had.

This, I feel, is an important point, for if "Lord" in 1 Cor 8:6 means something else than what (mainstream) Trinitarians mean then it belongs only to Jesus (where is the holy spirit called "our head?"), which undermines the classic argument (that "one" doesn't mean only, for it is implied that all three are meant, so the Father isn't really our only GOD.) Just as we are slaves of Christ and God, yet they are not one, so too sailors have one commanding officer, who they serve, and that commanding officer has one above him, whom, it could be said, all serve - the picture Jesus presents from his saying, "I am ascending to my God," and "I will make him a pillar in the house of my God." Therefore, as you say, "one God," refers to the Father."

I don't need to explain the issues, for you know them better than I. I am sure you thought of something similar, or else you wouldn't have come to the conclusion you did.

I would be interested in knowing what exactly your belief is. Is there one essence that is manifest in three "instances" or "expressions?" Are they ontologically equal?

David Waltz said...

Hi Sean,

Last night, you wrote:

==I find your idea interesting, seeing as you appear to be a Trinitarian (though If you aren't, don't fault me since I am only guessing).==

Many Trinitarians tell me that I am not a Trinitarian, with some of those same folk saying that I am an Arian (which I am certainly not), and others that I am a Tritheist (once again, I am not). In the end, I would say that my doctrine of God resists any of the 'traditional' labels.

==If the Trinity is true it would follow that it could not be true in the general forms it is today, for they seem to deny themselves either in justification of some original contradiction, or what the original self-inconsistency is.==

Agreed. (But, I would argue that some EO scholars/theologians should not be placed within the "general forms".)

==Yes the Trinity would have to be radically different in form (or at least in explanation, though I see no explanation that will keep the doctrine as it is alive).==

Agreed.

==In regards to the Father being 'our one God' as per 1 Cor 8:6, as you undoubtedly know, it is assumed that Lord (here as is elsewhere) is said to be the same - I of course disagree.==

As do I.

==I don't know how profound my thinking is (here - http://bibleselfharmony.blogspot.com/2015/08/how-can-jesus-and-not-jehovah-be-our.html), but I feel that Jesus' Lordship is different than God's, namely, that is is under his as a Son, in a similar, though exalted, position as Moses had.==

All that the Son is/possesses has been given to him by the Father (YHWH). As such, his Lordship is derivative.

==This, I feel, is an important point, for if "Lord" in 1 Cor 8:6 means something else than what (mainstream) Trinitarians mean then it belongs only to Jesus (where is the holy spirit called "our head?"), which undermines the classic argument (that "one" doesn't mean only, for it is implied that all three are meant, so the Father isn't really our only GOD.) Just as we are slaves of Christ and God, yet they are not one, so too sailors have one commanding officer, who they serve, and that commanding officer has one above him, whom, it could be said, all serve - the picture Jesus presents from his saying, "I am ascending to my God," and "I will make him a pillar in the house of my God." Therefore, as you say, "one God," refers to the Father."==

Good points Sean.

==I would be interested in knowing what exactly your belief is. Is there one essence that is manifest in three "instances" or "expressions?" Are they ontologically equal?==

My current take (I say 'current' because I am remain open to growth and correction in my thought) flows from the '5 propositions' I posted in the last thread I linked to above. With that in mind, I certainly reject the notion of three "instances" or "expressions". I maintain that the Son shares the same 'nature' as the Father, but in a derivative sense. As such, as I have said, the Father alone is autotheos. In terms of ontology proper, in one sense the Father and Son are 'one' and 'equal', but in terms of etiology, they certainly are not equal, the Father being 'greater than' the Son.

Sincerely hope I have added some clarity to my position.


Grace and peace,

David

Edgar Foster said...

Hi David,

I'll be glad to read some of what you've written when time permits; probably this weekend. I've also been reading Sean's work and trying to keep up with the demands of work, family and my worship to Jehovah. But I'll try my best to reply by the weekend.

Sean Killackey said...

Hello David,
I see that you are not a Trinitarian in the traditional sense of the word. I appreciated your distinction between the same substance and of the same (kind) of substance. It reminded me of what the semi-Arians complained about, though I don't know enough of their theology to say it is the same as yours in this point, in that they have the same essence, but are not the same essence.

I don't fully understand what you mean by same essence, though I comprehended that Jesus comes from the Father (do you say that he is eternally generated?). Do the angels share the same essence with each other? and with God? I ask the latter because it might help me understand some more about your views as to what "essence" means. I take it that it nature, rather than the substance of a being, though I can't be certain.

I wouldn't call you an Arian, nor us Witnesses either for that matter, for that is a foolish bit of rhetoric designed to discredit someone (at least when used to group together separate groups together despite their differences in theology).

Perhaps this would help the most in fully understanding your view, though I suspect your answer is no: Is Jesus and the Holy Spirit creatures? If not, in what way?

Also, since I am interested in the topic, what is one book that you would recommend about EO Trinitarian Theology?

Sincerely,
Sean

David Waltz said...

Good day Sean,

Thanks much for your continued interest in this topic. Yesterday afternoon, you posted:

==I see that you are not a Trinitarian in the traditional sense of the word. I appreciated your distinction between the same substance and of the same (kind) of substance. It reminded me of what the semi-Arians complained about, though I don't know enough of their theology to say it is the same as yours in this point, in that they have the same essence, but are not the same essence.==

The so-called 'semi-Arians' are one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented group of Christians that I know of. Most folk don't realize that Athanasius accepted them as 'brothers'; note the following:

>>Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicæa, and doubt only about the Coessential [homoousion], must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers , who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential.' Now such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith. For only to say 'like according to essence,' is very far from signifying 'of the essence,' by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog. But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence,' what do they signify by these but 'Coessential ?' For, while to say only 'Like-in-essence,' does not necessarily convey 'of the essence,' on the contrary, to say 'Coessential,' is to signify the meaning of both terms, 'Like-in-essence,' and 'of the essence.' And accordingly they themselves in controversy with those who say that the Word is a creature, instead of allowing Him to be genuine Son, have taken their proofs against them from human illustrations of son and father , with this exception that God is not as man, nor the generation of the Son as issue of man, but such as may be ascribed to God, and is fit for us to think. Thus they have called the Father the Fount of Wisdom and Life, and the Son the Radiance of the Eternal Light, and the Offspring from the Fountain, as He says, 'I am the Life,' and, 'I Wisdom dwell with Prudence' (John xiv.6; Proverbs viii.12). But the Radiance from the Light, and Offspring from Fountain, and Son from Father, how can these be so fitly expressed as by 'Coessential?' And is there any cause of fear, lest, because the offspring from men are coessential, the Son, by being called Coessential, be Himself considered as a human offspring too? Perish the thought! not so; but the explanation is easy. For the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; whence we learn the impassibility and indivisibility of such a generation from the Father. For not even man's word is part of him, nor proceeds from him according to passion ; much less God's Word; whom the Father has declared to be His own Son, lest, on the other hand, if we merely heard of 'Word,' we should suppose Him, such as is the word of man, impersonal; but that, hearing that He is Son, we may acknowledge Him to be living Word and substantive Wisdom.>> (De Synodis, 41 - PNF 2nd series, 4.472.)

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

==I don't fully understand what you mean by same essence, though I comprehended that Jesus comes from the Father (do you say that he is eternally generated?).==
By 'essence' (Gr. ousia) I mean 'nature' (Gr. physis) [many Greek Church Fathers used the two terms as synonyms ]. As for the 'generation' of the Son, I prefer the phrase, "begotten before time". I think that the Bible teaches that God created everything that exists through His Son, and this includes time, space, and the 'universe'.

==Do the angels share the same essence with each other?==

Yes.

==and with God?==

No.

==I ask the latter because it might help me understand some more about your views as to what "essence" means. I take it that it nature, rather than the substance of a being, though I can't be certain.==

As I mentioned above, I equate 'nature' with 'essence'. I would also say that 'essence' = 'the substance of being'. For instance, I am a human, my 'nature' is human, and my 'substance of being' is human. An angel is angelic, their 'nature' is angelic, and their 'substance of being' is angelic.

==I wouldn't call you an Arian, nor us Witnesses either for that matter, for that is a foolish bit of rhetoric designed to discredit someone (at least when used to group together separate groups together despite their differences in theology).==

Agreed, and I would say, 'spot-on'.

==Perhaps this would help the most in fully understanding your view, though I suspect your answer is no: Is Jesus and the Holy Spirit creatures? If not, in what -way?==

You are correct, they are not creatures because their nature/essence/substance is given to them from the Father's (the One God) nature/essence/substance.

==Also, since I am interested in the topic, what is one book that you would recommend about EO Trinitarian Theology?==

If one had to choose but one book, I would say Boris Bobrinskoy's, The Mystery of the Trinity would probably be the best. (Information on the book HERE.)

BTW, I provided a few excerpts from the book in this thread.


Grace and peace,

David

Sean Killackey said...

Thanks David,
I'll check out your post and sometime soon I'll see if I can buy that book. My blog while focusing on the (Latin) Trinity recently, I think will go back to defending the Bible itself against claims of self-contradiction - this task being laughingly easy is better suited to my schedule and the time available to me. Though I have posts scheduled for the next month, which is nice as far as procrastinating goes, but I'll try to avoid that.:)

Sincerely,
Sean

Killa Jules said...

I once encountered an interesting hypothesis about the origin of the trinity doctrine and David's comments seem to confirm this.

The adoption of the non-Biblical concept of 'creation ex nihilo' resulted in the idea that the Son's generation from the Father must distinguish him from creatures. This in turn, lead to his incorporation into some sort of 'Godhead'.

There is no biblical basis to the idea that all created things came out of nothing and that since Jesus didn't came from nothing (but instead from the Father), then he is therefore not of creation. There is no reason to think that being a 'Son' is somehow different to being a creature. It is based on a premise that is not required by either logic or Scripture.

All created things could be out of the Father, rather than out of nothing. The Father Jehovah, being the unlimited source could create all things out of himself without ever being depleted. This eliminates the false distinction between the Son and other creatures. However, the Son's uniqueness is preserved by the fact that he was the only thing directly created by his Father. All other things were created through Jesus.

Sean Killackey said...

Hello Killa,
I see no reason to suppose a Trinity. Proof-texts, often, I feel are a matter for interpretation. John 1:1c can support a Trinitarian assumption, or it can be neutral, or even hint against the Trinity - but which one is right? I feel that the whole tenor of the scriptures should be our guide. Of course so do Trinitarian - were the matter not so serious, it would be laughable at how our arguments are phrased in similar ways.

That being said, I get the sense reading from amatuers (like myself) Trinitarians, well-known ones an expert ones, that they assume the Trinity must be true which is why they believer it. Why? Because its truthfullness, they say is the only thing that explains the relationship of the Father and Son, and certain passages. However there are, I feel, good counter-explainations, which are not just ad hoc, or point by point objections, but a harmonious whole (I refer to the "Flat-Earthers who can counter many points held by us all, but whose counterarguments don't mesh into a whole, ours do).

I feel that Trinitarians over reach themselves in saying that Jesus is God because he raised himself up, because under that logic the women with a flow of blood healed herself by her faith, and it had nothing to do with Jesus. Also the maxim, "he who acts through another does the act himself," is crucial in understanding the Trinity - something I have not seen any Trinitarians address - do they not know about it?

Matt13weedhacker said...

KILLA-JULES//The adoption of the non-Biblical concept of 'creation ex nihilo' resulted in the idea that the Son's generation from the Father must distinguish him from creatures. This in turn, lead to his incorporation into some sort of 'Godhead'.//KILLA-JULES

An accurate description of Athanasius' extreme over-re-action to Aruis'. He sought new, and alternative explanation's to avoid the, (historically), earlier 'creation ex nihlo' created Son, doctrines of the prior Alexandrian Christian teachers.

Side note, I always find it interesting, that, Athanasius came from Egypt. The land of the Tri{3}nities, and Pre-Christian pagan same-substance theology. Was the old religion an influence? Was the eclectic, and philosophical environment, (school?), of Alexandria an influence?

Anyway.

He, (Athanasius that is), really took issue with the words γένητος, (single "NU" or "ν"), κτίσμα, ποίημα, etc, in favor of "begotten" (γέννητος with the double "NU" or "ν").

Both κτίσμα and ποίημα, with the Greek suffix -( μα ), denote the result of an action, i.e. creation and making. The -( μα ) suffix, give both these words the meaning of being acted upon by a Creator, or Maker. With the end result being the production of a κτίσμα or "creature", and a ποίημα "work", (i.e. "something made" by a Maker or Creator).

The Greek word γένητος, (with the single "NU" or "ν"), in contrast to γέννητος, (with the double "NU" or "νν"), had the idea of a prior active cause to ones existence. That someone, (or something), caused and made something, (or someone), to exist. With the direct implication of having a beginning to ones existence, (or a beginning "to be").

Historically, all these, (γένητος, κτίσμα, ποίημα), to a greater or lesser degree, were used in the earlier Christian writers prior to Athanasius, (i.e. ANF), to describe the Word's prehuman "generation" and/or "creation" by the Father.

David Waltz said...

Hi KJ,

Some interesting thoughts for sure !

Whilst I continue to reflect on the implications of your post, I would like to suggest that you read a thread by published by Edgar, back in 2008:

CREATIO EX NIHILO

One important point that caught my eye from Edgar's post is that there is a significant difference between creation via the "power" of God and creation "EX DEO".


Grace and peace,

David

Matt13weedhacker said...

KILLA-JULES//All created things could be out of the Father, rather than out of nothing. The Father Jehovah, being the unlimited source could create all things out of himself without ever being depleted. This eliminates the false distinction between the Son and other creatures. However, the Son's uniqueness is preserved by the fact that he was the only thing directly created by his Father. All other things were created through Jesus.//KILLA-JULES

One would almost think we were reading Justin Martyr, or Tatian's "Oratio" chapter 5 here. This is exactly how they tried to express the doctrine.

KILLA-JULES//out of himself without ever being depleted//KILLA-JULES

Compare Justin Martyr Dial. 61.1:

τι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ θεὸς γεγένηκε δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν

"..because [Or: "for the reason that"] as a beginning, prior to all of those things that were created, He who is [the] definitive [Or: "He that is definitively" "the One Who is definitively"] God, caused a certain kind of rational power [Gk., ( γεγένηκε ) single "NU"] to be created, [Or: "to begin existence" "to enter into existence"] having it's origin [Or: "originating"] from out of Him-Self..."

Justin continues just a little further on in Dial. 61.1:

"...For he has all these names attached to him from out of [the fact] that he both serves as an inferior minister to the Paternal Originator's purpose, [Or: "will"] and from out of [the fact] that [Gk., ( γεγενῆσθαι ) = single "NU"] he was created by an act of the Father's will..."

Then he attempts to illustrate his concept in Dial. 61.2:

[FIRE-EX-FIRE ILLUSTRATION STARTS]

"...Yet do we not also see such a thing as this [Gk., ( γενόμενον ) = single "NU"] created [Or: “having been made to exist”] even with ourselves? For when we project forth before us any word, do we [not] in fact [Gk., ( γεννῶμεν ) = double "NU"] cause the production of a word? [But] not according to the manner of an amputation, so as to suffer the [complete] loss of the word within ourselves when we project it forth. Also, this sort of thing is observed upon a fire when another one [Gk., ( γινόμενον ) = single "NU"] is caused to come into existence, this does not make the original One from out of which [Gk., ( γέγονεν ) = single "NU"] it was created any inferior by igniting it, no, [for] this One remains the same, and that which derives it's [existence] from out of the One which caused it's ignition, even though it may seem to appear as if it exists of it's own accord, does not make in any way inferior the One from which it was lit up..."

Matt13weedhacker said...

KILLA-JULES//All created things could be out of the Father, rather than out of nothing. The Father Jehovah, being the unlimited source could create all things out of himself without ever being depleted. This eliminates the false distinction between the Son and other creatures. However, the Son's uniqueness is preserved by the fact that he was the only thing directly created by his Father. All other things were created through Jesus.//KILLA-JULES

Continued:

He based this theology on Proverbs 8:21(A)-35 LXX, which he quotes next in Dial. 61.3:

[PROVERBS 8 LXX INTRO]

"...But [I have more] corroborating evidence on my [side]. The Logos! Who is: “Wisdom”! He is that god who had his [existence] [Gk., ( γεννηθείς ) = double "NU"] generated from the One Who is Father of absolutely everything that exists. And this: “Logos,” and: “Wisdom,” and: “Power,” and: “Glory,” [Gk., ( τοῦ γεννήσαντος ) = double "NU"] of the Originator, [Gk., ( ὑπάρχων )] was made to exist subsequent to a beginning, even as he has said the following things through Solomon: [PROVERBS 8 LXX QUOTE STARTS] “If I should ever relate to you the things that [Gk., ( γινόμενα ) = single "NU"] happened [Perhaps: "were caused to enter into existence"] according to each of their days, that I should remember to recount to you those things that originate from out of an age. [THE] LORD, [Gk., ( ἔκτισέ με )] HE CREATED ME AS A BEGINNING, as His channel for the purpose of accomplishing His works. Before the [present] age, [Gk., ( ἐθεμελίωσέ με )] He founded me during [the] beginning [Lit., "in a beginning"]; before He made the earth ; and before He made the unmeasurable deep ; before He first caused the fountain springs to burst forth ; before He had caused the mountains themselves to settle ; even before all of the hills ; [Gk., ( γεννᾷ με ) = double "NU"] He causes my generation [Lit., “He generates me”]. The definitive God, it was He who made the countries and uninhabited places, even the highest points of [the] earth that can be inhabited under heaven ; at the time when He prepared the heavens, I was continuously assisting [Or: "present"] at His side ; when He was setting up the throne, (His one), upon [the] winds ; at the time when He was making strong the upper atmosphere itself ; even as He was making the unfailing currents of the deep ; at the time when He was making strong the foundations of the earth, I was there at His side, doing the work of joining things together [in a harmonious order]. It was I, in whom He took delight! Daily I was in His presence, happy all the time, while He was delighting because of His completing the inhabited earth, and He took delight in [the] sons of men..."

NOTES ON GREEK TEXT OF DIAL. 61.

The only two MSS of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho are:

[1.] Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, (or Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 451)
[2.] Codex Claromontanus, (which is a copy of the Regius), later named Mediomontanus, now called British Library MS Add. 82951.

Both the Regius, (referred to as A. in printed texts), and the Claromonatnus, (C in printed texts), have a form of γένητος, (single "NU" or "ν"), not γέννητος, (double "NU" or "ν") at Dial. 61.1(A) τι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ θεὸς γεγένηκε δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν.

A = γεγένηκε
C = γεγένηκε

Tri{3}nitarian corruption = γεγέννηκε

Modern Tri{3}nitarian's have altered the text, and replaced it with γεγέννηκε "begot", (double "NU" or "ν") at Dial. 61.1, in all the modern printed texts.

They did the same in Dial. 61.1(C) ἔκ τε τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῷ πατρικῷ βουλήματι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει γεγενῆσθαι

A = γεγενῆσθαι
C = γεγενῆσθαι

Tri{3}nitarian corruption = γεγεννῆσθαι

They took it upon themselves to change this text in modern times, because they felt uncomfortable with Dial. 61.1(A) γεγένηκε and Dial. 61.1(C) γεγενῆσθαι.

Matt13weedhacker said...

KILLA-JULES//All created things could be out of the Father, rather than out of nothing. The Father Jehovah, being the unlimited source could create all things out of himself without ever being depleted. This eliminates the false distinction between the Son and other creatures. However, the Son's uniqueness is preserved by the fact that he was the only thing directly created by his Father. All other things were created through Jesus.//KILLA-JULES

One would almost think they were reading Justin Martyr, or Tatian's "Oratio" chapter 5 here. This is exactly how the "Apologist's" tried to express the doctrine.

KILLA-JULES//out of himself without ever being depleted//KILLA-JULES

TATIAN OF ASSYRIA (circa. 110-172 [120-180 ?] C.E.): “...In [the] beginning there was a God. But: “the beginning,” we have received, is of a power of reason. For the One who is the Sovereign Master of the entire universe Himself, Who is the underlying [origin and] foundation of the universe, was [the] only Person in existence, according to the fact that, the things He was going to bring into existence had not been made yet. But inasmuch as He was all power, being [the] under-lying [origin and] foundation of things visible and even of things invisible Him-Self, He was [thus] together by Him-Self. Who through an exercise of His own rational thinking power, - caused - the entire universe that was together with Him, (including the Logos that was within Him), to have substantial existence. It was by His own singular will that a Logos springs forth. [But the] exiting of the Logos was not of a manner that would leave an emptiness but rather [Gk., ( γίνεται ) = single "NU"] he is created as a work, [the] first one to have been born of the Father. This one, we recognize as the beginning of the world...”

Matt13weedhacker said...

KILLA-JULES//All created things could be out of the Father, rather than out of nothing. The Father Jehovah, being the unlimited source could create all things out of himself without ever being depleted. This eliminates the false distinction between the Son and other creatures. However, the Son's uniqueness is preserved by the fact that he was the only thing directly created by his Father. All other things were created through Jesus.//KILLA-JULES

One would almost think they were reading Justin Martyr, or Tatian's "Oratio" chapter 5 here. This is exactly how the "Apologist's" tried to express the doctrine.

KILLA-JULES//out of himself without ever being depleted//KILLA-JULES

Continued:

TATIAN OF ASSYRIA (circa. 110-172 [120-180 ?] C.E.): “...But [Gk., ( γέγονεν ) = single "NU"] his creation was according to [Gk., ( μερισμόν )] a process of division, not according to the manner of [Gk., ( ἀποκοπήν )] things which are amputated. For that which [Gk., ( ἀποτμηθὲν )] is completely chopped off the First, is itself, [Gk., ( κεχώρισται )] completely gone, but that which [Gk., ( μερισθὲν )] is divided off, receives [Gk., ( οἰκονομίας )] a carefully administered [5.2] [Gk., ( διαίρεσιν )] surgical dissection ; which in no way has made the Source from which it was taken defective. For, it is as if One torch caused the lighting of many fires, but this First torch, on account of which the many other torches were set alight, It's light is not made any less bright. So it was then, in this way, the Logos went forth first, [Gk., ( ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάμεως )] originating from out of the Father's power, yet not making the Originator [Him-Self] completely devoid of reason [by this process]. And for instance, if I was to say something myself, and you men were to hear a sound, (and as you know of course), that I do not [merely] through the act of transmitting the word become empty of the word, just by engaging in the conversation. But instead, by my projecting forth the sound, I have in fact, [Gk., ( διακοσμεῖν τὴν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀκόσμητον ὕλην προῄρημαι )] created a kosmos [out of] dis-organized matter within you, [thus] causing a production to be put forth from within my own stores. And this is exactly like the Logos, who [himself] was generated in the beginning, after which in turn, he generated us, making for himself the necessary matter, hand crafting it after the fashion of a Master Worker. [Gk., ( οὕτω κἀγὼ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ λόγου μίμησιν ἀναγεννηθεὶς καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς κατάληψιν )] So I for my part, after the manner of the Logos, mimicking him, being generated again, and grasping the truth mentally, [Gk., ( πεποιημένος μεταρρυθμίζω τῆς συγγενοῦς ὕλης τὴν σύγχυσιν )] have made [Lit., “completed making”] a re-arrangement of the same kind of [Or: “same genus” “kindred”] matter with-in me that was in dis-array [Or: “confused”]. For it is not above having a beginning, (this matter), as if being like the One who is definitively God, and, on account of it not being above having a beginning, it is therefore not equal in power to [Or: “with”] the One who is definitively God ; but rather [Gk., ( γενητὴ ) = single "NU"] it was created [Or: “had an actual beginning to it's existence”], and it was not {32}[Gk., ( γεγονυῖα ) = single "NU"] created by any other additional person, but of one Person only, [Gk., ( προβεβλημένη )] having been projectiled forth first by [the] direct un-mitigated agency of the One Who is [the ultimate] Architect of [absolutely] everything that exists [Lit., “of all things”]...”

Edgar Foster said...

Hi David,

I read a couple of your threads today, and I found them interesting and informative, especially the discussion about Basil, hoti, and hos. I can also see that your view of the Trinity is a little different, but the posts on your blog demonstrate that you've interacted with a goodly number of sources from both the East and the West. It was good to be reminded of Bardenhewer, Meyendorff, and Behr.

Best regards!

Edgar

Killa Jules said...

The 'Creatio Ex Nihilo' thread was indeed very interesting. Thanks David.

Thanks also Matt, those quotes from Tatian and Justin Martyr are certainly food for thought.

David Waltz said...

Hi Edgar,

Thanks much for taking the time to peruse some of my threads. In your post you wrote:

== I can also see that your view of the Trinity is a little different==

You may find it interesting that Dale Tuggy has told me that my theology is not Trinitarian, but rather, a high form of Unitarianism.

Question: are you familiar with the works of Samuel Clarke (late 17th century/early 18th century Anglican theologian) ???

I mention Clarke because my position shares a good deal of commonality with his.


Grace and peace,

David

Edgar Foster said...

Hi David,

I have read works by Samuel Clarke, and I remember how nuanced his discussion of the Trinity doctrine is. Thanks for clarifying your position. I'll be reading more of your blo0g as time permits.

All the best,

Edgar

Keefa Ben Yahchanan said...

Here is something I extracted from Clarke

The Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity By Samuel Clarke pg. 245
IX. e. The Scripture, when it mentions the One God, the Only God, always means the Supreme Person of the Father. See the Texts, N° 1-17. is See beneath, S 39...

(Concl.)Therefore, if the Dr. Clarke conceded that the One God=the Father, then the 3 divine persons in One God is untenable unless Jesus is NOW the Father, which would be Patripassianism!

Edgar Foster said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edgar Foster said...

I admit that it has been a while since my last reading of Clarke. Always found him interesting, but he satisfied neither Trinitarians nor non-Trinitarians. I like that point, Keefa.