I have been accused of mishandling the words of scholar Christopher Stead from his book, Divine Substance. This accusation caused me to look at my Th.M. work to see if this charge is true: IMO, it is not. I found six occurrences of Stead's name, checked them all, and I find no merit for the accusations. At no time did I say or imply that Stead agreed with my worldview or theology. Those interested can see for themselves: https://theses.gla.ac.uk/71906/1/10395258.pdf
For example, here is one citation/quote from my thesis (page 23):
"Adv Prax 8. George C. Stead, in his magisterial study concerning the notion of divine substance,
points out that Tertullian has no problem applying substantia to God. He notes that Tertullian uses
substantia in Adv Prax 9 to refer to uncreated spiritus, which is differentiated from created finite
spiritus by its inherent 'purity, subtlety and power, which was at first concentrated in the Father, then
distributed to the Son and Spirit,' see Divine Substance (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1977), 161."
Please tell me how this cite gets Stead wrong.
Here is another example (page 70 of my thesis):
"Stead further discerns that Tertullian depicts God as a Mind (nous) containing Word in the sense of 'plan' or 'thought' within it. Moreover, he further states: 'This latter is sufficiently distinct to be addressed as a 'partner in dialogue .' Yet this Sermo does not become Son until God utters the words, 'Let there be light' (fiat lux) as recorded in Gen 1:3. Stead writes that it is only at this point that one can speak of Discourse (Sermo) as Son in the fullest sense. It might, therefore, be inaccurate
to argue that Tertullian thinks the Son is a timeless res et persona internal beside God."
Again, one has to be careful to distinguish my words and beliefs from those of Stead: I did not conflate the two. I likewise discuss Stead on page 74 of my thesis.
For the record, my training is in ecclesiastical history, so I am technically a church historian, which the YT video gets wrong.
What about the claim that Tertullian is a Trinitarian? Did I get Tertullian wrong? I've actually been over this point many times on this blog, but I can cite numerous scholars who fault Tertullian's doctrine for not being fully Trinitarian. Here are some examples:
Church historian Gerald Bray writes:
"In his counterblast to Praxeas, Tertullian came as near as he could to trinitarianism, without abandoning his fundamentally monotheistic and, to our minds, unitarian position. The Father always remained God in a way which did not apply to the other two persons, however much he might share his power and authority with them."
See Bray's The Doctrine of God, pages 130-131_ for the full details.
Concerning Tertullian's fuller statement of God's existence prior to the generation of His Son, A. Harnack perspicuously notes that although the ratio et sermo dei existed within God since "he thought and spoke inwardly," God the Father was still "the only person" subsisting prior to the temporal generation of the Son (Harnack, History of Dogma, 2:259). Edmund Fortman also concludes that the preeminent Son of God: "was generated, not from eternity but before and for creation, and then became
a second person." Antecedent to his generation, however, the Logos was not "clearly and fully
personalized" (Fortman 111). It therefore seems erroneous to think that the Son was eternally a res et
persona internal beside God. Tertullian makes this point clearer in Adv Prax 5.
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2007/06/lonergan-on-tertullian.html
By the way, the video criticizes me for citing/quoting Harnack. Guess they've never read much church history where such "old guys" are quoted.
Here is what Mark Smith actually wrote about my thesis, which became a book: See https://books.google.com/books?id=yvWlC0kUlkYC&pg=PA297&dq=edgar+foster+angelomorphic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Cs7FUu_KDobqkQfYtIHQAw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=edgar%20foster%20angelomorphic&f=false
He does not put it down there.
Overall, the video doesn't "get" my thesis.
Sunday, March 17, 2024
Quick Response Concerning Quotations of Christopher Stead in My Thesis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Edgar, do you have a link to the YT video?
Thanks
People need to stop calling out Jehovah’s witnesses for misquoted- they are just embarrassing themselves at this point
Terence, https://www.youtube.com/live/af-JaeZ6aTo?si=ORG0fd8YNmAWf9MQ
They said I called Tertullian an Arian in my thesis. Where did I do that? I might have said he posits a subordination of essence between the Father and Son, and I hold to that position now.
Most people also don't understand what Tertullian means by substantia or the Stoic overtones the term has in Tertullian.
Where did I say that Tertullian views the Son as Michael the archangel? Answer: nowhere.
Are you surprised by the video? I’m sure your thesis was written a while ago and now they’re taking about it. From what I know, there’s this Muslim who wants to argue that tertulian was not trinitarian, and I think IP was saying he was, so obviously he responded and cited your book. The Muslims called him out saying that (you) thought the opposite. That lead I think to the video you’re talking about now, where they kinda criticize you.
I was surprised since my book based on the thesis was published in 2006 and I finished that part of my graduate work before then. It was an odd use of my bookk by IP: the Muslim was more accurate than IP was: my exact view is that while Tertullian uses Trinitarian language, he subordinates the Son essentially to the Father. I listened to their criticisms, but feel they were way off. Hence, my reply.
I also pointed out some of the videos incorrect statements where they assert things without documentation.
From what I’ve been noticing from online trinitarian apologetics they want to affirm that all church fathers were trinitarian. Most I’ve notice fall into the word concept fallacy. They’ll see a statement “Jesus is God” or “Jesus is eternal” without really knowing what those words mean in their own context. They assume it’s the same meaning as nicea
I've noticed this tendency as well, but the Fathers were more subtle and diverse than non-historians think they were. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/08/hippolytus-contra-noetum-8-10-11.html
Sydney H. Mellone on Tertullian's Subordinationist Christology:
"He [Tertullian] has not avoided a subordination not only in the order of revelation to mankind but in essential being. Even if we set aside his purely metaphorical illustrations, we find it clearly stated that the Father is the originating principle of the Son and the Spirit, and therefore holds in relation to them a certain superiority: 'The Father is wholly essential being (SUBSTANTIA): the Son is derived from the Whole as part thereof (PORTIO TOTIUS): the Father is greater than the Son, as One who begets, who sends, who acts, is greater than the One is begotten, who is sent, through whom He acts," (Leaders of Early Christian Thought, London: The Lindsey Press, 1954, Page 178).
I’ve always understood it that way, that Tertullians view was that the ‘Son’ was just a portion of substance of the father. It’s disappointing that trinitarians just assume that you’re wrong because you’re a Jehovah Witnesses. But let me ask you, how’s the scholarship now about Tertullian now? It seems like the people in the video make it seem that the consensus is with tertullian being trinitarian and your view is fringe
Admittedly, I don't follow the literature on Tertulluan closely like I used to do, and to be clear, I acknowledge that Tertullian used trinitarian language. However, what did he mean by it? There is also the question of how Montanism affected his theology.
I think these Trinitarians overlook Tertullian's subordinationism.
Was the Wisdom of proverbs 8 considered to be God himself? Most of the church fathers identify the logos with Wisdom. ( Ninc is right about then never identifying the son, but misleading about logos)
Regarding “jesus is eternal (or God)”
1. Knowing trintarians theos is mistranslated as definite.
2 eternal works in 2 directions not 1
3 you can’t use nincs tactic of nullifying OT uses in the NT with evidence of actual substance ( none has been provided) also for the other theologically significant words used of Wisdom “born” ( synonym for created) is the most likely meaning
5. Jesus can be given the credit of God and called “God” due to shiliach
Thanks for the link. I'll try to watch the whole thing at some point. Your thesis was pretty clear to me, having read it. Tertullian was at least nuanced in his views, for sure.
Edgar Foster, I've engaged with this guy in the past before, he's a dishonest actor; I wouldn't engage with him.
A very good test is this ... could you repeat, verbatum, what some Church Father said explicitly, and (without saying where you got the quote) would that statement be labeled heretical ... Tertullian on Christology quite a few of of them.
Roman, I agree with your assessment of IP on YouTube and I don't plan to have a long exchange with him. People criticize me all the time, so I don't take that too seriously either.
I was speaking about the channel he was on (sentinal apologetics), I haven't had any engagement with IP, I've seen mixed stuff from him.
But yeah, I've seen some pretty sloppy stuff from IP as well.
Post a Comment