Some Trinitarians attempt to invoke Psalm 2:7 as proof for their eternal generation doctrine. However, when the verse is read in context, this application of scripture to a doctrine seems like one big stretch.
For some informative discussions, see the following:
https://www.thetorah.com/article/psalm-2-is-the-messiah-the-son-of-god
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/abs/psalm-27-and-the-concept-of/38E35D8CE5AF5718E0C3645047F93D8B
https://dbts.edu/2019/03/11/is-christs-receipt-of-life-in-himself-john-526-proof-of-eternal-generation/
https://www.atsjats.org/tornalejo-reexamining-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son-ats-2016.pdf
Friday, July 12, 2024
Articles About Psalm 2:7 (Eternal Generation?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
111 comments:
Acts ch.13:33NKJV"God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’"
Paul likens the very temporal resurrection of Christ to his begetting by JEHOVAH in fulfillment of the second Psalm.
I was researching this Origen also seems to engine proverbs 8:25 in the lxx from my understanding and the present tense verb… admittedly I haven’t checked properly but that’s what I read somewhere
@Servant... Agreed. See Romans 1:4.
1) Col 1:15 firstborn, begotten prior to the ages.
2) Matthew 3:16 firstborn to be anointed for heavenly life. Spirit begetting.
3)Romans 1:4; firstborn of the dead.
Eternal generation is oxymoronic, IMHO.
Proverbs ch.8:25 NKJV"Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills, I was brought forth;"
Also Hebrews 5:4 (ESV):
So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”;
Since the eternal generation is supposedly atemporal (timeless), it allegedly has no beginning or no end. But a question also arises concerning atemporal causation, which still needs explaining. Furthermorem, what does a generation (i.e., birth) look like that never begins or stops?
Sorry, I should have said Hebrews 5:5.
Edit button?
Yes, you are right, aservant. On the other hand, I could have hit the delete button and started over again. But Google needs to get on the ball with that edit button. :-)
“ but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”; “
With the omission of “today” was also said to a human king ( possibly Solomon) and David
Isn't it clear enough that the begetting at Ps. 2:7 is figurative? David wasn't literally "begotten" except in the sense that God adopted him as his royal "Son." If it wasn't literal when applied to David, then why assume that it was literal when applied to Jesus, especially when the application occurs in a context in which it is Jesus' royal sonship that is in view?
I'm not suggesting that Jesus is not God's first heavenly Son, as I believe he is, but the writer of Hebrews applied a text to Jesus that was not about a literal begetting, so it seems unnatural to think that he was referring to Jesus' original "birth" (=creation), and he certainly didn't have "eternal generation" in mind. I don't think that you can eternally give birth to someone on "this day."
It concerns me the wordplay that one must use to validate an eternal generation. To describe an act (I have begotten) is a description of something in time, correct?
WAS NOT > BEGOTTEN > WAS
Whether figurative in cases or not, it’s still true. Or is that a statement in error?
NOT RESURRECTED > BEGOTTEN > RESURRECTED
Even John 5:26: NO LIFE IN HIMSELF > GIVEN > LIFE IN HIMSELF
I see the necessity of the doctrine based on the Trinity doctrine, but not based on scripture.
Other thoughts this arose in me:
Prov 8:30 certainly appears to have a reference to time
Rom 3:25, why would God need forbearance and refer to things in the past if He was not Himself dealing with humanity in the present?
Thanks for the impulse to do some more research on time, as mine deviate some from what has been mentioned.
-NC
@Anonymous
"None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Saviour’s exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” this is spoken to Him by God, with whom all time is to-day, for there is no evening with God, as I consider, and there is no morning, nothing but time that stretches out, along with His unbeginning and unseen life. The day is to-day with Him in which the Son was begotten, and thus the beginning of His birth is not found, as neither is the day of it." (Origen)
"For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding. [...] Now this expression which we employ — that there never was a time when He did not exist — is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words when or never have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages." (Origen)
"“The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art My Son, to-day have I begotten Thee” (ver. 7). Although that day may also seem to be prophetically spoken of, on which Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh; and in eternity there is nothing past as if it had ceased to be, nor future as if it were not yet, but present only, since whatever is eternal, always is; yet as “today” intimates presentiality, a divine interpretation is given to that expression, “To-day have I begotten Thee,” whereby the uncorrupt and Catholic faith proclaims the eternal generation of the power and Wisdom of God, who is the Only-begotten Son." (Augustine)
"Those days without an end are called both “days,” and “a day.” For one when he was speaking of those days, saith, “That I may dwell in the house of the Lord for length of days.” And they are called a day, “This day have I begotten thee.” Now those days are one day; because there is no time, in it; that day is neither preceded by a yesterday, nor succeeded by a to-morrow." (Augustine)
“The ancestor of His mother was Abraham; and the Lord saith, “Before Abraham I am.” Before Abraham, say we? The heaven and earth, ere man was, were made. Before these was the Lord, nay rather also is. For right well He saith, not, Before Abraham I was, but, “Before Abraham I Am.” For that of which one says, “was,” is not; and that of which one says, “will be,” is not yet: He knoweth not other than to be. As God, He knoweth “to be:” “was,” and “will be,” He knoweth not. It is one day there, but a day that is for ever and ever. That day yesterday and tomorrow do not set in the midst between them: for when the ‘yesterday’ is ended, the ‘to-day’ begins, to be finished by the coming ‘tomorrow.’ That one day there is a day without darkness, without night, without spaces, without measure, without hours. Call it what thou wilt: if thou wilt, it is a day; if thou wilt, a year; if thou wilt, years. For it is said of this same, “And thy years shall not fail.” But when is it called a day? When it is said to the Lord, “To-day have I begotten Thee.” From the eternal Father begotten, from eternity begotten, in eternity begotten: with no beginning, no bound, no space of breadth; because He is what is, because Himself is “He that Is.” This His name He told to Moses: “Thou shalt say unto them, He that Is hath sent me unto you.” Why speak then of “before Abraham”? why, before Noe? why, before Adam? Hear the Scripture: “Before the day-star have I begotten Thee.” In fine, before heaven and earth. Wherefore? Because “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” By this know ye the “fathers:” for they become fathers by acknowledging “That which is from the beginning.” (Augustine)
“The Son Himself says of the Father, The Lord said unto Me, Thou art My Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. Now this to-day is not recent, but eternal: a timeless to-day, before all ages. From the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten Thee.” (Cyril of Jerusalem)
"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church." (Nicene Creed)
The doctrine of eternal generation posits that the Son is begotten of the Father outside the confines of time. This is not an event within time but a relationship that eternally exists. The Nicene Creed’s "begotten, not made" (γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα) emphasizes that the Son's begotten nature is eternal, not temporal. When scripture uses terms like "begotten" or "given," it often employs human language to describe divine realities. Such language is analogical, not strictly temporal.
The passages above from Origen, Augustine, and Cyril of Jerusalem emphasize the concept of "eternal generation" to clarify the relationship between God the Father and the Son. This concept underlines that the Son’s generation is not a temporal event but an eternal truth, transcending time. The term "begotten" in theological context signifies a unique relationship within the Godhead, not bound by temporal constraints. This is distinct from any human understanding of procreation. Origen and Augustine both emphasize that "Today have I begotten You" signifies an eternal present, not a point within temporal history.
In the Nicene Creed, "πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων" translates to "before all ages," indicating that the Son was begotten by the Father from eternity. This phrase underscores the Son's timeless existence and eternal relationship with the Father. "αἰών" encompasses the concept of both time periods and eternity. The Creed uses it to convey that the Son’s generation predates all time and ages, aligning with the theological doctrine of the Trinity's eternal nature. The term "before all worlds (æons)" emphasizes that the Son's begottenness is not confined to the linear progression of time but is an eternal truth. Claiming that "begotten" implies a temporal event misinterprets the term in its theological context. Eternal generation is about relational ontology within the Godhead, not temporal sequence. The eternal nature of the Son is consistent with scriptural affirmations of the Word’s preexistence and divine nature (e.g., John 1:1-3, John 17:5, Colossians 1:17).
John 5:26: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." This verse underscores the Son's participation in the divine nature, an eternal reality rather than a temporal event. The phrase "life in himself" in both persons indicates that the source of life is the same, originating from one divine nature. In Christian theology, the Father and the Son are parts of the same divine essence, and the term "life in himself" refers to their shared divine nature.
Proverbs 8:30: While Wisdom in Proverbs is personified and has temporal language, this metaphor points to an eternal truth, check also v23. The application of Wisdom as a type for Christ in Christian theology looks beyond the temporal framework to the eternal relationship within the Godhead.
Romans 3:25: This highlights God’s timeless forbearance, dealing with humanity in time but rooted in His eternal plan.
If he exist outside of time he is not "before" anyone before is a temporal distinction. Where there is no tempus there are no temporal distinctions,no past,no present, no future no no duration of stasis or rate of change, there is no metric to rationally appraise any of the claims christendom's make about JEHOVAH'S Relationship with his Logos.
The doctrine of eternal generation does not rely solely on Psalm 2:7 but on a broader biblical and theological framework. This verse is seen as part of a typological pattern pointing to Christ.Early Christians, including the New Testament writers, applied this verse to Jesus (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5, 5:5), interpreting it as a prophetic declaration of Christ's divine sonship and eternal generation.
It is true, that Psalm 2:7 *originally* referred to the Israelite king and only later was it applied messianically. The original context of Psalm 2:7 refers to the coronation of an Israelite king, traditionally understood to be David or his successors. It speaks to their adoption as God’s sons, emphasizing their unique relationship with God. The New Testament writers, particularly in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5, apply Psalm 2:7 to Jesus, indicating a deeper, messianic fulfillment. They interpret the verse not only as a coronation psalm but as a reference to the divine sonship and eternal generation of Christ.
This method of recontextualization is common in the New Testament. For example, Matthew frequently uses Old Testament prophecies in ways that go beyond their original historical context to reveal deeper theological truths about Jesus (see Matthew 1:23, 2:15, etc.). For example, 2 Samuel 7:14 primarily refers to Solomon, but it also applies to Christ in the sense that 2 Corinthians 5:21 says that God made Him to be sin for us, even though He was without sin (Hebrews 4:15), yet bore the sins of all people.
Though originally addressing a king, its ultimate fulfillment in Christ encompasses his eternal sonship and messianic role. Hence the Early Christians, including the New Testament authors, often applied Old Testament texts to Christ in a way that revealed deeper theological truths.
Acts 13:33: These words in the second Psalm (v. 7) are addressed by God to the Messiah, as the Son of God, begotten by the Father from eternity. According to St. Paul, this *ALSO* foretold the resurrection of the Messiah. This is very natural, for if the Messiah is the Son of God, the source of life and all life, then death cannot hold Him in the grave, and His divine dignity also expresses His resurrection. See John 10:17-18. Paul's use of "begotten" here aligns with the divine sonship and not *solely* the resurrection. It underscores Christ's eternal sonship and his resurrection as the confirmation of his divine status.
Hebrews 5:5 emphasizes Christ's divine sonship and appointment as high priest. This declaration is not about temporal creation but affirms Jesus’ divine nature and his role within God's redemptive plan.
Origen interpreted "begotten" in the context of eternal wisdom, supporting the timeless nature of Christ's begetting.
Romans 1:4 indicates Christ's eternal sonship affirmed through resurrection, not initiated by it.
Matthew 3:16: The anointing of Jesus for his ministry signifies the manifestation of his sonship, not its beginning.
Eternal generation is a theological concept indicating the Son’s relationship to the Father, describing a timeless origin. The term "today" symbolizes an eternal present in God’s timeless existence. Analogies like "birth" or "begetting" are used metaphorically to communicate complex theological truths about divine relationships, not temporal events. The use of temporal language to describe eternal truths is common in Scripture. God’s eternal nature transcends human time, making terms like "today" a way to relate divine truths to human understanding. The writer of Hebrews uses Psalm 2:7 to emphasize Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father and His eternal priesthood, not to suggest a literal, temporal begetting. Eternal generation is not oxymoronic but foundational to understanding the eternal, unchanging nature of the divine relationship within the Trinity. It emphasizes that Christ is eternally begotten, affirming His deity and co-eternality with the Father.
Nincsnevem, I respectfully submit that Psalm 2:7 is applied to Christ's resurrection and to his appointment as high priest, but never to his eternal generation. That is an interpretation of the psalm, but not what it actually says or means. I can provide references later, but even some Trinitarians have pointed this out.
Please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2005/07/god-father-of-israel-part-2.html?m=1
Acts Ch.13:33NKJV"God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’"
Dear Mr. Foster,
Psalm 2:7 does indeed have an immediate context relating to the Davidic king. However, typologically, many Old Testament passages have dual applications. Early Christians, including the apostles, saw in Psalm 2 a deeper messianic prophecy, prefiguring Christ. Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 directly apply this verse to Christ's sonship in a unique, eternal sense.
The concept of "today I have begotten you" was understood by Church Fathers like Origen and Augustine as referring to the timeless, eternal generation of the Son. They interpreted "today" in a manner that transcends temporal constraints, emphasizing the eternal nature of the relationship within the Godhead.
While the immediate context speaks of royal enthronement, the New Testament writers apply this language to Christ's divine sonship. For instance, Acts 13:33 connects the resurrection with this begetting, showing that the New Testament authors saw Christ's resurrection as a manifestation of His divine sonship, which was eternally established.
The argument that Psalm 2:7 is merely metaphorical when applied to kings does not preclude a literal, ontological interpretation in the case of Christ. The Old Testament often uses metaphorical language that is given fuller, literal expression in Christ's person and work.
In conclusion, the application of Psalm 2:7 to Christ's eternal generation is consistent with the broader interpretive tradition of the Church, which sees Old Testament typology fulfilled in the New Testament revelation of Christ. This typological approach does not negate the immediate context but sees it as pointing forward to a greater, fuller realization in the person of Jesus Christ.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
"Before" in a metaphysical sense doesn't imply temporal sequence but rather ontological precedence. God's existence outside of time means He is the uncaused cause, the necessary being upon which all contingent beings depend.
The Bible frequently uses temporal language to communicate divine truths to human understanding. For example, John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word," indicating Christ's preexistence and eternality, not in a temporal sequence but in a relational and ontological sense.
Classical Christian theology posits that God’s relationship with creation involves Him being timelessly eternal. This view does not negate the logical coherence of God’s interactions with temporal beings but rather affirms His transcendence and immanence.
When discussing God, human language is analogical. Terms like "before" help us grasp complex theological concepts, even though they may not fully capture the divine reality.
By acknowledging these points, it becomes clear that the relationship between God and His Logos (Word) can be understood rationally within the framework of classical theism, which accommodates both God's timelessness and His active involvement in temporal affairs.
A fun fact:
By the even mainstream Islam believes that the Word of God is eternal and uncreated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranic_createdness
Every time I had an argument with a Muslim, I referred to this as the first point that made them think that the Christian doctrine of the divine and eternal Logos might not be so "blasphemous" after all :-)
Not according to scripture that is why the word olam is used with reference to his existence he is from olam time indefinite to olam time indefinite, and he is properly referred to as the ancient of days. Sola scriptura though every philosopher be proved a liar. Of course if he is not before the secondary causes then he is not first cause and there is no necessity for a first cause outside of time cause and effect would be ontologically equal. This type of logic allows theologians to conjure incomprehensible labyrinths out of thin air, we go with the plain reading of the text until we have REASON to do otherwise
Why Am I not surprised . Logos implies communication from one mind to another, prior to the existence of a mind distinct from JEHOVAH'S and who was capable or reason and logic no Logos would be possible.
The resurrection definitely happened in time so a begetting in time is not out of the question for the Logos, in the scriptures birth language when applied to JEHOVAH ALWAYS Refers to his creative activity.
One point I will point out is we all know Origens writings were tampered with… Jerome himself admits to this saying they were “full of heresy” - and since Origens writings are inconsistent anyhow it would not be at all surprising that the writings were infact tampered with ( which Jerome confirms)
Then we can do the same with proverbs, Ninc…
And the fulfilment to psalms 2:7 was Christ being raised from the dead and placed at Gods right hand… let’s not forget Jesus was the first to be raised to eternal life as Paul points out… eternal logos is likely intended to mean after the resurrection not before
( while there are gaps in this theory, it would make sense)
And Ninc is quote mining… and using something out of its context…
Psalm ch.90:1,2"LORD, You have been our [a]dwelling place in all generations.
2Before the mountains were brought forth,
Or ever You [b]had formed the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." Man of course was created after the mountains but hopefully no one is going to argue that the mountains have some ontological superiority over man. Obviously it is JEHOVAH'S antiquity that is being shown to be greater than even his earliest creation. His existence extends for the entire duration of an eternal past olam.
@servantofJEHOVAH
"Olam" often signifies eternity or an indefinite duration, but in many contexts, it indicates timelessness rather than temporal extension. It emphasizes God's eternal nature without specifying temporal constraints (Psalm 90:2). Scriptures such as Isaiah 57:15 depict God as inhabiting eternity, suggesting His existence beyond temporal bounds. The concept of God as the First Cause necessitates His existence outside of time to avoid the logical fallacy of an infinite regress. This idea is consistent with classical theistic philosophy. A plain reading of Scripture should account for the theological and philosophical contexts that inform our understanding of God's nature, beyond a simplistic literal interpretation.Thus, the biblical and philosophical evidence supports the understanding of God as transcending time, which aligns with a coherent theological framework.
The concept of the Logos, or "Word," as eternal and uncreated is deeply rooted in both Christian and Islamic theology, highlighting its profound significance across these major religious traditions. However, your assertion that the Logos necessitates communication between distinct minds prior to creation misunderstands its theological context. Even mainstream Islamic thought, as highlighted in the link provided, often views the Qur'an (considered the Word of God) as eternal and uncreated. This reflects a similar understanding of the divine Logos as an eternal and uncreated aspect of God's nature, transcending temporal and created boundaries.
The Logos implies that God's capacity for communication, reason, and revelation exists inherently within the divine nature. It is not dependent on the existence of a created mind but is a fundamental attribute of God. This theological perspective aligns with the classical theistic understanding of God as eternally rational and self-expressive, capable of revealing divine truth through the Logos.
While the immediate context of Psalm 2:7 in the OT may refer to the coronation of a king, the NT writers, particularly the author of Hebrews and Paul, reinterpreted this verse in the light of Christ's unique sonship and eternal relationship with the Father. Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5 cite Psalm 2:7 to affirm Jesus' resurrection and exaltation. This shows a fulfillment in time. The context of Hebrews 5:5 and John 1:1-14 indicates a deeper theological understanding where Jesus' sonship is rooted in his eternal relationship with the Father, not just a temporal event.
While creation language in the poetic texts in OT wisdom literature often involves terms like "birth" and "begetting" (e.g., Psalm 90:2), the theological concept of eternal generation distinguishes the Son's unique relationship with the Father from creation. The Son is "begotten, not made," indicating a distinction between eternal generation and temporal creation
Psalm 90:2 emphasizes God's eternal nature: "from everlasting to everlasting, you are God." This supports the understanding that God's existence transcends time, reinforcing the concept of eternal generation, where the Son's relationship with the Father is eternal and timeless.
The assertion that "cause must precede effect" applies within temporal constraints. However, in the context of divine atemporality, eternal generation signifies an eternal relationship without temporal causation. This aligns with classical theistic views that God’s actions and relationships transcend temporal limitations.
While Psalm 2:7 can be seen as referring to the resurrection and coronation of Jesus, its deeper theological application to eternal generation is well-supported by both New Testament reinterpretation and early Christian theological reflection. The use of terms like "begotten" in this context signifies an eternal and unique relationship within the Godhead, transcending temporal constraints and affirming the co-eternity of the Son with the Father.
The whole basis of the first cause argument is the necessity of prior potential as the explanation of an effect otherwise an effect could
Serve as its own explanation, hence the elimination of time as pure abstraction destroys the first cause argument.
@Anonymous
The claim that Origen’s writings, particularly those supporting eternal generation, were tampered with lacks evidence. It's speculative to assert that specific texts were altered without concrete proof, especially those that do not align with one's beliefs. The skepticism about the authenticity of Origen's writings seems selective. Dismissing only the portions that contradict a particular viewpoint while accepting others without scrutiny is not a balanced approach. The concept of the eternal generation of the Son is not solely based on Origen. It is a consistent theme in early Church Fathers' writings, indicating a broader theological tradition rather than isolated tampered texts. Origen's views on the eternal generation of the Son are consistently supported by other early Church Fathers, indicating a broader theological consensus.
Psalm 2:7 is applied in various contexts in the New Testament, in Acts 13:33 Paul indeed uses it to refer to the resurrection, showing that Jesus is vindicated as God's Son. However, this does not preclude the verse from having a deeper, eternal significance. The context in Hebrews 1:5-14 focuses on the Son's superiority over angels, pointing to his eternal preexistence and divine generation, not merely his resurrection or exaltation. These passages use Psalm 2:7 to emphasize Jesus' unique status as the Son of God, highlighting his eternal generation and ontological distinction from angels. Hebrews 1:5-14 particularly underscores the eternal and divine nature of the Son, not limited to his resurrection or exaltation. The New Testament writers often reveal the multifaceted nature of Old Testament prophecies. Psalm 2:7, while applicable to Davidic kingship, finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ, reflecting both his eternal generation and his resurrection. The New Testament's reinterpretation of Old Testament texts often reveals deeper theological truths, and the consistent witness of early Church Fathers further corroborates this understanding.
About Origen:
* https://justpaste.it/f2gf7
* https://t.ly/apygn
Anonymous, the text of Origen you have to be careful with is the translations into Latin by Rufinus, and Rufinus is quite clear that he "corrects" Origen's Christology.
This is clear when you compare the Christology of "On First Principles" to "Contra Celsum" or his "commentary on John" which we have in the greek untranslated.
Nevertheless, Origen did believe in a kind of eternal generation of the Logos, BUT this is not the same as later trinitarian theology, as he believed that the Logos was ontologically subordinate to the Father, and he also believed that all the logikoi (the raiontal beings) were also eternally begotten. But both the Logos and the logikoi became "ensouled" at a certain moment, i.e. the "Son" has a first moment, but the Logos exists eternally in the mind of God, as do all rational beings.
Origen's concepts of time are fascinating and difficult, and he does not fit easily into any pre-set theology. He's certainly not an orthodox trinitarian, and the later Eunomians were much more faithful to Origen's actual theology than the Nicean party.
I know it's a little annoying to some to say this. But the expression eternal generation is not found in the bible. It is a man made expression. We all try our best to explain subjects hard to understand. So this expression derived by possibly Origen, with Athanasius expanding on it. Is just that someone trying to explain their ideas with no biblical basis.
At Col.1:15 a literal translation uses firstborn, the KJV uses firstborn. That is to bear. Who was the one to bear the son. The Father. The son is definitely first. But eternally generated...? Have fun with that.
If JEHOVAH is outside of time then he is not antiquated so the reference to the antiquity of the inanimate creation would make no sense clearly "olam" at psalm 90:1,2 is being used as it always is in scripture indefinite time and not atemporality.
Psalms ch.90:1,2NKJV"LORD, You have been our [a]dwelling place in all generations.
BEFORE the mountains were brought forth,
Or ever You [b]had formed the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God."
CLEARLY Our God JEHOVAH Is of eternal antiquity.
@Roman
You claim that Rufinus tampered with Origen's writings, especially regarding his views on eternal generation. While Rufinus did acknowledge making corrections in his translations of Origen, these changes primarily aimed at aligning Origen's work with orthodoxy rather than fundamentally altering his core theological concepts.
Rufinus aimed to protect Origen from charges of heresy by making clarifications, not by introducing new ideas. He clarified Origen's subordinationism to better align with later Nicene orthodoxy, but he did not invent the concept of eternal generation.
Origen did not negate the doctrine of eternal generation, the Nicene Creed later refined this understanding, emphasizing consubstantiality while retaining the concept of eternal generation. Origen’s concept of eternal generation and his broader theology are indeed complex and cannot be easily categorized. He believed in the eternal existence of the Logos in the mind of God, which aligns with the idea of eternal generation but requires nuanced understanding.
While it is true that Rufinus admitted to making corrections in Origen's works, not all of Origen's writings were altered. As the provided document by Ilaria L.E. Ramelli points out, Origen’s genuine anti-subordinationist views are consistent and traceable in various Greek fragments and testimonies from other Church Fathers like Gregory of Nyssa and Athanasius. Origen's theological position, including his understanding of the eternal generation of the Son, is consistent across his authentic works, whether preserved in Greek or Latin. As Ramelli indicates, Origen’s thoughts on the Son’s relationship with the Father, including their shared essence, are integral to his theological framework and were preserved accurately by other Church Fathers.
You obviously should read this: https://t.ly/apygn which also deals with the issue of the translation of Rufinus.
By the way, pre-fourth-century subordinationism generally does not rely on biblical hermeneutics but rather on terminological ambiguity and various impure religious and philosophical currents: the Stoics’ doctrine of the Logos (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός); and Platonic ideology, which tempted them to identify the entire world of Platonic ideas with the Logos.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
Your misunderstand the nature of the First Cause argument and the concept of time in relation to God. The First Cause argument posits that there must be an uncaused cause that is necessary for the existence of everything else, not contingent on prior potential or temporal sequence. Eliminating time as a pure abstraction does not destroy this argument but rather emphasizes the difference between temporal causes within the universe and the atemporal nature of the First Cause, which is God. God, as the First Cause, exists outside of time and thus does not require a prior potential to initiate effects.
The idea that time is required for cause and effect is a misunderstanding. Philosophically, the First Cause argument, rooted in metaphysics, proposes that God, as an uncaused cause, transcends time and space. This aligns with classical theism and the understanding of God as eternal, unchanging, and the necessary being upon which contingent beings depend. Thus, eliminating temporal distinctions does not negate the First Cause argument but rather affirms God's transcendent and necessary existence.
I could quote a number of thinkers, but numerous theologians/philosophers now take the stance that God is either temporal or sempiternal.
Dr. Allan Padgett writes:
"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 notes:
"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).
See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/06/god-time-and-stephen-t-davis.html
If the cause need not precede effect then there is no need for an uncaused cause because effects can then serve as there own cause, the only reason than an uncaused cause would be necessary if effects cannot serve as there own cause.
Regarding Origen, see pages 4-5 of this document: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=biblical_and_ministry_studies_presentations
Some books likewise argue that his thought overall is subordinationist.
Padgett’s interpretation is one perspective among many. Other scholars and theologians have long argued for the timeless nature of God based on biblical texts and theological reasoning. Psalm 90:2, Isaiah 40:28, and other cited passages emphasize God's eternal nature using human language. Psalm 90:2 and other scriptures emphasize God's eternality ("from everlasting to everlasting"), suggesting a transcendence over time rather than existence within it. While the OT might not *explicitly* frame God’s eternity in Boethian terms, it consistently portrays God as transcending temporal limitations. The terms "eternal" and "everlasting" in biblical Hebrew (עוֹלָם, olam) often indicate a qualitative difference from temporal existence, not merely an extension within time.
The philosophical argument for God’s timelessness is not solely dependent on scriptural exegesis but also on metaphysical considerations of God’s nature as the uncaused cause, which logically implies His transcendence over time. The view of God as timeless is deeply rooted in the Christian theological tradition, the notion of God being outside time avoids logical issues such as infinite regress in causal chains. As the uncaused cause, God’s existence must transcend time, which is a created entity.
Padgett's idea of "relative timelessness" attempts to reconcile God's interaction with temporal creation while maintaining divine immutability. However, this does not preclude the traditional understanding of God’s absolute timelessness.
While Einstein's theory of relativity addresses *physical* time, it doesn't preclude *metaphysical* timelessness. Divine atemporality can coexist with the empirical findings of modern physics. The metaphysical concepts of divine timelessness operates on a different plane than physical theories of time.
Stephen T. Davis: His comparison of time to numbers (suggesting it’s eternal) is a category error. Numbers are abstract entities, whereas time is a measure of change within the created order.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
Your argument assumes that effects can exist without prior causes, which contradicts the fundamental principle of causality. In both philosophy and science, every effect must have a preceding cause. The concept of an uncaused cause (or first cause) is not based on temporal succession but on the necessity of a foundational cause that itself is not caused by anything else. This foundational cause must exist outside of the sequence of temporal events to avoid an infinite regress. Your argument conflates temporal causality with metaphysical causality. An uncaused cause is not bound by temporal limitations and exists necessarily and independently, providing the basis for all contingent beings and events. Classical philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas argued for the necessity of an unmoved mover or first cause, not as a temporal beginning but as a necessary being whose existence is required to explain the existence of anything else. In theological terms, God is often described as the uncaused cause, existing eternally and independently of creation. This concept is supported by various theological and philosophical traditions that view God as the necessary being whose existence grounds all other beings.
@Edgar Foster
As I mentioned earlier, pre-fourth century subordinationists were often influenced more by the Greek Stoics’ doctrine of the Logos (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός), which spoke of different degrees of emanation from the Divine, rather than biblical hermeneutics. The Neoplatonic and Stoic Logos is the rational principle of the universe, upon which the existence, intelligibility, and moral and physical order of the world depend. This concept parallels human intellectual activity: first formulating a word internally, then expressing it. The subordinationists perceived the Son's origin as the Father eternally formulating His Word (Logos), but only speaking/uttering it in creation. However, this assumption was already rejected by Irenaeus.
The Church Fathers understood that the Logos, existing eternally in God, transcends the world. They explained its existence without compromising monotheism, though early figures like Justin Martyr couldn't avoid the appearance of subordination. Ignatius of Antioch was the first apostolic father to apply the term Logos to Christ, indicating that God's entire word and revelation appeared in Him due to His Trinitarian origin. For apologists like Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Theophilus, the Logos crystallized reality: as the Father's full Word, He is God, distinct from creatures, and stands alongside the Father as the only-begotten Son. The name Logos highlights His intellectual origin. The Father is always rational (logical), so the Logos is always with Him. However, the eternal generation, sonship, creation, mission, and incarnation's interrelations were not yet clarified, bringing Greek philosophical notions of word formulation and expression into the debate.
It's important to note that these pre-Arian theologians viewed the Son's subordination more from a soteriological or economic perspective, rather than ontologically, meaning it manifested only within the created world, not in the divine essence. They lacked the concept of consubstantiality, which was clarified later in debates with Monarchianism, Marcionism, and Arianism, where it was recognized that the divine persons differ only in their relational properties, not in their essence.
The Arians continued this speculation, considering unoriginatedness (being without principle) as a divine attribute applicable only to the Father, implying that the Son and the Holy Spirit, having their origin in the Father, could not be ontologically equal to Him and were thus creatures. They did not consider, as Western Fathers emphasized from the beginning, that unoriginatedness and self-existence pertain to the divine essence itself, which all three persons equally possess and are one with. The distinction lies only in the relational properties of the persons. The Son is begotten of the Father, sharing the Father's entire essence, not in time or succession, but in eternal existence.
Proper interpretation sought unity and distinction within the mystery. The names "Father" and "Son", along with the Logos, highlighted the distinction between absolute and relative existence. God is life and activity itself, but nothing new arises in Him; He is immutable. If the Son is His Word, identical with Him, then He surely expresses Himself fully in the Word, encompassing His entire essence as an infinite spirit who fully knows and can express Himself. The spoken Word, therefore, is consubstantial with Him, remaining within Him yet distinct as spoken is to speaker, as Son is to Father. Thus, the persons are distinguished only by relational opposition, without dividing the divine nature. The Father begets the Son by communicating His entire essence, not by giving part of Himself. This inner divine expression required precise terminology. What is one and common in the three persons is the essence (ousia, essentia) and nature (physis, natura), while what is three are the "persons" (hypostasis, persona, subsistentia, suppositum).
Regarding Padgett, as I stated earlier, he's not alone in rejecting the absolutely timeless view of God: Nelson Pike, G. Deweese, Nicholas Wolterstorff and others do likewise.
An INTERLOCUTOR once asked me:
"I am curious as to where John of Damascus speaks of time as having existed in an unmeasurable state prior to the coming into being of the created order. Wouldn't 'unmeasurable' time have to be indivisible, and thus atemporal?"
My reply:
I came across the references in Stephen T. Davis' Logic and the Nature of God. He culled the remarks of John of Damascus from a book written by Nelson Pike (God and Timelessness), which I have read and subsequently documented the references to John of Damascus for myself. You can find the Damascene's observations on time in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. His words appear on p. 181 of Nelson Pike's work. Keep in mind that Davis and Pike interpret John of Damascus as making the claim that God once existed in unmeasurable time or that unmeasurable time is somehow tied to God's nature.
You are the one who is arguing that the first cause does not precede his creation not me? If he is outside of time he does not precede his creation this would be a temporal distinction impossible for one outside of time. If there is such a thing as atemporality then effects don't require causes . First cause as necessary ground of being only works with time as eternal abstraction, once there is no time , any actuality could serve as its own explanation. Only with eternal time would prior potential be absolutely necessary to explain any effect. Outside of time any cause would be redundant.
This problem of redundancy extends to the Trinity as well. There are four distinct entities entitled absolute worship according to trinitatian dogma,there by rendering each of these four entities redundant
Ninc and Roman
You will both note that Jerome explicitly admits to Origens writings being tampered with…
Rufinus may well be the culprit, Ninc may have a slight point ( tho I doubt it, with their track record of accurate statements)
Ninc I would say this is concrete evidence they were.. and Ninc your not a credible source of information - anyone else on this blog is.. trinitarians included
Reference: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xx.html
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The concept of a First Cause, as posited by classical theism, does not require the First Cause to exist *temporally* before its effects. Instead, the First Cause exists eternally and its causation is not bound by temporal sequences. God, as an atemporal being, can cause temporal effects without being in time. Atemporality does not negate the need for causality. Even if God is atemporal, the relationship between cause and effect remains meaningful. God's causation is not an event in time but an eternal act, making Him the necessary foundation for all contingent beings.
The First Cause (God) does not need to *temporally* (only logically) precede creation because God's act of creation is an eternal act. Temporal succession is a feature of the created order, not of the Creator. The principle that effects require causes holds even in discussions of atemporality. The nature of causality in classical theism is such that God's causation is necessary and foundational, not temporal. The absence of time does not mean that any actuality can serve as its own explanation. Metaphysical principles, such as the need for a necessary being to ground contingent reality, apply regardless of temporal considerations.
Your assertion that the Trinity entails four distinct entities deserving of absolute worship is a misunderstanding of the doctrine. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not four entities. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine essence (ousia), making them one God. The distinction among them is based on their relational properties, not their essence. Each person is fully and completely God, not a part or a separate entity. Since the persons of the Trinity share one essence, there is no redundancy. They are not three gods but one God manifested in three persons. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They relate to each other in an eternal relationship of origin: the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son, according to the Western tradition). The doctrine of the Trinity is clear that there are not four entities but three persons in one God. The suggestion of four entities implies a misunderstanding of the doctrine and the unity of essence among the persons of the Trinity.
The concept of atemporality does not render causes redundant. Atemporal causation refers to a cause that exists outside of time, meaning that the cause and effect relationship is not bound by temporal sequence but by metaphysical necessity. In this framework, God’s act of creation is an eternal act, where God’s will to create and the existence of creation coexist eternally. Thus, prior potential is not eliminated but redefined as eternally present.
The First Cause argument posits that every contingent being requires an explanation grounded in a necessary being, which is God. This necessity is ontological rather than temporal. God as the First Cause provides the necessary existence upon which all contingent realities depend, irrespective of temporal sequences.
@Anonymous
You obviously should read the Ramelli paper: https://t.ly/apygn
While Jerome admitted that Origen's writings might have been tampered with, Gregory of Nyssa read Origen in the original Greek and confirmed the authenticity of the anti-subordinationist sections. Rufinus, while acknowledging possible interpolations, aimed to preserve Origen's original thought, he argued that heretics might have altered Origen's works but believed the core teachings remained intact. Ramelli highlights that Gregory’s arguments in his work "In Illud: Tunc et Ipse Filius" are derived entirely from Origen. Gregory's use of Origen’s ideas, even down to specific verbal echoes, indicates that the original Greek texts were consistent with the anti-subordinationist stance that Gregory defended.
"Nyssen’s arguments in In Illud: Tunc et Ipse Filius entirely derive from Origen... confirming that Origen was not the forerunner of ‘Arianism,’... but the main inspirer of the Cappadocians" (Ramelli, p. 21-24).
Athanasius, a staunch opponent of Arianism, defended Origen’s Christology. If Origen’s views were Arian, Athanasius would have opposed rather than supported him. Ramelli's research confirms that Athanasius appreciated Origen's contributions to Trinitarian theology.
"Origen inspired Marcellus, who was anti-Arian, Eusebius, who in fact was no ‘Arian,’ Athanasius, the champion of anti-Arianism, and the Cappadocians" (Ramelli, p. 21-25).
The anti-Origenist councils did not condemn Origen’s Christology but rather other aspects of his teachings. This suggests that Origen’s views on the Trinity were not considered heretical by the later orthodox standards. Ramelli discusses the influence and reception of Origen’s works across various figures, confirming his positive influence on orthodox Trinitarian thought (Ramelli, p. 25-27).
While Rufinus did make changes to Origen’s texts, the essential anti-subordinationist content remained intact, and there are multiple attestations from reliable sources that support Origen's orthodoxy. For instance, Socrates Scholasticus notes that Origen supported the title theotokos for Mary, which aligns with orthodox Christology.
"Origen’s interpretation, like that of Gregory afterwards, already attacked a subordinationistic reading... confirming that Rufinus did not distort Origen’s thought and wording" (Ramelli, p. 23-24).
Gregory of Nyssa and other Cappadocians, who read Origen in Greek, provide independent confirmation of Origen's anti-subordinationist stance. This corroborates the authenticity of the contested passages and supports the view that Rufinus' translations reflect Origen's original thought.
"Gregory of Nyssa, who read Origen’s original Greek, followed him in a decided anti-subordinationism" (Ramelli, p. 26).
Once the need for prior potential is eliminated there us no necessity period. Metaphysical necessity can only be asserted not rationally demonstrated, there us mathematical or logical proof that anyone can put forward to demonstrate the necessity of cause once the necessity of prior potential has been removed so once again we must reject your argument by assertion and credentialism
If there was never a time when the thing did not exist there is no need to posit a cause as an explanation for its existence.
It is scholarly consensus Origen was a subortionist
You are trying to rewrite history…
Why do the fragments differ then?
You can reverse google search this quote
“ “Candidus maintains that the Son is of the substance of the Father, falling into the error of asserting a Probolé or Production.3125 On the other side, Origen, like Arius and Eunomius, refuses to admit that He is produced or born, lest God the Father should thus be divided into parts; but he says that He was a sublime and most excellent creation who came into being by the will of the Father like other creatures. “ - yeah…. Trinitarians tampered with Origens writings to suit their agenda
“But we see that in this Dialogue alone Origen accuses the heretics of having falsified his writings, not in the other books about which no question was ever raised. Otherwise, if we are to believe that all which is heretical is not due to Origen but to the heretics, while almost all his books are full of these errors, nothing of Origen’s will remain, but everything must be the work of those of whose names we are ignorant”
I will be interested to research that paper further as one source you previously cited made inaccurate claims about Hebrews 1:2,3regarding ho on…. Fun fact: That doesn’t appear in Hebrews 1:2,3- hence your lack of credibility
For Origen, also see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2006/07/origen-and-eternal-generation-of-son.html
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a5c5157a-38e2-41f4-982c-b1f887ae6a4e/files/rkk91fk54h
Mark Edwards' paper about Origen.
During the Origenist crisis, many heretical views were falsely attributed to Origen. The Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD) condemned some of his views but did not condemn his Christology, suggesting his views were not seen as Arian. The Second Council of Constantinople included 15 canons condemning certain teachings of Origen and Evagrius but did not condemn his Christology, indicating it was not seen as heretical.
Saint Augustine states (Trinit. I 4, 7): "As many of the ancient interpreters of the Old and New Testaments as I could consult, all endeavored to teach, based on Scripture, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are an inseparable unity, showing the unity of the same divine substance, and therefore there are not three Gods, but one God." Modern Protestant dogma historians claim that pre-Nicene fathers generally taught subordinationist tritheism and partly Sabellianism; even post-Nicene Greeks (especially the Cappadocians) were accused of concealed tritheism, and the Latins (Augustine; Damascene too) of concealed Sabellianism. This is not "scholarly consensus," but just a biased thesis of modernist historiography.
This view stems from the ingrained rationalist misconception that a) Christ did not impart mysteries; b) such mysteries are impossible; and c) supposed dogmas arise from a syncretistic compromise, specifically between Semitic monotheistic "instinct" and European, particularly Greek, polytheistic inclinations, created solely by the Church's authoritative decree. Until this authoritative settlement silenced all opposition, minds followed one of the two conflicting thought streams forming the dogma, neglecting the other.
However, this stance is generally unproven, unprovable, and unreasonable. It contradicts reality in details, notably in Trinitarian theology. Anyone ignoring the fact and laws of dogma development and naively or stubbornly seeking the final product (the theologically formulated dogma) at its beginning will always be unjust to the tradition's testimony.
Origen (Origen. Princip. praef.) says (in Rufinus's translation): The essence of the apostolic preaching is the Father; then the Son, "who was incarnate and became man, though He was God, and as a man remained what He was: God. The Holy Spirit is the companion of the Father and Son in honor and dignity. Here, it is not clear (from apostolic preaching) whether He is begotten or unbegotten (γεννητὸς; according to Jerome (Hieron. Epist. 94.), Rufinus falsified Origen here, who actually questioned: γενητός, that is, whether the Spirit came into being in time). This, therefore, we must determine from Scripture as best we can." Given that he sometimes writes, "In the Trinity, nothing should be said to be greater or lesser" (Princip. praef. 3; cf. in Jn 2; In Rom 5, 8, 7, 13.), it is understandable why Pamphilus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Eusebius defended Origen's Trinitarian theology. Athanasius affirmed the correctness of his doctrinal teachings. It is certain that his enthusiastic disciple, Gregory Thaumaturgus, clearly taught: "One God, the Father of the living Word... one Lord, one from one, God from God... one Holy Spirit, whose existence is from God; a complete Trinity, undivided and unseparated in glory, eternity, and dominion." The testimony gains weight as Gregory’s expression of faith was known and used by ordinary believers, as testified by Macrina, the grandmother of Gregory of Nyssa.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The necessity of cause does not solely depend on the concept of prior potential. The principle of causality is foundational in metaphysics and asserts that every contingent being or event must have a cause. Even if something existed eternally, it still requires an explanation for its existence. The concept of a necessary being, such as God in classical theism, is posited as an uncaused cause that provides the foundation for the existence of all contingent beings. The necessity of a cause can be logically demonstrated. For example, the cosmological argument asserts that everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe has a cause. Without a necessary cause, one would fall into an infinite regress of causes, which is philosophically problematic and does not provide a sufficient explanation for existence. In summary, the concept of metaphysical necessity and causality remains rationally demonstrable, and the existence of eternal beings still requires a foundational cause. This upholds the argument for a first cause or necessary being.
If there was never a time the thing did not exists clearly it serves as its own explanation, if time is finite/contingent then there was never a time the universe did not exists and hence it can serve as its own explanation. There would be no need to posit a cause as an explanation for a thing that has existed for all time, there is no before or after time those are temporal designations and would not apply apart from time. You use words like begin and contingent none of those words can rationally be applied apart from time.
You use atemporal an eternal interchangeably when the two concepts are opposites what is of eternal duration is vastly different from what is of no duration which would be the case of the atemporal,an eternal being can serve as his own cause he needs no other cause.
The eternal being can serve as his own sustainer he needs no sustainer apart from himself,that is what makes him uniquely qualified to serve as first cause, that is the issue if the universe existed for all time it can serve as its own cause which in this case would mean sustainer rather than Creator, so the first cause argument collapses, if there was never a time the thing did not exists it is not contingent,
The eternal would be the One who is of eternal duration,the atemporal would necessarily be of no duration,the eternal can serve as his own sustainer, the atemporal would need no sustainer.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The concept of contingency refers to things that do not contain within themselves the reason for their own existence. Even if something has always existed in time, it could still be contingent if its existence is not necessary but depends on an external cause. Eternity in classical theistic philosophy is understood as the timeless, changeless existence of God, not as an endless duration within time. Atemporal existence means existing outside of time altogether, whereas eternal duration refers to an unending sequence of moments. These concepts are not opposites but reflect different ways of understanding being. God's eternity is atemporal, meaning He exists outside of and independent from time. This does not imply He is in a sequence of temporal moments but that His existence is a single, indivisible present. The principle of causality does not strictly depend on temporal succession. A cause can be logically prior without being temporally prior. For example, a timeless cause (God) can bring about a temporal effect (the universe) without existing before it in a temporal sense. The argument that an eternal being can serve as his own cause is flawed because it assumes that something contingent (the universe) could have necessary existence. However, if something is contingent, its existence must be explained by something outside itself.
The universe, even if it existed eternally, could still be contingent. Contingency means that its existence depends on something else, not that it exists within a timeframe. An eternal being like God is considered necessary, meaning His existence is self-sustained and not dependent on anything else. Eternal in this context does not merely mean endless duration but a state of existence that is fundamentally different from temporal existence. Atemporal existence implies being outside of time, which aligns with the concept of God in classical theism. This is different from an eternal universe existing in time.
The First Cause argument posits that there must be a necessary being (God) that explains the existence of the universe. If the universe is contingent (its existence is not necessary), it cannot serve as its own cause or sustainer. It would still require an external, necessary cause to explain its existence. Sustaining existence is different from initiating it. The universe existing eternally does not explain why it exists rather than not existing. The necessity of a sustainer (God) is to explain not just the continuation but the very existence of the universe.
No if a thing is has always existed a cause is not necessary . It is the necessity of a cause that makes the argument work . If cause is not necessary to explain the thing the argument will not work there is no rational way to prove that a thing that has always existed has a cause and it will certainly not need a cause, anything that has always existed can be explain in terms of itself any assertion that the thing that has always existed has a cause would be nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion.
The woulda,coulda,shoulda, is the end of your argument ,you need to demonstrate rationally that a first cause is NECESSARY For the first cause argument to work.
“ This is not "scholarly consensus," but just a biased thesis of modernist historiography.” - so prove the scholars wrong then - with an actual academic work, not theologically motivated rubbish… I’m begging you to prove the Witnesses wrong with actual scholarly debate…
And a consensus is a concensus whether you agree with it or not…
There is a concensus among a faction that Christ never existed… I don’t personally agree but I wouldn’t call it bias or “modernist” - it’s a concensus none the less. but atleast these people can be honorable and actually debate honestly..
Origen notes only the father is autotheos the son is not… also noting the son is NOT the creator..
Justin says God alone is unbegotten also noting the father is the creator.
Again you are so desperate to prove the trinity to yourself your willing to rewrite history and try to discard credible sources as “bias” when infact it is you yourself who is only assuming trinitarianism..
Someone pointed out you need to show more respect to your fellow trinitarians - I would agree
Edgar,
I have a question for you:
While considering the "orthodox" misuse of Ps. 2:7 to support "eternal generation," have you found that the misuse increased once lexicographers adopted the view that μονογενὴς means "unique, one-of-a-kind" and not "only-begotten"? The (ab)use of Ps. 2:7 to support EG seems so desperate that I can't help but wonder if the perceived loss of John 1:18 has led some to search for other texts that they believe can be made to support their post-biblical doctrine.
To clarify, my question isn't meant to suggest that "only-begotten" at John 1:18 necessarily supports EG either, as it's pretty clear to me that the John 1:18 is referring to the resurrected Son (note the aorist ἐξηγήσατο), not the Son prior to his earthly life. However, in my experience, John 1:18 was and remains a central EG text, as one can easily infer by noting how some argue that the lexicographers are mistaken about μονογενὴς.
Note: The above should not be taken to suggest that I'm committed to either side of the μονογενὴς debate, though I do find that "unique" fits quite well at John 1:18, contextually, regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of its perceived lexicographical merits.
Sean, my inclination is to say that John 1:18 is not the primary reason that some Trinitarians appeal to Psalm 27 as support for the eternal generation doctrine. It's an old belief and we find it prolifically in the church fathers. See https://www.atsjats.org/tornalejo-reexamining-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son-ats-2016.pdf
However, I'm not sure who first used Psalm 2:7 this way.
It looks like Cyril of Jerusalem used Psalm 2:7 long ago and also see https://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/2-7.htm
Use the search term "eternal generation," and check A. Barnes' comments.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The concept of causality in classical theology and philosophy is not limited to temporal beginnings but also includes sustaining causes. Thomas Aquinas argues that even if the universe always existed, it would still need a sustaining cause. This cause is God, who continuously sustains all contingent beings. Contingency doesn't solely depend on temporal beginnings but on the nature of the entity. An eternal universe could still be contingent if it relies on something else for its existence. The provided document mentions the principle of sufficient reason: Everything that exists has a reason for its existence, either in itself or in another. This principle supports the need for a cause or explanation even for an eternally existing entity. A necessary being (God) has the reason for existence within itself, while contingent beings (including an eternal universe) do not. Therefore, even an eternal universe would require a cause that is necessary and self-sustaining. Everything that exists has a sufficient reason, so contingent entities, regardless of their eternal duration, need a cause. Your argument confuses temporal causality with ontological causality. God, as an atemporal being, can cause and sustain the universe without being temporally prior to it. The argument that an eternal entity does not require a cause is flawed because it conflates different types of causality and misunderstands the nature of contingency. The principles of sufficient reason and contingency, along with the classical theological understanding of God's sustaining causality, demonstrate that even an eternally existing universe would still need a cause, which is a necessary being, God.
The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or cause. This principle, fundamental to metaphysics, implies that the existence of anything, including the universe, must be explained by something beyond itself. There is a metaphysical principle "Everything that exists has a sufficient reason", reinforcing the necessity of a cause for the universe. The argument for a first cause begins with the observation that contingent beings exist. Contingent beings are those whose existence is not necessary and could be otherwise. Their existence demands an explanation or cause. A necessary being (God) is posited because an infinite regress of contingent causes is not feasible. As explained in the document, the ultimate cause must be necessary and not contingent. Aristotle and Aquinas argue that a first cause is necessary to avoid an infinite regress of causes. Aquinas' "Five Ways" include the argument from motion, causation, and contingency, all pointing to the necessity of a first cause. The efficient cause produces an effect, and a series of efficient causes must logically lead to a first, uncaused cause. The cosmological argument posits that because the universe exists and contains contingent beings, there must be a first cause that is necessary and not contingent. This argument is based on empirical observation and rational deduction, not merely assertion. It concludes that a necessary being, God, is the rational explanation for the existence of the universe. The necessity of a first cause is consistent with the metaphysical principles of causality and contingency. Without a first cause, the existence of anything cannot be adequately explained.
The necessity of a first cause is rationally demonstrated through the principle of sufficient reason (or cause), the nature of contingency and necessity, and classical philosophical arguments. The assertion that the first cause is merely an unsubstantiated claim is refuted by the comprehensive metaphysical framework that necessitates a first cause to explain the existence of contingent beings and the universe itself.
@Anonymous
It is a misunderstanding to assume that my arguments against Jehovah's Witnesses are emotionally driven or unique to this context. I apply the same rigorous standards and fervor in debates across various heresies and in my professional work in the courtroom. Consistent passion for truth is not indicative of bias but of dedication to accuracy and integrity.
In the humanities, the concept of "scholarly consensus" differs significantly from that in natural sciences. Due to the interpretative nature of historical and theological studies, consensus is often more fragmented and subject to ongoing debate. Thus, asserting a monolithic consensus on theological matters oversimplifies the reality of scholarly discourse.
Nicaean theology also maintains that only the Father is "autotheos" because He is the principle without principle. This is not contradictory to Trinitarian doctrine but rather emphasizes the unique roles within the Trinity. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Good morning.
To claim that Origen explicitly stated "the Son is not Creator" requires precise sourcing. Origen's extensive writings are complex, and interpretations vary. Citing specific passages rather than modernist interpretations ensures accuracy. It is crucial to differentiate between Origen's original texts and later interpretations or translations that might misrepresent his views.
Athanasius, a staunch opponent of Arianism, defended Origen's Christology, which indicates that Origen's views were not aligned with Arianism. If Origen had clear Arian tendencies, Athanasius would have opposed him. Furthermore, the Second Council of Constantinople did not condemn Origen's Christology, suggesting his views were not considered heretical by the orthodox standards of the time. You haven't adressed this argument at all.
While scholarly debate is essential, it is crucial to ground arguments in historical accuracy and the broader context of theological development. Misrepresentations of Origen's views and oversimplifications of an alleged, so-called "scholarly consensus" undermine the integrity of the debate.
@Sean Kasabuske
The word "monogenes" has been traditionally understood as "only-begotten," but recent linguistic research suggests it means "unique" or "one-of-a-kind." The argument relies on the assertion that "monogenes" derives from "genos" (kind) rather than "gennao" (to beget). This understanding fits the context of the New Testament passages better than the interpretation implying a *temporal* generation. The term "monogenes" is indeed better translated as "unique" or "one-of-a-kind" rather than "only-begotten." This aligns with linguistic studies showing that "monogenes" derives from "monos" (only) and "genos" (kind) rather than "gennao" (to beget). This is evident in verses like Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham's "monogenes," despite Abraham having other sons. The proper Greek term for "only-begotten" would be "monogennetos." Thus, the argument that lexicographers mistakenly translate "monogenes" as "unique" misunderstands the linguistic roots of the term.
The application of Psalm 2:7 in early Christian writings is complex and has been interpreted in various ways. The shift in understanding "monogenes" does not necessarily correlate with increased misuse of Psalm 2:7 to support EG. Early church fathers used Psalm 2:7 in Christological contexts long before the modern lexicographical shift. Additionally, understanding "monogenes" as "unique" does not negate the theological concept of EG. Rather, it highlights the unique, unparalleled relationship between the Father and the Son, which is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.
John 1:18, referring to the "monogenes theos" (unique God), emphasizes the unique nature of the Son’s relationship with the Father. The aorist tense "ἐξηγήσατο" (has made known) indeed points to the incarnate and resurrected Christ revealing the Father. The interpretation of John 1:18 does not hinge solely on the term "monogenes" but on the broader Johannine context that presents the Son as eternally with the Father (John 1:1) and uniquely revealing Him (John 1:18).
https://www.academia.edu/77803056
https://www.fromreformationtoreformation.com/post/de-moor-v-10-the-son-as-autotheos-part-1
https://www.fromreformationtoreformation.com/post/de-moor-v-10-the-son-as-autotheos-part-2
https://www.fromreformationtoreformation.com/post/de-moor-v-10-the-son-as-autotheos-part-3
Normally think of cause as a source of change.
If the universe has always existed then it could serve as the source of its own preservation, it would not NEED a source outside of itself. Or there could be a loop of eternal causes rather than a first cause. JEHOVAH alone is his own reason or "cause" because He is the one eternally enduring concrete reality. So you continue to . You need to demonstrate that an eternal concrete reality needs a "cause" outside of itself ,so you yet to address the issue,
You cannot rightly expect people to pay attention to what you have to say if you keep making it clear that you have no interest in what they have to say.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
Your argument presupposes that the universe, if it has always existed, doesn't need an external cause. However, in philosophical and theological discussions, a fundamental principle is that everything that changes or moves is caused by something else, this principle is foundational in classical metaphysics. This leads us to the necessity of a first cause or a prime mover, which itself is unchanging and unmoved. For there to be change or motion, there must be a first cause that itself is not moved or changed by anything else. This first cause, which initiates all change without itself being changed, is what we understand as God.
The universe, even if it has always existed, is contingent – it could conceivably not exist or exist differently. Therefore, it requires an explanation or cause outside itself. An infinite regress of causes does not provide a sufficient reason for the universe’s existence. This is why classical theists argue for a necessary being – one whose existence is not contingent but necessary and self-sufficient. According to classical theism, only a necessary being (God) has the quality of aseity, meaning He exists by the necessity of His own nature and is not dependent on anything else for His existence. This makes Him uniquely qualified to be the first cause.
The Nature of Change
I. Definition and Understanding
Change is an integral part of experiential reality, as inseparable as quality. While intuitive, change becomes elusive when confined to concepts. Aristotle offers two notable characterizations:
* Transition from One State to Another: This involves a starting point, an endpoint, and the transition itself, which is the essence of change. Without distinction between these points, change cannot be perceived.
* Actualization of Potential: Change is the actualization of a potential state while maintaining its potential status, as illustrated by the motion of a plane towards a destination.
II. Aristotle’s Four Types of Change
Aristotle identifies four types of change:
1. Local Motion (motus localis): Movement in space, like the movement of a clock's hands.
2. Qualitative Change (alteratio): Change in quality, such as blushing or boiling water.
3. Quantitative Change (augmentatio et diminutio): Change in quantity, like the inflation of a ball.
4. Substantial Change (generatio et corruptio): Creation and destruction, like the birth of an organism or the formation of a compound.
III. Reality of Change
The existence of change as a phenomenon is undeniable. However, its philosophical processing presents challenges due to the static nature of concepts that struggle to encapsulate the fluidity of change. Heraclitus saw only change as real, while the Eleatics denied change altogether. Aristotle reconciles these views by acknowledging that something remains constant (in line with the Eleatics), while something else changes (in line with Heraclitus).
IV. Causes and Metaphysics
Aristotle’s theory of causality solves the logical and metaphysical problem of change:
• Efficient Cause: The agent that brings about change.
• Formal Cause: The idea or form realized in the change.
• Material Cause: The substance that undergoes change.
• Final Cause: The purpose or end for which the change occurs.
V. The Nature and Reality of Time
Time, like space, raises philosophical questions that can be approached through various perspectives, including extreme realism (Plotinus and Newton) and idealism (Kant). Aristotle offers a middle-ground theory:
1. Definition: Time is the measurement of continuous sequences of changes. Every change occurs in time, characterized by the sequence of moments that are not identical but transition from one to the next. Aristotle defines time as "the number of movement according to before and after" (tempus est numerus motus secundum prius et posterius - Arist. Phys. IV 10).
2. Universality: Time is more universal than space, as all created beings are subject to time. Space exists within time, but not vice versa. Each process has its own internal time, and external time is measured by the duration of other processes that could occur within the same span. Ideal time, abstracted from these processes, becomes a conceptual measure.
3. Practical Measurement: In practice, we use regular movements (like the Earth's rotation or a pendulum's swing) to measure time. Ideal time, being a conceptual constant, serves as a benchmark for comparing real durations and assessing whether processes are fast, slow, uniform, or variable.
4. Psychological and Physical Time: Psychological time, experienced subjectively, can differ from physical time measured objectively. Subjective time can feel fast or slow depending on the events filling it, while objective time remains constant.
5. Characteristics of Time:
o Continuous and Quantitative: Time is continuous and one-dimensional, making it subject to the same principles as continuous quantities, such as infinite divisibility.
o Directional: Time moves in one direction, from past to future, making it non-homogeneous and non-reversible. Elements of time cannot be exchanged or reversed.
“To claim that Origen explicitly stated "the Son is not Creator" requires precise sourcing.” - which I have cited before, Origen makes a distinction between upo (by) and dia (through)
He reasons if it was made “dia” the son it was not made “by” the son but one greater and who else could that be but the father.
Semi- Paraphrase of what he stated
“Thus, asserting a monolithic consensus on theological matters oversimplifies the reality of scholarly discourse.” - yet you present nicean theology as fact? Which is not inherently true either as it’s full of stuff like neo-platism
You have omitted important information regarding this Origen v Atha topic
If the movement is eternal it can account for itself only if the movement is finite does it need am outside cause that is basic logic,only if the thing began to move do we need an explanation from outside it,if it has Always been moving then the movement is not evidence of change. Only change needs an explanation from outside.
If the thing is subject to decay then that would indicate that it is finite and then an explanation from outside would be required. Things tend to keep moving at a constant pace unless they are accelerated or decelerate by an external cause, motion itself would not necessarily require an external cause as explanation.
Only the finite requires an explanation outside of itself the infinite never does. The first cause argument is re:the finite not the infinite.
The kalam cosmological argument:Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
@Anonymous
I requested precise sourcing, and even so, this alleged statement by Origen you've provided does not equal a concrete declaration that "the Son is NOT creator." It is significant that in the 4th-5th centuries, orthodox fathers did not attack Origen's Christology, although they did challenge many of his other views, such as the preexistence of souls. This is significant because the WTS presupposes that orthodox church authorities, purged all other doctrinal systems. This selective targeting of Origen's views indicates that his Christology was not seen as heretical or problematic by those standards.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
Your argument that eternal motion can account for itself without needing an external cause relies on a misunderstanding of both motion and causality. Even if a motion were eternal, it does not mean it doesn't require a cause. Philosophically, an eternal series of events still necessitates a grounding explanation. Infinite regression does not solve the problem; it merely postpones it. According to this principle, everything must have an explanation, either in itself or in another. Eternal motion still requires an explanation for its existence and perpetuity, which cannot be found within the motion itself. Objects in motion remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. This law applies to objects already in motion, but it does not address the initial cause of motion. The existence of motion implies an initial mover or a sustaining force. While you correctly state that decay implies finitude, this doesn't negate the need for a cause in non-decaying entities. Eternal existence still requires a sustaining cause that explains its necessity. An eternal being, such as God, is fundamentally different from temporal entities. God’s existence and actions are not subject to time, change, or decay, which distinguishes divine causality from finite causality.
Your argument also overlooks the philosophical problem of infinite regress. An infinite series of causes still demands an explanation. Without a first cause, the series lacks a foundation, leading to logical inconsistencies. The Kalam cosmological argument addresses the beginning of the universe. Even if the universe were infinite, its sustained existence and the laws governing it require an explanation. The argument asserts that anything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe, having begun, necessitates a cause. This principle posits that everything must have a reason or cause, whether finite or infinite. Infinite existence still needs an underlying cause to explain its reality. The concept of the infinite in philosophy and theology typically refers to an uncaused, necessary being (e.g., God) whose existence explains itself and everything else. This being is fundamentally different from the infinite series you describe.
"I requested precise sourcing," - I have requested sources from you before, credible ones at that and you have failed to provide - you first..
But since I have honour ill provide:
https://biblehub.com/library/origen/origens_commentary_on_the_gospel_of_john/6_how_the_word_is.htm
"And the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews: [4680] "At the end of the days He spoke to us in His Son, whom He made the heir of all things, through whom' also He made the ages," showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the "through whom" belonging, when the ages were being made, to the Only-begotten. Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father?"
"It is significant that in the 4th-5th centuries, orthodox fathers did not attack Origen's Christology" - again you are not being entirely forthcoming with all information and omitting certain portions that you deem not relevant
Nothing eternal would require sustenance outside of itself, it is inconceivable that an object with no beginning could ever end .so again we must reject your argument by assertion. No there could be an eternal loop to explain constant motion there need be no grounding explanation outside the unoriginal object.
There is no problem of infinite regress if the object possesses infinite potential. The ground would then be within rather than outside there need be no ground outside the unoriginated object we've been here before. An object with no beginning would be indestructible simply by reason of being unoriginated, there need be no explanation outside if itself for its continued existence and therefore the continued existence of any of its eternal characteristics. The idea that an eternal object would need a ground outside itself is irrational. Only an originated being would need sustenance outside of itself.
Thomas Aquinas was wrong.
If the universe were infinite it could serve as its own sustainer,it is inconceivable that an object without a beginning could ever end, such an object would be indestructible simply by reason of its being unoriginated. Thus the explanation for its continued existence and the continued existence of its characteristics would be within the unoriginated object not outside,the kalam argument begins by acknowledging that only an object with a beginning requires a explanation outside of itself,in the Bible there is only a single unoriginated object,the mere fact that JEHOVAH is unoriginated makes him the ground for all explanations both about himself and what he causes to be.
The moment one multiplies eternal concrete realities one not only destroys the first cause argument one opens the door to polytheism/pantheism/paganism as well,
Better to not go beyond what us written in JEHOVAH'S inspired word and confess the one eternal reality,JEHOVAH Himself.
1Corinthians Ch.4:6NIV"Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other."
Is the Logos an uncaused cause?
Is the GOD who caused the Logos distinct from the Logos?
Is the GOD who caused the Logos the triune God?
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The claim that eternal objects do not require sustenance outside of themselves assumes that eternal existence inherently provides the means for self-sustenance. However, this assertion lacks evidence. The nature of eternal objects and their need for sustenance remains a philosophical and theological debate, not a settled fact. While it's intuitive to think an eternal object would not end, this does not address whether it needs an external sustenance. The argument presumes that eternal existence negates any need for a sustaining cause, but this doesn't necessarily follow logically. Something being eternal does not inherently explain its nature or sustenance. Proposing an eternal loop to explain constant motion avoids addressing the grounding explanation. Infinite regress, even if conceptualized as a loop, still demands a foundation. Without a grounding cause, the loop's very nature remains unexplained. The assertion that an object with infinite potential doesn't need an external ground lacks philosophical grounding. Infinite potential within an object still doesn't explain the origin or sustaining nature of its existence. Even with infinite potential, the question of why this potential exists or is sustained remains open. Claiming that an unoriginated object is indestructible doesn't address the need for an explanation of its existence and sustenance. Philosophically, the nature of being unoriginated requires an explanation just as much as originated beings do. The idea that eternal objects do not need an external ground is a contentious philosophical stance. Many arguments, especially in classical theism, propose that even eternal objects derive their nature and existence from an ultimate cause, often posited as God. Dismissing Aquinas' arguments without engaging with them fully is not sufficient. Aquinas' arguments for the necessity of a first cause, even for eternal entities, are based on deep metaphysical principles that require thorough engagement to refute.
The assertion that an infinite universe could sustain itself doesn't address the need for a fundamental explanation. Even if the universe were infinite, it would still require a reason for its specific nature and existence. Philosophically, the universe having no beginning does not inherently explain its existence or characteristics. While it's intuitive to think an unoriginated object is indestructible, this doesn't eliminate the need for an explanation. The nature of being unoriginated does not address why it exists or why it continues to exist. The mere fact of being eternal does not negate the need for an underlying reason or cause. The Kalam Cosmological Argument posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This does not necessarily imply that only things with a beginning need an explanation. The argument primarily addresses the universe's beginning, but the need for a cause or explanation can extend to infinite or eternal entities as well. The principle of sufficient reason still applies, requiring an explanation for any existing thing's nature and existence. The biblical perspective, as mentioned, acknowledges a single unoriginated being, God. This theological stance posits God as the ultimate ground of all being and explanations. However, this does not negate the philosophical argument that all things, including an infinite universe, require an explanation. The theological assertion of God's unoriginated nature supports the idea of a necessary being but does not directly refute the need for explaining the universe's existence. The argument that an infinite universe requires no external explanation overlooks the philosophical need for a sufficient reason for its existence and properties. The existence of any entity, whether finite or infinite, logically calls for an explanation. Without this, the concept of existence lacks a foundational basis, leading to an incomplete understanding of being.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The First Cause argument, as traditionally formulated, posits a single necessary being that is the cause of all contingent beings. Multiplying eternal realities does not inherently destroy this argument but rather complicates it. It still stands that all contingent realities require a foundational cause. Introducing multiple eternal realities does not necessarily lead to polytheism or pantheism. Monotheism posits ONE ultimate, necessary being (God) from which all existence derives. Multiple eternal realities could be different aspects or manifestations of a single divine essence without contradicting monotheism. 1 Corinthians 4:6 advises not to go beyond what is written, emphasizing humility and adherence to scripture. This does not preclude philosophical exploration or theological interpretation within the bounds of faith. Exploring the nature of eternal realities can be aligned with deepening understanding rather than contradicting scripture. The assertion of God as the singular eternal reality aligns with traditional Christian theology, which holds that God is the necessary being and the source of all existence. This does not preclude the existence of other eternal truths or realities that are part of God's nature or creation.
To address the question of whether the Logos (the Son) is an uncaused cause, we must delve into the theological nuances of the Trinity. In Christian theology, particularly within the framework of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, the concept of the uncaused cause is attributed to God in His entirety, encompassing all three persons of the Trinity: the Father, the Son (Logos), and the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Trinity is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal. This means that no person within the Trinity *temporally* precedes or causes the other. Instead, they exist in an eternal relationship characterized by different modes of origin. The Father is not the cause of the Son in a temporal sense but is the source or principle in a relational sense.The distinctions within the Trinity are based on logical, not temporal, relationships. The Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. These processes are eternal, not bound by time, indicating no chronological sequence or dependency as found in created beings. The early Church Fathers, such as Augustine, used analogies like the sun and its rays or intellectual conception to explain these relationships. These analogies highlight that the Son's and Spirit's origins do not imply a beginning or a need for an external cause but reflect an eternal relationship within the Godhead.
@Anonymous
Origen does not explicitly state here that the Son is not Creator. Instead, he simply makes a distinction between "by" (hypo) and "through" (dia) in describing the Logos' role. This is a terminological distinction rooted in biblical language and does not negate the Son’s creative function. The term "greater" (meizon) used by Origen does not imply ontological superiority. As seen in Matthew 11:11 and Acts 20:35, "greater" can be understood contextually to mean the Father’s role in granting divinity to the Son through eternal generation, not an indication of the Son being a lesser deity. The Church Fathers did not attack Origen's Christology in the 4th-5th centuries because his views, though sometimes complex, mainly aligned with orthodox interpretations. The use of “through” instead of “by” is consistent with acknowledging the distinct roles within the Trinity without compromising the unity and equality of the divine persons.
In Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, he discusses the relationship between the Father, the Son (Logos), and the Holy Spirit. He uses biblical terminology to describe how creation was made “through” the Logos, implying the Father’s primacy in the act of creation. Origen suggests that the Holy Spirit might be created through the Logos, exploring the notion that while the Father is the ultimate creator, the Son participates in the creative process. He differentiates between the roles within the Trinity without negating the divinity of the Son or the Spirit. Origen emphasizes the use of “through” (dia) rather than “by” (hypo) to describe the Son’s role in creation, simply aligning with biblical terminology. The use of "greater" (meizon) indicates functional, not ontological, hierarchy. The Father grants divinity to the Son through eternal generation. Origen's views mainly fit within the broader orthodox tradition, acknowledging the distinct roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while maintaining their unity and divinity. Origen’s exploration of the Holy Spirit’s creation through the Logos is speculative, aiming to understand the relationships within the Trinity.
Origen’s argument does not deny the Son’s role as Creator but rather emphasizes the collaborative and distinct roles within the Trinity using theological and biblical terminology. This nuanced approach mainly fits within the broader context of orthodox Christian theology.
Logic tells us that unoriginated being would be indestructible,there is no need to look outside of this being for an explanation it would be a violation of occam's razor.
In the absence of firsthand evidence we stick with the simplest explanation. And again once you multiply eternal beings, there is no guarantee that any of those eternal beings are going to be contingent so yes polytheism is as good a guess as anything else in that situation. Your insistence that an eternal being must have sustenance outside itself is nothing but an unfounded assertion,
I am nor asking whether the Logos is divine or not ,is he the the uncaused cause?
“Origen does not explicitly state here that the Son is not Creator. Instead, he simply makes a distinction between "by" (hypo) and "through" (dia) in describing the Logos' role. This is a terminological distinction rooted in biblical language and does not negate the Son’s creative function.” -
1. where do I try to negate the sons role in creation? Please cite where I do this… you are actually annoying me at this point ( not that I respect you anyway)
2. It kinda does negate Logos being the creator, as the usage of these prepositions in “biblical language” distinguish between the original and the agent
“The term "greater" (meizon) used by Origen does not imply ontological superiority. As seen in Matthew 11:11 and Acts 20:35,” -
word doesn’t occur in acts 20:35?
Regarding Matt 11:11 - in the role John played, strictly speaking yes that would involve ontological superiority - in his role John is superior to all the others of said role..
( let’s see if Ninc can figure out what I mean or will they go on a theologically motivated rant)
“"greater" can be understood contextually to mean the Father’s role in granting divinity to the Son through eternal generation” - context is the Logos, role in creation and if the Holy Spirit was made through him.. Origen has not mentioned the word “divinity” or “deity” once…. You are a liar plain and simple.
There is NO reason to read the text in that manner unless you are desperate to force a belief down others throats ( which you are also failing at- you still have to get around Clement usages)
“The Church Fathers did not attack Origen's Christology in the 4th-5th centuries because his views, though sometimes complex” - because by that time Origens original writings had been tampered with - so it’s obvious they wouldn’t attack them - again Jerome explicitly admits to this… you can’t get around this fact.
Some of Origens views were considered heresy and in multiple places he doesn’t make a meaningful distinction between Christ and creation.. infact I believe in one writing Christ’s identification with an archangel is explicitly made by Origen..
“Origen’s argument does not deny the Son’s role as Creator but rather emphasizes the collaborative and distinct roles within the Trinity using theological and biblical terminology.“ - yet since Christ is “not by nature a different PERSON TO WISDOM” and Origen uses prov 8 in application to Christ you will have to note the different verbal tenses and his role as a “ junior architect”
Like Gods prophets, this implies being instrumental and not equal to the father as creator ( Church fathers acknowledge the Father is creator more than anyone else) but does not imply ontological superiority, you are right there… mostly
And why would you know what suits the JW stance?- you have no right to say anything on their stance… I could say the insertation of “other” into col 1:16 doesn’t effect your stance because it omits the subjects from being created ( in what other text are mint and rue called herbs btw? In the bible)
Where does the bible say we need neo platonic and whatever Greek philosophy to interpret the bible…
Where does the bible say begotten for Christ should be understood differently to humans… or that it means different to created or made?
As you say ( using your own trick against you) , in the term “begotten not made” “made” could simply mean it’s second meaning… as in he was never “made” or “exalted” to the position of God ( or a god, which by the way even Atha uses the term “a god”) rather than meaning created.
While Occam's Razor favors simplicity, it also requires completeness. A single eternal being as the uncaused cause is a simpler and more comprehensive explanation for the existence of the universe compared to multiple eternal beings. This avoids the unnecessary complexity of polytheism. Introducing multiple eternal beings creates logical inconsistencies and conflicts. If each eternal being is self-sufficient and independent, it contradicts the principle of a unified explanation for existence. The interaction and coexistence of multiple eternal beings would lead to complications and contradictions that undermine the coherence of the argument. The assertion that an unoriginated being is indestructible merely by being unoriginated is not sufficient. Philosophical and theological reasoning posits that even an eternal being requires an explanation for its continued existence. This is where the concept of a single, self-sustaining uncaused cause (God) comes into play, providing a unified and coherent explanation. In monotheistic traditions, such as Christianity, the belief in one eternal God who is the source and sustainer of all existence is consistent with scriptural teachings and theological doctrines. This aligns with the concept of a single uncaused cause and avoids the pitfalls of polytheism. Your critique of Trinitarianism as complicating the explanation of God's nature misunderstands the doctrine. The Trinity posits one God in three persons, maintaining the unity and simplicity of God's nature while explaining the relational aspects within the Godhead. This is distinct from polytheism and does not multiply independent eternal beings. In conclusion, while logic and Occam's Razor support simplicity, they also require a coherent and comprehensive explanation. A single eternal, self-sustaining uncaused cause (God) provides this, avoiding the complexities and contradictions of multiple eternal beings and aligning with both philosophical reasoning and theological consistency.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
I've already answered this question:
"No person within the Trinity *temporally* precedes or causes the other. Instead, they exist in an eternal relationship characterized by different modes of origin. The Father is not the cause of the Son in a temporal sense but is the source or principle in a relational sense.The distinctions within the Trinity are based on logical, not temporal, relationships."
The distinction between "principle" (principium) and "cause" (causa) is crucial in understanding the relationships within the Trinity. In Trinitarian theology:
Principium: The Father is the "principium sine principio" (beginning without a beginning) because He is the source within the Trinity but is not caused by anything else. The Son is "principium cum alio principio" (a beginning with another beginning), indicating His origin from the Father.
Causa: This term is not applicable within the Trinity as it implies a temporal and causal sequence that does not exist among the co-eternal persons of the Trinity. In temporal and finite contexts, a cause precedes its effect and brings something into being. This is a concept tied to the created order, where events and entities follow linear time.
While the term "principle" and "cause" can be synonymous, they are not used interchangeably in Trinitarian theology. The term "principle" is broader and does not imply the same dependency or diversity of substance that "cause" does. Thus, the Father is the principle of the Son without implying causation as understood in created beings. The term "principle" does not mean that the Son is created or subordinate. Instead, it signifies the relational origin within the Godhead, with the Father as the source. This does not imply inferiority or creation but denotes relational distinction. Although "principle" might suggest priority in its etymology, in theological terms, it signifies origin rather than temporal precedence. Hence, the use of "principle" for the Father does not imply a chronological order but a relational origin within the eternal Godhead. The term "principle" in Trinitarian theology highlights the relational origin between the persons of the Trinity without implying causation, subordination, or temporal sequence. It underscores the Father as the source within the unity and co-equality of the Trinity.
Hence in Trinitarian theology, a principle refers to a relational and ontological origin rather than a temporal one. The Father is the principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit. This means the Father is the relational source of the other two persons of the Trinity without implying a temporal or causal precedence. Theologically, the Father is the principle without principle (unbegotten), the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This is not a temporal or causal relationship but a relational and eternal distinction within the Godhead. In the Trinity, the term "principle" (principium) refers to the relational origin without implying causation in a temporal or ontological sense. The Father is the principium, meaning He is the source within the Godhead but not the cause as in created things. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal, with the Father as the source of the Son and Spirit in a relational sense. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son in Western theology). These processions are not causal in the way we understand cause and effect in the created order. They are eternal relations that do not imply any temporal sequence or inferiority. The Son and the Spirit's origins are understood within this framework, where the Father is the relational source, but not a cause in the created sense.
https://t.ly/ldKRr
Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis
@Anonymous
"Where do I try to negate the Son's role in creation?" - You imply it by exaggeratedly emphasizing the difference between "by" and "through," suggesting a lesser role for the Logos in creation. However, this terminological distinction doesn't diminish the Logos's creative function. The use of "through" (dia) aligns with biblical terminology (John 1:3), which still affirms the Son’s role in creation.
Even if Rufinus in the Latin translation did indeed "Nicenizatizined" the *allegedly* original proto-Arian writings of Origen, this does not solve the dilemma that at that time Origen's writings were still abundantly available in the original Greek language, which was obviously read in Greek in the Eastern Church, yet no one objected, that these are heretical (Arian-influenced) writings
Rufinus’ *alleged* "Nicenization" of Origen’s writings in the Latin translation doesn’t resolve the issue since original Greek texts were accessible and not deemed heretical. Origen's original Greek texts were available and not condemned in the Eastern Church. This suggests his views were not deemed heretical even in their Greek original. Origen’s context does not explicitly mention "divinity" or "deity," but his theological framework allows for an understanding where the Father’s "greater" status refers to the role in eternal generation, not to ontological difference. Origen’s use of Proverbs 8 to describe the Logos aligns with his view of the Son as the divine Wisdom, not implying inferiority but distinct roles in the Godhead. The Logos as an "architect" metaphor illustrates collaborative creation without diminishing divinity. There is no evidence that Origen identified Christ with the Archangel Michael. Such an assertion lacks historical and textual support.
While "meizon" is not in Acts 20:35, it is in Matthew 11:11. The term doesn't imply ontological superiority. Matthew 11:11 speaks to John the Baptist’s role and does not imply ontological hierarchy relevant to the Trinity. Acts 20:35 does not really use the expression "meizon", however, this "meizon" is not an ontological difference in the deity, but what Acts 20:35 states: "more blessed". Matthew 11:11 there is no ontological difference, man-man, of course I understand that the WTS wants to prove from this verse that John the Baptist will never go to heaven (even though the text here uses the present tense and does not say anything about the future fate of John), and the two-class system. Tertullian interpreted the Father's greatness as the source of the Son's divinity, not as indicating the Son’s ontological inferiority.
The phrase "begotten not made" distinguishes between creation and eternal generation. "Made" (poio) and "created" (ktizo) are synonyms, while "born" (tikto) and "begotten" (gennao) are different terms used to describe distinct theological concepts.
"even Atha uses the term "a god"" - oh yeah, and yet how, when there was neither indefinite article nor lower case in Koine Greek?
https://www.academia.edu/1282746
This thread is winding down. It will be closing in approximately 24 hours. Thanks.
So he is the uncaused cause? Without the lawyerspeak this time. Yes /no?
I thought you said that multiplying eternal beings would have no effect on the first cause argument,do make up your mind.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
YES, the Son is also uncaused, and clarifying the difference betwwen being caused and being "principium cum alio principio" is not "lawyerspeak", but a crucial clarification.
The Trinity does not make three "beings". The concept of a first cause is fundamentally linked to the idea of a single, ultimate source of all existence. Speaking of multiple divine persons does not undermine the first cause argument if these divine persons exist in a unified, interdependent relationship within the framework of the Trinity, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit coexist eternally without a sequence of causation. This preserves the coherence of a single first cause manifested in a relationally distinct manner. Thus, the multiplication of eternal divine persons in a Trinitarian context does not contradict the first cause argument but rather enriches it by explaining the complex relational dynamics within the divine essence.
Ancient theologians have shown that the Father and the Son, while not being a single individual (unus), are one thing (unum); furthermore, they have highlighted the characteristics of each. The Father is said to be the origin and principle of the Son, whom He generates and of whom the Father constitutes the principle, to the point that He can legitimately be called "head."
Augustine read this expression in 1 Corinthians 11:3, a passage where the Apostle explains that in a sort of hierarchical scale, God, Christ, man, and woman are each the head of the other. The same line of thought is also found in the contemporaneous De Genesi ad litteram opus imperfectum, where Augustine interprets the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1 both as a temporal indication and as referring to the Word, the principle derived from a principle, while the Father is without principle. The Son is thus a principle, but if He is the principle of everything, He is certainly not the principle of the Father Himself; for the rest, the Son is the perfectly identical and equal image of the Father.
It seems that a dual concern is at work here: on one hand, the equality of the persons is to be safeguarded, but at the same time, without succumbing to dangerous subordinationism, the certain preeminence of the Father is to be affirmed because the Son has received from the Father His being the Son, but not vice versa. However, although equal to the Father in the eternal condition (always preserving the paternal preeminence previously mentioned), the Son is inferior to Him in His human condition, which, as can be well understood, is not proper to the Word but was assumed only out of condescension; this inferiority is attested by several biblical passages from which only a superficial and erroneous reading can deduce that the Son is not equal to the Father or is of a different substance
Among these passages, Augustine cites 1 Corinthians 11:3, to which he had alluded shortly before in a very different context; if here the inferiority of Christ to the Father, His head, seems due to the incarnation economy, a little earlier the same was attributed to the fact that, within the intradivine life, the Son proceeds from the Father. Augustine opposes texts that have led heretics into error with other texts that instead exalt the divine dignity of the Son, who was not created but has created all things. Wisdom, in itself immutable, stripped itself of its prerogatives to manifest to men in humility: this is what the texts that speak of its inferiority to the Father allude to, at least in part; in part, however, they refer to the fact that the Son owes to the Father what He is, but not vice versa: thus, it is reiterated that, as said a little above, even in His eternal constitution, the Father has precedence over the Son.
aservant,
Here is what Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologiae (aka Summa Theologica):
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), "The Father is the Principle of the whole Deity."
I answer that, The word "principle" signifies only that whence another proceeds: since anything whence something proceeds in any way we call a principle; and conversely. As the Father then is the one whence another proceeds, it follows that the Father is a principle.
Reply to Objection 1. The Greeks use the words "cause" and "principle" indifferently, when speaking of God; whereas the Latin Doctors do not use the word "cause," but only "principle." The reason is because "principle" is a wider term than "cause"; as "cause" is more common than "element." For the first term of a thing, as also the first part, is called the principle, but not the cause. Now the wider a term is, the more suitable it is to use as regards God (I:13:11), because the more special terms are, the more they determine the mode adapted to the creature. Hence this term "cause" seems to mean diversity of substance, and dependence of one from another; which is not implied in the word "principle." For in all kinds of causes there is always to be found between the cause and the effect a distance of perfection or of power: whereas we use the term "principle" even in things which have no such difference, but have only a certain order to each other; as when we say that a point is the principle of a line; or also when we say that the first part of a line is the principle of a line.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1033.htm
Not that I agree with Aquinas: my post was for the sake of providing information.
As I said earlier, this thread is about to be closed.
Dear Nincsnevem, I have to reject the last post you submitted. How would you likke if I called your church, Satanic" or characterized its explanations of the Bible that way?
Even if I have certain views about Catholicism or Protestantism, I have not made it a practice to call Catholic or Protestant commentaries on Greek words or on the Bible, Satanic or cultic. In any event, I'm not going to allow posts here that take that vview of JWs. Not if I caan help it.
“You imply it by exaggeratedly emphasizing the difference between "by" and "through,"” -citation please… you imply a lot aswell.
And you can’t deny their is a difference in these prepositions
When we consider their biblical usage..
Dan Wallace has the correct meaning
“Origen’s use of Proverbs 8 to describe the Logos aligns with his view of the Son as the divine Wisdom, not implying inferiority but distinct roles in the Godhead.” - and these roles would be?
“Godhead” is a term never used in the bible in the way you mean it
And “Amon” would imply something either inferior or subordinate ( latter more plausible) as even in proverbs Wisdom is seperate from the creator and uses the pronoun “He”
Giving creation “credit” to someone else..
“While "meizon" is not in Acts 20:35,” - yet before you stated “The term "greater" (meizon) used by Origen does not imply ontological superiority. As seen in Matthew 11:11 and Acts 20:35,”
And Origen was a philosopher, the bible writers were not so while Origens usage is a valid meaning it is not proper to impose such a meaning on the bible writers
Hence I challenge you to get around Clements usage… ( first begotten and first created )
Why does he jump from one rhetoric to the other?
“The Logos as an "architect" metaphor illustrates collaborative creation without diminishing divinity.” - having a lesser role in creation doesn’t make Logos less “divine” than the father or spirit… this is you making crap up rather than basing it on biblical texts..
prove this claim with biblical texts in context..
“Origen’s context does not explicitly mention "divinity" or "deity," but his theological framework allows for an understanding where the Father’s "greater" status refers to the role in eternal generation” - just because it allows for the meaning doesn’t mean it is how Ninc sees it.
The bible allows for lots of perspectives but you are too theologically motivated to see it..
you are plain wrong about “greater” actual scholarship shows otherwise ( again I would ask you to prove it wrong if you think it is wrong, theologically motivated garbage is not scholarship, it’s embarrassing)
“There is no evidence that Origen identified Christ with the Archangel Michael. Such an assertion lacks historical and textual support.” - yet again you fail to read… read my claim again
The author is wrong the claim is not, as it was Clement..
“when there was neither indefinite article nor lower case in Koine Greek?” - how did they signal anything was indefinite like “prophet” or “king”?
And you should probably google one of his most famous quotes translates into English…
Or look up translations of Hippolytus..
The church fathers in multiple places translate as “a god” ( Ex 7:1)
Unlike your approach, there are honest translators out there who actually know Greek.. and can recognise when the writers mean something indefinite ( or qualitative, which often overlap in English )
“"Made" (poio) and "created" (ktizo) are synonyms” - you just made your first mistake..
On a previous post you claimed these were not synonyms ( I will quote you verbatim if I have too)
So it is now even more highly probable that Clements first begotten and first created mean what the witnesses claim..
“while "born" (tikto) and "begotten" (gennao)” - from my observations these are used somewhat as synonyms .. see the lxx
Dear Mr Foster,
such labeling and tone is not my style of discussion and far from me. Mason's article is a pretty thorough analysis, and I didn't find the terms "satanic" or "cultic" in it.
Dear Nincsnevem, the word "cultic" did not appear far as I could tell, but I mentioned that word to make a point. However, "satanic" most certainly did appear on the website and it was applied to JWs.
Post a Comment