Sunday, January 28, 2018

John Courtney Murray Discusses the hOMOOUSION Formula

These comments by John C. Murray (S.J.) are taken from his book The Problem of God (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1964, page 50). He is referring to the purported (as he thinks) contradiction that seems to arise from triune formulae:

"The hOMOOUSION resolves the seeming contradiction. If, as the hOMOOUSION asserts, the Son is all that the Father is, except for the Name of Father, then the Son is Pantokrator as the Father is, but he is not the Father. But here intelligence has reached its limit. The problem is solved, to the limits of solution. The mystery remains intact, adorable."

8 comments:

Philip Fletcher said...

It is funny to them God has all these abilities, but he cannot make it plain to make just exactly who he is, so he remains a mystery. Because of limitations.

Edgar Foster said...

Well, they want to argue that we cannot comprehend God or understand his essence. They quote Romans 11:33. But it makes no sense, as you say, that God would leave these matters so mysterious. We cannot/do not understand everything about, but Christendom exaggerates the mystery imho.

Jules said...

The problem with their position is not the idea of mystery but the fact that Bible writers never acknowledge that there even is a mystery. Bible writers expressed how they felt, Daniel himself wrote that his visions were mystifying. But in the Christian Greek scriptures, there is no hint of any mystery or anything difficult regarding the nature of God. The relationship between Jehovah and his son is taken for granted. The bible writers don't recognize or admit any mystery or anything difficult to understand. If the trinity doctrine existed in some form in the bible, then every single one of the writers had a baffling lack of curiosity about it.

Edgar Foster said...

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article on the Trinity and discusses in what sense it's supposed to be a mystery. Trinitarians normally intend to say it's a mystery in the Greek "mysterion" sense. Compare Rev. 10:7 (KJV). However, as you say, the Bible talks about different "mysteries" (sacred secrets) but never identifies the Trinity as one of them. One Trinitarian argued that no direct statement of the Trinity is found in Scripture--only allusions, intimations and foreshadows as it were.

Philip Fletcher said...

Yes, it seems that when we look at Romans 11:33 it is helping us to see that some of the fathers ways, his dealings will remain unknown to us forever. But that is his ways not who he is. Jesus revealed the Father to us. There is simply no mystery about it.

Edgar Foster said...

I certainly agree with you, but more and more, I see how the Trinitarian begins with the premise that God is tripersonal--then reasons from that premise to the deity of Christ and the divine mystery, etc. They might say that Jesus revealed the Father, and he was God in the flesh, but the divine essence still remains hidden. For example, M.J. Harris appeals to John 1:18 to show that no one has seen the essence of God rather than "no one has seen God (the Father)." At least, that is what I think he says. There is a difference between those two statements, but it illustrates how things usually work among Trinitarians.

Philip Fletcher said...

Edgar, I agree with you most definitely. The essence of God is not found in the bible as far as I know. Jesus either: A. Made known who the father was completely, or B. he didn't do a very good job of explaining the father. I believe the words of Jesus as I am sure you do as well, are made to be completely understood. That of course wasn't good enough for those who brought in the Greek philosophy. So they had to one up Jesus, because he just didn't speak clear enough for us to understand when he said he has revealed the father to us. yeah that is sarcasm. I don't say that to insult anyone, but I don't like it, when others insult Jesus and Jehovah, by saying that we need to clarify Jesus words, so we are going to use the expression essence of God. Still as usual you bring in some interesting subjects to talk about. Thanks

Edgar Foster said...

Philip,

I understand what you're saying, and you're welcome. But thank you for reading my blog. These discussions help me to keep things fresh mentally and I hope others benefit from reading biblical/theological subjects here. It's a way for me to store research too.

All this talk about the divine essence comes into theological discourse later. The apostles did not think in such terms and I have yet to find a clear instance of "God" (QEOS) signifying "divine essence" in the Bible, despite the claims of Wallace, Harris, etc.

All the best, my friend.