Cyril C. Richardson professes that the basis of "Christian conviction" is God’s oneness and the revelation of God "in Jesus Christ" (44). Richardson continues: "When the early Christians found it necessary to consider the implications of this conviction they did not find it difficult to suppose that the God qui est super omnia allowed his monarchy to be administered by the Son, who was dependent upon Him for immortality and a relative divinity" (Page 45). At this point, Richardson has Tertullian of Carthage in mind. In fact, he explicitly writes: "This is the basis of the argument of Tertullian against Praxeas. The popular idea of the relative divinity of the 'created gods' can be found in Plato (Tim. 41), and, in Stoicism, man is called hO QEOS because he possesses reason, or part of the essence of the Godhead" (ftn 70, page 98). See C.C. Richardson. The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch. New York: AMS Press, 1967.
Article about Richardson: https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/richardson-cyril-c
29 comments:
Some thoughts:
"God qui est super omnia" - i.e. God who is above all, I think the author is referring to Romans 9:5, which Tertullian interpreted to refer to the Son, see Against Praxeas, Chapters XIII and XV.
"the Son, who was dependent upon Him" - That the Son is (conceptually) dependent on the Father is a completely orthodox view, since He indeed derives his existence and divinity from the Father.
"or part of the essence of the Godhead" - However Tertullian did not claim that the Son possessed only "a part" of the essence of the Godhead, cf. https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/tertullian_on_the_trinity.htm
Even if Tertullian referred Romans 9:5 to the Son, it still does not mean that he thought the Son was equally divine to the Father as other parts of his writings show (Adv. Prax. 9; Adv Herm. 3). Secondly, it's clear that Richardson is applying qui est super omnia to the Father who allows his Son to have a part in his monarchy, an idea championed by Tertullian. The Father commands, the Son obeys, says Tertullian. He also thinks that God "became" Father but was always God.
Richardson does not mean conceptually dependent: he makes it clear that Tertullian viewed the Son as being dependent for his immortality and "relative" (not absolute) divinity. That is more than conceptual dependence: it's ontological.
Tertullian writes that the Son is a portio of the Godhead but the Father is the whole. A quite famous passage.
I read the text quoted at the link and it was one I used in my M.Th. thesis. To me, it works against construing Tertullian as a strict Trinitarian or as "orthodox." Did you notice that he thinks the angels share in the divine substance and God's monarchy.
"He indeed derives his existence and divinity from the Father." - walking, talking contradiction - if this was true he would have a beginning... either to being God or his existence..
What does "conceptual" dependence mean?
Tertullian also believed angels shared the essence of God, what he means is not what later homoousian theologians meant (again, he was a stoic).
"if this was true he would have a beginning... either to being God or his existence.."
Good morning, this has always been the Nicene teaching of the Son, it is called the Trinitarian processions. The 'arkhe' of the Son is the Father, since he begot him and also received his deity from him, but not in time and not "peelable" (accidentally), and he did not shared only "a part" of his deity with him, but the fullness of it. The Father as the source of the Trinity, αὐτόθεος.
Origin or procession (processio, ἐκπόρευσις) in general refers to a process which starts from one entity and ends in another, and whose content is the real existence of the endpoint deriving from the starting point. Since God is simple, only inherent, immanent procession can be spoken of in God: the starting and ending points of the procession cannot exceed the boundaries of the divine reality but must entirely remain within Divinity itself. And since the Godhead cannot be divided even in its essence, the originating reality can only encompass the entire undivided divine reality; in other words, divine procession can only be substantial, meaning that the one proceeding can only be God. Finally, since God is sheer actuality, in God, the processions cannot signify transitions from potentiality to actuality; thus, they are eternal. For this reason, the person who begets, in relation to the one begotten, cannot perform a creative or constitutive, i.e., causative activity. Hence, the begetting persons cannot be called causes of the begotten, but only principles (principium); the concept of principle is broader than that of cause, and it doesn't necessarily express a causal relationship; for example, a point is a principle of a line but not its cause.
According to the Athanasian Creed, "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding."
The divine Reality cannot be multiplied or divided; consequently, all three possess the same one divine Reality, from which they do not differ substantially; otherwise, there would be three Gods. However, on the other hand, they cannot possess the one divine reality in an entirely identical manner; otherwise, they would not differ from one another, and there wouldn't be three distinct persons in the one Divinity. Therefore, only one divine person can possess the divine reality from himself; and the other two do not possess it from themselves but receive it from another; moreover, the third person receives it in a different manner than the second; otherwise, there wouldn't be three persons in the Trinity, but only two: a giver and a receiver. However, this very manner of possessing the divine Reality, in which one person receives the divine Reality from one or two others, is what we call the Trinitarian procession. Therefore, there necessarily are processions in the Trinity, and specifically, there are necessarily two processions.
This reflection provides us with the key to also resolve this difficulty: If the Son and the Holy Spirit receive the Reality from another, then they are not self-existent, but existent-from-another; hence, they are not God. However, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as divine Reality, are self-existent; only as persons are they existent-from-another. And this existence-from-another in the Trinity does not signify real dependence or causal origin, but only indicates that they have a principle (esse a principio); a line also has a point as its principle, but it doesn't depend on it, nor is it caused by it.
"What does "conceptual" dependence mean?"
I already explained the point to Anonymous. It means that the Son's person is from the Father, the Father is the Son's 'arkhe', principium, as a person from another. Sonship conceptually presupposes fatherhood.
The Trinitarian processions, therefore, represent only a logical sequence, that is, one person has a different logical justification (ratio) and foundational principle (principium) than the other. The Father is Father in that he continually and eternally transfers his essence to the Son. The Son, in turn, is the Son because he eternally accepts this essence, in which the essence of the Father is eternally reflected. This acceptance, the becoming of reflection into a person, is what we call sonship or birth. The divine essence in all three persons is one and the same, but the "mode of existence" of this essence is entirely different in the Father, who eternally communicates it to the Son, and different in the Son, who eternally receives it, and different in the Holy Spirit, to whom both the Father and the Son eternally and jointly pass it on, and he receives it from them.
We can view the divine persons from two perspectives: as they are in themselves and as they relate to one another. In themselves, the persons are completely identical with the divine essence, and it is the same in each of them. However, in relation to one another, they differ in reality. The Father, when viewed in himself, is entirely the same as the divine essence; the same is true for the Son and the Holy Spirit. But that same essence exists differently in each of them. The Father possesses the common essence eternally in himself, the Son receives it eternally from the Father, and the Holy Spirit receives it eternally from both the Father and the Son. Thus, their distinct possession of the same essence in different forms sets them apart. This is often expressed by saying that the basis of their distinction is their relationship to each other, their "opposition" to each other. The Father is the Father only insofar as he can be perceived in relation to the Son, that is, in "opposition" to the Son – and the Son is made the Son only by his sonship, or his "opposition" to the Father.
none of what you stated can I find articulated in the bible or anywhere else. Only from Atha creed, whom imo cant be trusted..
"but not in time" - great way to get around argument, instead of facing it.
"the Son's person is from the Father" - How? If he has always existed, he cant receive anything from the Father, because by definition he would have always had it - especially if he was "always" God.
""The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. " - I do wonder if, what you are saying was meant, I can find multiple things that would indicate you are not being 100% honest (not surprising, considering your track record)
apologies for the "honesty attack" Edgar, but as you are aware and I have made abundantly clear 13+ time,. The honesty of this individual is to be questioned
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3154431?seq=4
see page 666 (ironically)
descent scholarship, some of the conclusions are abit whack imo, But I have a theory what was meant when Justin applies "God" is anyone but God.
If I'm right - itll cause massive problems (nost that pre-existant Christ being an angel is not already a problem, considering ninc's claim on Heb 1:5 - He is an angel or he isnt)
What I mean is what makes it conceptual as opposed to actual. Does the Son in his existence depend on the Father? If not what is the dependence, is it only that without the Father there would not be a Son? Such that it's merely metaphorical, i.e. what is dependent is the metaphor? Or is there some ontological dependence?
The Father's foundation is his aseity, i.e. his ground is himself. The problem with this kind of language is it's basically vacated of meaning, If God's essence includes his aseity, then what does it mean to transfer and accept aseity, it's incoherent.
What does it mean to receive "omnipotence," it's incoherent.
Anyway I know you're just repeating orthodox/catholic language here, but I can't see it's coherency at all.
Either begetting refers to some kind of causal grounding, i.e. how the ante-Nicene Fathers thought about it, such that the former is ontologically more fundamental than the latter, or I don't know what it means and we are just using language without meaning.
No one said it was "articulated" in the Bible like that. The fact that the Son received everything from the Father, including his person and deity, does not require temporal-, but only logical succession/order. Temporal succession is ruled out by the fact that processions within the Godhead are not alternations, following from the principle of God's immutability. And since it is not change, temporality does not apply to it.
The begotten God is not a logical self-contradiction, being unoriginate refers to the divine essence, the Godhead itself, which all three persons equally possess, and are one with it. The Son is begotten of the Father in such a way that the Father communicates his entire essence to him, not in time or sequentially, but in eternal existence.
Or if you cannot imagine that one who is begotteen cannot be truly God, then discuss this with John, why he referred to the Son as μονογενὴς θεὸς. Especially when considering the issue with traditional interpretation of 'monogenes'. It's commonly believed to derive from 'monos' (single, unique) and 'genes'/'ginomai' (to become something). However, modern linguistic research seems to find a closer relationship for the second part of the term 'monogenes' with the Greek word 'genos', which means class or type. Thus, we can refer to Jesus as the only or unique Son. If the Bible truly wanted to emphasize Him being the "only-begotten", it would have phrased it differently. The Greek for 'only-begotten' would not be 'monogenes', but rather 'monogennetos'. So John 1:18 ('monogenes theos') instead of "the only-begotten God" it is "...only God in his own kind...", or "...unique in its kind, the God" - this latter interpretation considers monogenes as a noun, one of the titles of the Son.
@Roman
Here you can find great explication on the issue of the Aseity and the Divine processions
* https://t.ly/2k6oH
* https://t.ly/7-8Yd
* https://t.ly/lz9fq
"following from the principle of God's immutability. And since it is not change, temporality does not apply to it."
- load of rubbish for starters...
secondly, you assume multiple things here.
third, How is the incarnation not a change?
Did The Word always have his humanity? (well no, because there was a time "people" didn't exist)
you assume temporality is the only thing where "change" can happen.. yet that is simply untrue.. also this is Greek philosophy not a bible teaching.
" If the Bible truly wanted to emphasize Him being the "only-begotten", it would have phrased it differently. The Greek for 'only-begotten' would not be 'monogenes', but rather 'monogennetos'." - spot the flaw in this statement... Do I need to point it out? look at a dictionary before making wildly inaccurate claims about the Biblical languages.. This may be the worst argument from anyone Iv ever seen.
"but in eternal existence." - shall I point out this doesn't exclude a beginning for the word, since eternity can work in 2 directions... as it does with Humans.. We had a beginning but we will live Forever (or an eternity). OR the opposite "direction" Where God existed from the past and into the present (or from the age until the age; the ages)
"How is the incarnation not a change? Did The Word always have his humanity?"
The Incarnation does not concern the principle of God's immutability, since no change occurred withinin the Godhead (in the substance of God) due to the Incarnation, because it was not the essence of God, but the person (hypostasis, subsistence) of the Son what was united "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably" with the human nature. Only the Eutychianist conception of the Incarnation would contradict the principle of immutability, but this was condemned as heresy. It was not the Deity or the person of the Son that changed, but the humanity of Christ that entered into a unique relationship with Him.
Check my comments here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/08/did-logos-change-when-he-became-flesh.html
"you assume temporality is the only thing where "change" can happen.. yet that is simply untrue..."
Have you already looked at how the International System of Units defines the concept of a second? The measurement of time is the measurement of change, also according to modern natural science, so the concept of time is essentially inseparable from change. Time is the measure of change, and where there is no change, there is nothing to measure.
Read this: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110111.htm
"also this is Greek philosophy not a bible teaching."
In addition to the fact that this is not true (God's immutability is clearly stated in the Bible (e.g. James 1:17), this is simply:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
I note that even the Arian creeds admitted that:
"He who has begotten the only-begotten Son before aeonian times (χρόνων αἰωνίων), through whom also he made the aeons and everything..." (Profession of Faith of Arius)
"And if anybody teaches contrary to the sound, right faith of the Scriptures, alleging that either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema." (Dedication Creed)
"who before all ages and before all beginning and before all conceivable time and before all comprehensible substance (οὐσίας) was begotten impassibly from God through whom the ages were set up and all things came into existence" (Homoiousian Creed of Nike)
Yes, the Bible teaches that God is immutable but in what sense? That point has been disputed.
Dr. Allan Padgett offers this perspective:
"the OT knows nothing of a timeless God in the Boethian sense” (God, Eternity and the Nature of Time, p. 29).
Padgett even makes the stronger claim that "the Bible knows nothing of an absolute timeless divine eternity" (p. 35). He settles for what he calls "relative divine timelessness" which he admits the Bible does not explicitly teach. Yet Padgett believes that his view is compatible with biblical statements about God's "eternity" (OLAM) or everlasting nature.
Padgett also writes:
"The everlasting (or at best relatively timeless) nature of God's eternity has been clearly implied in Ps. 90:2,Isa. 40:28, 41:4, 43:10, and 44:6; while Isa. 48:3 allows any view. Eccl. 3:11, too, will not support an absolute timelessness. Thus Schmidt's thesis that the OT supports a Boethian understanding of non-durational timeless eternity cannot be maintained. We can conclude with the vast majority of scholars that Yahweh is understood by OT writers to be everlasting, or at best 'timeless' in a relative sense" (God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time, p. 29).
W.L. Craig goes even further when he posits that God is timeless sans creation but temporal with creation.
"Yes, the Bible teaches that God is immutable, but in what sense?"
How many types of immutability are there?
"the OT knows nothing of a timeless God in the Boethian sense"
This can be attributed to the anthropological tendencies of the OT, which is figurative speech, and on the other hand, although it really does not have such an abstract definition of the immutability as a modern theology textbook does, it does contain many statements from which this conclusion can be easily drawn:
"For I the LORD do not change..." (3:6).
"In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded . But YOU REMAIN THE SAME, and your years will never end." (Psalm 102:26-28)
See also: Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Isaiah 26:4, 46:10.
By the way, these sources of yours speak exclusively of the OT, but in the NT James 1:17 makes a more specific statement. See also Hebrews 13:8.
TERTULLIAN THE UNITARIAN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jZ71GKqznwydcimuS7euWuAIlsuX1q3r/view?usp=drive_link
@Anonymous
Here is the opinion of Tertullian - who professed to be a Catholic - on whether it is at all acceptable for heretics to refer to the Holy Scriptures. He would obviously have a similar opinion about those who want to use HIS writings (misinterpreted, taken out of context, since He believed the Son to be God almighty, not a craeted angel) to support heresy, and attack the teachings of HIS Church:
"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, as many as walk according to the rule, which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood? By whose permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain? By what power, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks? This is my property. Why are you, the rest, sowing and feeding here at your own pleasure? This (I say) is my property. I have long possessed it; I possessed it before you. I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the apostles. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust, and adjured (the trustees to be faithful to their charge), even so do I hold it. As for you, they have, it is certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as strangers — as enemies. But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles?"
(Prescription against Heretics - Chapter 37.)
Here is a more balanced treatise on Tertullian:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332256750_Tertullian_on_the_Trinity
What types of immutability are there, Nincsnevem? Ontological and ethical immutability are distinct kinds. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/1463925
I.A. Dorner wrote a book on the subject which I still have where he parses out this distinction, and so does Nicholas Wolterstorff.
The verses you cite/quote above could all be challenged as to just what type of immutability is at play, and there have been writers who challenge the traditional interpretation.
One quote from Padgett included the NT, not just the OT. Wolterstorff denies that James 1:17 or Malachi 3:6 establishes divine immutability in an ontological sense. You have to start with numerous assumptions to make that idea even begin to stick. The Bible does not elaborate, for the most part, on God's immutability or it defines his immutability in terms of ethical attributes and promises.
For a recent article that militates against immutability as you've outlined it, see https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/8/759
Edgar you make an interesting point:
notice in both James 1:17 & Malachi 3:6 something "good" is in focus and is being contrasted with something "bad"
There is nothing in focus that would be speaking generally as in "[absolutly]no change at all" rather in both cases ethics is implied (self evident)
p.s I realise I may have just repeated some of your thought - However I have elaborated slightly [on what you may mean]
Please feel free to elaborate on my comments anytime. Good point you make about those verses. See also Hebrews 6:17-18.
"What types of immutability are there, I have no name? Ontological and ethical immutability are distinct kinds."
Ethical "immutability" does not say too much, the OT really mostly describes the immutability of God in some actions and resolutions in a concrete way and in detail, in accordance with its normal way of discussion. But this does not mean that the Scriptures do not teach the immutability of God. Even the Arians did not say this, it was only invented by the modernist Protestants, partly out of a perceived religious and moral interest: God changes his previous condemning behavior towards the convert.
The Old Testament primarily contrasts it with human fickleness (Numbers 23:29; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 33:11; Isaiah 46:10), but there is no lack of a deeper reference to the essence of God either. Precisely His divinity is the basis of changelessness: He is always Yahweh, always faithful to Himself (Malachi 3:6; Psalm 102:20). Thus, it is not about a solidification of divine existence but about the fullness of life and inviolable holiness, which explains His behavior. Therefore, all biblical references that praise God's eternity and God's holiness must be included (e.g., He is the rock, Isaiah 26:4; 30:20). This fidelity to Himself, however, is not just of a moral nature, as it is something that flows from His essence, from His very nature.
But if "there is not even a shadow of change IN HIM", then not only are his promises unchangeable, but so is God himself. Immutability follows from God's simplicity and abosolute perfection. His existence and everything He possesses is eternally necessary, and it can't be otherwise. He can't receive anything new, neither in knowledge nor in value. He does not change from His external actions. In Him, the act of creation is also such a free act that has been in Him from eternity, one with His essence, and it has its temporal effect externally. When He communicates Himself in grace, it is not He who changes, but man enters a new relationship with Him and grasps His supernatural effects.
A changeable God is simply not God, and then you practically throw out the best possible argument for God: primum movens immobile.
I know that there are modernist-liberal theologians who try to attack the principle of God's immutability, but from a completely different point of view than you do. This modernist-liberal theology makes various attempts in the direction of questioning whether this activity of God introduces some form of changeability within God Himself. The more radical are some Protestant scholars who simply deny God's metaphysical immutability and qualify the revelations pertaining to the latter as purely soteriological in nature. Several Catholic theologians (e.g., K. Rahner, H. Küng) strive to uphold God's metaphysical immutability while also validating God's "historicity. You practically want to bring back, even take the OT anthropomorphistic image of God literally. heology makes various attempts in the direction of questioning whether this activity of God introduces some form of changeability within God Himself.
"Οὐκ ἔνι, "there is no room for." It negatives, not only the fact, but the possibility also (cf. Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11)."
"With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.—The phraseology is almost scientific. There are changes, literally “parallaxes,” of the heavenly bodies themselves, and eclipses one of another by shadows projected through space, but no such variableness with God, nor changing of faintest shade."
"If, as hinted above, there is a connection between this verse and the section Jam 1:5-8, the meaning may perhaps be expressed thus: When, in answer to prayer, God promises the gift of wisdom, it is certain to be given, for He does not change; cf. for the thought, Romans 11:29, ἀμεταμέλητα γὰρτὰ χαρίσματα καὶ ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ Θεοῦ."
"with whom is no variableness] The noun is primarily a scientific term (our English parallax presents a cognate word) as expressing the change of position, real or apparent, of the stars. Here it is apparently suggested by the word “lights,” which primarily conveyed the thought of the heavenly bodies as the light-givers of the world. They, St James seems to say, have their changes, but not so their Creator and their Father.
shadow of turning] i.e. shadow caused by turning. The latter word, from which we get our “trope,” and “tropic,” is applied, as in the LXX. of Job 38:33; Deuteronomy 33:14, to the apparent motion of the lights of heaven, and so to any changes. The former is also a quasi-scientific term, applied to the effect produced on the sun’s disc by the moon in an eclipse. St James does not appear to use the terms with any very strict accuracy, but the fact that he employs them at all, and that they occur nowhere else in the New Testament, is in itself interesting as connecting him with the form of wisdom described in Wis 7:17-20, which deals with “the alterations of the turning of the sun” (the two terms are nearly identical with those which St James uses) and “the change of seasons.” Science, he seems to say, deals with the mutability of phænomena. Faith, and therefore Wisdom, rest on the immutability of God."
"“there is not even a shadow of change IN HIM“then not only are his promises unchangeable, but so is God himself." - not entirely true, see my above comment.. Once again you can rip something from its context, but the point of the statement is in regards to something specific, not a general statement.
Uhum, and if the ontological immutability of God is not stated in an explicit, abstract, dogmatically precise way, it "obviously" follows that the exact opposite is true and God is alterable... uhum..
"Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle." (Council of Florence)
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2022/03/02/did-tertullian-deny-the-eternal-nature-of-christ/
Post a Comment