The core of Clarke's subordinationism is as follows. Certain names or titles in the Bible, including “God”, always or nearly always refer to the Father, giving him a kind of primacy among the three. The word “God” is used in higher and lower senses, and in his view the former always refers to the Father. The God of Israel, the one true God, just is the Father of Jesus. Further, he is the main and the primary and ultimate object of Christian worship and prayer, and as the sole recipient of the highest kind of worship. In his view, the Son of God has all the divine attributes but one, that of existing a se that is, existing and not being in any sense derivative of or dependent on anything else. To the contrary, “The Father Alone is Self-existent, Underived, Unoriginated, Independent” (Clarke 1738, 123). It is contradictory to suppose that something has this property in any sense because of another thing. In his view the Son and the Holy Spirit (like the Son, a personal agent or self distinct from the Father) exist and have their perfections because of the Father. Both are functionally and ontologically subordinate to him, and in the Spirit is at least functionally subordinate to the Son. What sort of dependence relations are these? The Son and Spirit derive their being from the Father as from a “Supreme Cause”, but we are not to infer from this that the Father existed before them. The Bible doesn't enlighten us on the nature of this dependence relationship, but seems to presuppose that it always was (i.e., that infinitely back in time, the Son and Spirit existed in dependence on the Father). Thus, “Arian” subordinationists (see section 3.1 above) are speculating groundlessly when they say there was a time when the Son didn't exist. And if a “creature” must at some time begin to exist, then neither Son nor Spirit are creatures. Still, Clarke thinks that we should affirm with some of the early church fathers that this derivation of the Son from the Father is “not by mere Necessity of Nature, (which would be in reality Self-existence, not Filiation;) But by an Act of the Father's incomprehensible Power and Will” (141, original emphases). Clarke argues that the New Testament teaches the eternal existence of the Son, and that he is (co-) creator of the world. Further, it teaches that the Holy Spirit is a personal agent distinct from God (and not a power of God, or an exercise of such). And against the mainstream tradition, “The word God, in Scripture, never signifies a complex Notion of more Persons (or Intelligent Agents) than One; but always means One Person only, viz., either the Person of the Father singly, or the Person of the Son singly” (155, original emphases). While the Spirit is nowhere called “God” or held up for worship, Clarke holds that his divinity is implied, and thus so is the appropriateness of his being worshiped as the Son is worshiped. The early Fathers, he holds, thought Father and Son to be homoousios only in the sense that the latter is ineffably derived from the former—not in the sense of their being the same thing or the exact same kind of thing.
i) Assuming the accuracy of this summary, what’s striking is
the degree to which Clarke is using Nicene subordination as his frame of reference.
The degree to which he shares certain fundamental assumptions in common with
Nicene orthodoxy, but develops them in a “semi-Arian” direction.
From what I can tell, both he and Nicene subordinationists regard
the Father as the ontological source of the Son and the Spirit. They share that
fundamental underlying presupposition.
Where they differ is how they construe the implications of
that presupposition. At best, Clarke is a “homoian Arian.” Father, Son, and
Spirit are of “like” substance rather than the same substance (or
consubstantial).
The upshot is that Nicene subordination plays into
variations of unitarianism. For that reason, Calvin was right to question this
framework. Some subsequent Reformed thinkers, to forge a more consistent
overall position, have since developed his approach. The only way to avoid the
unitarian potential of so-called Nicene orthodoxy is to scrap the fundamental
presupposition of the Father’s monarchy.
In that respect, I think contemporary Calvinists should
follow the lead of Frame, Warfield, and Helm rather than Roger Beckwith, Sam
Waldron, and Douglas Kelly–for the latter represents a throwback to a flawed
paradigm that’s vulnerable to unitarianism.
ii) Nicene subordination represents an unstable
compromise. Take the distinction between making and begetting.
“Begetting” is a biological metaphor. So we need to isolate
and identify the intended scope of the figurative analogy. At what level does
the comparison operate?
To my knowledge, Nicene subordination takes the position that
the Son and Spirit derive their existence and essence from the Father. But if
that’s the case, then that seems like a pretty good definition of what it means
to make something. What does it mean to say something is made if not to say it
owes its existence and/or essence to something else? If anything, that’s a
stronger definition of making something than is necessary. In common parlance,
to make something doesn’t mean it has to derive its entire existence or essence
from whoever or whatever made it. The maker may employ preexisting parts or
materials.
So if something can be an artifact in even that weaker
sense, then surely it’s an artifact in the stronger sense, when its entire
substance and subsistence derives from another.
Hence, I don’t see a principled contrast between begetting
and making in Nicene subordination. Once we strip away the incidental, figurative
connotations of begetting, the residual concept seems to collapse into
something made. A product. A creature.
Of course, in its historical setting, the distinction is
more specific, contrasting the Nicene position with the Arian position, where
the distinction between begetting and making boils down to a special kind of
production. Making by means of eternal generation is qualified in the sense
that there was never a time when the Son did not exist, in contrast to the
world. Likewise, making by means of eternal generation is qualified in the
sense that the producer and the product share the same nature or essence, in
contrast to creation ex nihilo.
So the Son isn’t made in the same sense that the world is
made. The Son is coessential and coeternal with the Father. Still, if he owes his
existence and essence to the Father, then there’s an unavoidable sense in which
the Father made him. That seems to be true by definition, an analytical truth,
given the causal dependence of the Son on the Father for his entire substance
and subsistence. Within this framework, we might say the Son is an eternal
creature or eternal artifact of the Father. We might say the Father
communicates his essence to the Son (and Spirit). But the Son is still an
artifact of the Father’s action. Father is the producer while the Son is the
product.
One might try to deny that eternal generation is a causal
concept. But if the Father is the source of the Son’s being, then a
cause/effect relationship seems to be undeniable. It may not be temporal, but
it surely is causal.
iii) This also has implications for worship. If we grant the
monarchy of the Father, then isn’t the Father a greater being than the Son or
Spirit? The inoriginate originator of the Son and the Spirit? And in that case,
isn’t he entitled to greater adoration than the Spirit or the Son? Doesn’t
everything trace back to the Father?
That’s assuming the monarchy of the Father is correct. Nicene subordination was a great improvement over Arianism. But it’s easy
to improve on Nicene subordination. The time is past due to cut the apron strings.
The church fathers did the best they could with the available resources, but
we’re in a position to do better, for we’re much further down the line of
historical, theological, and exegetical reflection.
iv) To my knowledge, Origen was the first writer to
introduce the theory of eternal generation into Christian theology:
If then I set before you, with respect to the Savior, that the Father has not begotten the Son and then severed him from his generation, but always begets him, I will also present something similar for the righteous man.If then the Savior is always begotten–because of this he also says, Before all the hills he begets me, (and not, “Before all the hills he has begotten me,” but, Before all of the hills he begets me [Prov 8:25)–and the Savior is always begotten by the Father…
Homily 9.4-5, in J. Smith, ed. Origin. Homilies on
Jeremiah. Homily on 1 Kings 28
(CUA 1998), 92-93.
It would be highly ironic if the Christology of a formally
condemned heretic like Origen becomes the touchstone of Christian orthodoxy.
Moreover, this is founded on a dubious appeal to Prov 8.
But it’s easy to improve on Nicene orthodoxy. The time is past due to cut the apron strings. The church fathers did the best they could with the available resources, but we’re in a position to do better, for we’re much further down the line of historical, theological, and exegetical reflection.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for improving on Nicene Orthodoxy. But it may turn out that improving it by use of our greater resources may end up confirming its basic conclusions. I personally prefer Christ being autotheos, but verses like John 5:26; 6:57; 14:8; 20:17; Rev. 3:14; Mic. 5:2; Heb. 1:8//Ps. 45:6; Prov. 8:22-23 have haunted me for nearly two decades. Because I can't ignore them, I tend to lean toward Nicene orthodoxy (not taking a stand on filioque and the other issues Drake has addressed). Not surprisingly, most (all?) of the passages I mentioned are classic passages the Arians used to make their case.
The Nicene fathers probably made a mistake on placing too much emphasis on their understanding of monogenes. As James White has said, [O]riginally it was thought that monogenes came from two Greek terms, monos meaning “one” and a verb genao which means to beget. But, we have discovered through further study that it actually comes from monos and a noun genes which means ‘kind or type.’ Hence, monogenes means “one of a kind’ or “unique’ rather than “only-begotten.”
But the Reformational fathers were also at a disadvantage in thinking Byzantine readings of certain variants were original. Whereas modern scholarship has called them into question or definitely sided against their authenticity (e.g. 1 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 10:10; John 3:13 et cetera).
The point being that just as Catholicism and Orthodoxy may have built on faulty assumptions, so may have the Reformational fathers. In which case, modern Protestantism may have inherited and exaggerated their errors so that our theology may be like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The higher we build, the farther we deviate from the level foundation.
I'd like to see those promising fruits that our modern advantages offer us. Unfortunately, I too am limited in time and financial resources (not to mention the requisite intelligence *G*). Also, this renaissance in Christology and Pneumatology may still be in the future and we may have been born too early to see that day.
It would be highly ironic if the Christology of a formally condemned heretic like Origen becomes the touchstone of Christian orthodoxy. Moreover, this is founded on a dubious appeal to Prov 8.
Admittedly, it's dubious, but even many of the Nicene fathers agreed it referred to Christ and used it against the Arians (including the great champion of orthodoxy Athanasius).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAdditional verses that have haunted me include Ps. 2:7//Heb 1:5 and especially John 1:18 if we assume 1. "monogenes" should be interpreted as "only begotten" and 2. if we assume that the original variant is "God" rather than "Son". Both assumptions are aren't necessary. It could very well be the correct meaning of monogenes is "unique" and the correct reading "Son".
DeleteTo the begotten issue in Ps 2 and Acts 13: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/samuel-clarke-on-acts-1333-was-the-son-really-begotten-in-eternity-or-in-time/
DeleteTo the monogenes issue: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/03/eternal-generation-of-son.html
I forgot to mention the obvious fact that the Reformational fathers may have consciously inherited Rome's understanding of the filioque clause (in some cases they didn't take a stand one way or the other), but they nevertheless UNconsciously inherited many of its theological implications.
ReplyDelete.
Turretin gave the issue around 3 page in his Institutes and Muller's consideration of it was equally disappointing.
DeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "In that respect, I think contemporary Calvinists should follow the lead of Frame, Warfield, and Helm rather than Roger Beckwith, Sam Waldron, and Douglas Kelly–for the latter represents a throwback to a flawed paradigm that’s vulnerable to unitarianism."
Could you mention the sources/titles that correspond to these men on this issue? Thanks.
In terms of what's available online, Google "Roger Beckwith, The Calvinist Doctrine of the Trinity" and "Paul Helm, Of God, and of the Holy Trinity: A Response to Dr. Beckwith."
DeleteI've discussed Waldron here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/10/whos-tampering-with-trinity.html
Just to clarify, I agree with Beckwith (against Helm) that Christ's sonship is an ontological status rather than an economic status. But I agree with Helm (against Beckwith) regarding the conceptual vacuity of eternal generation and procession.
DeleteSteve,
ReplyDelete“From what I can tell, both he and the Nicene orthodox regard the Father as the ontological source of the Son and the Spirit. They share that fundamental underlying presupposition.”
>>>But hold on…That is what I have said since I began writing about this yet in your previous article you said, ““ii) I don’t grant Drake’s interpretation of the church fathers or the Nicene creed. Drake is not a patrologist. And he’s done very little reading in contemporary scholarship on the church fathers. Instant expert syndrome leaves me unimpressed.”
I figured it was going to take at least a month and a half for you to recant, but here we have you recanting 6 minutes later! That has got to be some kind of a record.
“Where they differ is how they construe the implications of that presupposition. At best, Clarke is a “homoian Arian.”
>>>Homoiousios.
“Father, Son, and Spirit are of “like” substance rather than the same substance (or consubstantial).”
>>>It was to protect the consciences of people who did not want to submit their consciences to metaphysical terms they did not understand. Athanasius made a way for communion by simply asking them if the Son was created out of nothing or begotten of the father before all worlds. If the latter was confessed then they believed essentially the same meaning that the homoousious clause affirmed.
“The upshot is that so-called Nicene orthodoxy plays into variations of unitarianism. For that reason, Calvin was right to question this framework. Some subsequent Reformed thinkers, to forge a more consistent overall position, have since developed his approach. The only way to avoid the unitarian potential of so-called Nicene orthodoxy is to scrap the fundamental presupposition of the Father’s monarchy.”
>>>So then you are admitting that Reformed scholastics abandoned what was Orthodox in the Pre-nicene and Nicene Fathers?
“In that respect, I think contemporary Calvinists should follow the lead of Frame, Warfield, and Helm rather than Roger Beckwith, Sam Waldron, and Douglas Kelly–for the latter represents a throwback to a flawed paradigm that’s vulnerable to unitarianism.”
>>>Contemporary Calvinists, please do not follow Steve into hell. If you affirm three eternal persons but deny the Father’s Monarchy you are a tri-theist pagan and you do not have eternal life.
“ii) So-called Nicene orthodoxy represents an unstable compromise. Take the distinction between making and begetting.”
>>>HE ADMITTED IT! FINALLY!!!!! When the Reformed community comes to grips with this it will be only ten years and Nicea will rule this middle earth and Gordon Clark’s Philosophy books will be taught in every Protestant Seminary in America. You hubris worshippers at Triablogue, and BTW Steve even Paul M. condemns you on this apostasy, are the only ones I have come across who have the testes to actually admit that the Nicene Creed is heretical. I commend you for your honesty though. That is very rare and though I have other reservations about you, your honest admission here is worthy of respect.
“Begetting” is a biological metaphor. So we need to isolate and identify the intended scope of the figurative analogy. At what level does the comparison operate?”
Drake said...
Delete>>>Contemporary Calvinists, please do not follow Steve into hell. If you affirm three eternal persons but deny the Father’s Monarchy you are a tri-theist pagan and you do not have eternal life.
My Observation:
If I understand correctly, Social Trinitarianism or Tritheism would be in contrast to Latin Trinitarianism in that the former affirms three natures while the latter affirms one nature equally shared by three persons.
I can understand why someone would accuse Latin Trinitarianism of crypto-modalism/Sabellianism, but tritheism? I guess I'm not understanding. I'm in "Learning Mode" now.
Yes tritheism. A denial of the Father's Monarchy posits three beginings, thee auto-theoses, three gods:
DeleteAthanasius, Discourse 4 Against the Arians
“1-5. The substantiality of the Word proved from Scripture. If the One Origin be substantial, Its Word is substantial. Unless the Word and Son be a second Origin, or a work, or an attribute (and so God be compounded), or at the same time Father, or involve a second nature in God, He is from the Father’s Essence and distinct from Him. Illustration of John 10:30, drawn from Deuteronomy 4:4.
1. The Word is God from God; for ‘the Word was God John 1:1,’ and again, ‘Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen Romans 9:5.’ And since Christ is God from God, and God’s Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures. For the Word, being Son of the One God, is referred to Him of whom also He is; so that Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable. And thus too we preserve One Beginning of Godhead and not two Beginnings, whence there is strictly a Monarchy. And of this very Beginning the Word is by nature Son, not as if another beginning, subsisting by Himself, nor having come into being externally to that Beginning, lest from that diversity a Dyarchy and Polyarchy should ensue; but of the one Beginning He is own Son, own Wisdom, own Word, existing from It. For, according to John, ‘in’ that ‘Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’ for the Beginning was God; and since He is from It, therefore also ‘the Word was God.’ And as there is one Beginning and therefore one God, so one is that Essence and Subsistence which indeed and truly and really is, and which said ‘I am that I am Exodus 3:14,’ and not two, that there be not two Beginnings; and from the One, a Son in nature and truth, is Its own Word, Its Wisdom, Its Power, and inseparable from It. And as there is not another essence, lest there be two Beginnings, so the Word which is from that One Essence has no dissolution, nor is a sound significative, but is an essential Word andessential Wisdom, which is the true Son. For were He not essential, God will be speaking into the air1 Corinthians 14:9, and having a body, in nothing differently from men; but since He is not man, neither is His Word according to the infirmity of man. For as the Beginning is one Essence, so Its Word is one,essential, and subsisting, and Its Wisdom. For as He is God from God, and Wisdom from the Wise, and Word from the Rational, and Son from Father, so is He from Subsistence Subsistent, and from Essence Essential and Substantive, and Being from Being.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28164.htm
Drake Shelton
Delete“But hold on…That is what I have said since I began writing about this yet in your previous article you said…”
Nice bait-n-switch on your part, but your stated position goes beyond that. You defend Samuel Clarke and “semi-Arianism.”
“Homoiousios.”
I’m using Tuggy’s terminology (“homoian Arian”), which is, in turn, based on contemporary patristic scholarship.
“So then you are admitting that Reformed scholastics abandoned what was Orthodox in the Pre-nicene and Nicene Fathers?”
Another bait-n-switch, where you impute your own interpretation to the concerned parties. You’re not nearly as smart as you imagine you are. So why don’t you drop the sophistical tactics. You’re not clever enough to be a sophist.
“Contemporary Calvinists, please do not follow Steve into hell. If you affirm three eternal persons but deny the Father’s Monarchy you are a tri-theist pagan and you do not have eternal life.”
Thus saith Pope Shelton.
“…are the only ones I have come across who have the testes to actually admit that the Nicene Creed is heretical.”
I didn’t say it was “heretical.” I said it was “unstable.” A well-intentioned intellectual compromise that doesn’t succeed. It reflects their limited historical horizon. Knowledge is cumulative. We can salute their efforts, but improve on their efforts.
“Nice bait-n-switch on your part, but your stated position goes beyond that. You defend Samuel Clarke and “semi-Arianism.”
Delete>>>Nice bait-n-switch on the definition of bait-n-switch. The monarchy of the Father and his being the origo of the other two persons is the source of my denial that the son and hs are auto-theos, which said principle of auto-theos is the reason you reject eternal generation. It is all connected and so it was no bait-n-switch.
“Homoiousios.”
I’m using Tuggy’s terminology (“homoian Arian”), which is, in turn, based on contemporary patristic scholarship.
“So then you are admitting that Reformed scholastics abandoned what was Orthodox in the Pre-nicene and Nicene Fathers?”
Another bait-n-switch, where you impute your own interpretation to the concerned parties. You’re not nearly as smart as you imagine you are. So why don’t you drop the sophistical tactics. You’re not clever enough to be a sophist.’
>>>You show no difference. You only go into meltdown mode. I have seen this many times.
“I didn’t say it was “heretical.” I said it was “unstable.” A well-intentioned intellectual compromise that doesn’t succeed. It reflects their limited historical horizon. Knowledge is cumulative. We can salute their efforts, but improve on their efforts.”
>>>Total cowardly cop-out. You reject the father’s monarchy, the eternal generation and the generic unity among the persons. That is more than affirmation of its instability. That is a full out rejection.
Try to cultivate a modicum of intellectual discipline. You use the word "heresy." I can disagree with monarchy, eternal generation, &c., without deeming that "heretical." I can view it as a well-intentioned mistake.
DeleteSteve,
Delete"I can disagree with monarchy, eternal generation, &c., without deeming that "heretical."
>>>Ad Hoc
"I can view it as a well-intentioned mistake.'
>>>Ad Hoc
Not every theological error is a heresy, Drake. Try to be intelligent.
DeleteSteve, cont....
ReplyDelete>>>I have already had this conversation too many times to get into this again.
/////“31. I have admitted that predication between the categories of humanity and divinity are not jointly exhaustive, but they are also not mutually exclusive. I do affirm with all human ontological connection to the divine, an analogy of proportion. With reference to Christ’s humanity, the incarnation is not a participation but a hypostatic union, thus a human person is not participating in a divine person, but a divine person is personalizing a set of human faculties. I understand that not all human activity can be predicated of the divine, however, that does not exclude the proportion that can be predicated of the divine and that is the intellectual activity of man as I have made clear numerous times and you continue to ignore it- thus the Clarkian idea of the image of God. Thus all appeals to physical phenomenon such as pennies, rivers, the heat and radiance of light or the Sun are all meaningless and misrepresent my view. YET AGAIN, THIS CONVERSATION IS NOT ABOUT INANIMATE MATTER, IT IS ABOUT PERSONS! Drawing inferences from thoughtless physical objects simply re-affirms and provides foundation for my accusation that your theology proper is grounded on some kind of organic physical substance. I have already provided ancient representations that personhood, even divine personhood pertained to intelligent beings, not modes of physical inanimate objects.
This materialistic thinking runs all throughout Jnorm’s thought even though he denies it with his lips. Later he says, “1.) Is there any separation between the Source and the Emanation? If the answer is no then ask yourself”
>>>Spatially, no, which is exactly the category you are thinking under, yet again, showing your view of DN is physical. Logically, no. Numerically with reference to cardinal numbers and numeric nature, yes.
And I’ll say another thing again that you will avoid answering again: What EO book on the philosophy of language can you provide as a standard reference to clear this up? Oh that’s right you don’t have one. But you see I do: Its called Language and Theology by Gordon Clark. He taught that man univocally participates in the objects of God’s knowledge not the manner of God’s knowing (essence) thus affirming the traditional analogy of proportion (not to be confused with the analogy of proportionality).https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/analogy-of-proportionality-refuted-univocal-predication-defended/
The categories of divine and human are not mutually exclusive: Apophaticism. The categories of divine and human are also not Jointly exhaustive: An absolute Cataphaticism. The categories of divine and human proportionally overlap at the level of intellect and even at this level we do not have a full exhaustion. The exact area where divine and human ontology overlap is the objects of God’s knowledge. I am considering myself bent over backwards with how much detail I have given to every single statement you have made and frustrated at how ambiguous and dismissively you have answered mine.” ////
“To my knowledge, Nicene orthodoxy takes the position that the Son and Spirit derive their existence and essence from the Father.”
>>>Correct; please inform Sean Gerety of this.
“But if that’s the case, then that seems like a pretty good definition of what it means to make something. What does it mean to say something is made if not to say it owes its existence and/or essence to something else?”
>>>That something’s essence and existence derive from the father in eternity, in a logical series (Like in Lapsarian constructions) not a chronological one. Thus he is begotten not made.
Steve, cont...
ReplyDelete“If anything, that’s a stronger definition of making something than is necessary. In common parlance, to make something doesn’t mean it has to derive its entire existence or essence from whoever or whatever made it. The maker may employ preexisting parts or materials.”
>>>But that is done in a chronological sequence, in the historical order. Eternal generation happens in eternity in a logical order.
“Hence, I don’t see a principled contrast between begetting and making in Nicene orthodoxy. Once we strip away the incidental, figurative connotations of begetting, the residual concept seems to collapse into something made. A product. A creature.”
>>>And that is why I am no longer a member of any Reformed Church and will never attend another Reformed seminary. You are all Monadists.
“One might try to deny that eternal generation is a causal concept.”
>>>Nope. The Son is caused.
“But if the Father is the source of the Son’s being, then a cause/effect relationship seems to be undeniable. It may not be temporal, but it surely is causal.”
>>>Yep
“iii) This also has implications for worship. If we grant the monarchy of the Father, then isn’t the Father a greater being than the Son or Spirit?”
>>Yes, because of his supreme hypostasis.
“The inoriginate originator of the Son and the Spirit? And in that case, isn’t he entitled to greater adoration than the Spirit or the Son? Doesn’t everything trace back to the Father?”
>>>>Yep; Belgic Confession, Article 8, “Article 8: “The Father is the cause, origin, and source of all things, visible as well as invisible.”
“That’s assuming the monarchy of the Father is correct. So-called Nicene orthodoxy was a great improvement over Arianism. But it’s easy to improve on Nicene orthodoxy. The time is past due to cut the apron strings. The church fathers did the best they could with the available resources, but we’re in a position to do better, for we’re much further down the line of historical, theological, and exegetical reflection.”
>>>We are according to Historicism, in the time where the whole world wonders after the beast. That is not a better position to create new theology. I thank you though for your honest denial of Nicea and your affirmation of innovation.
“iv) To my knowledge, Origen was the first writer to introduce the theory of eternal generation into Christian theology”
>>>Wrong. I answered this exact objection over a month ago: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/revelation-3-and-colossians-1-strong-for-eternal-generation/
Drake you said...
Delete>>>And that is why I am no longer a member of any Reformed Church and will never attend another Reformed seminary. You are all Monadists.
and
Contemporary Calvinists, please do not follow Steve into hell.
Are you saying you believe Steve and all Western Trinitarians who believe the three person share the one being of God are all going to hell?
Depends on what you mean by one being. Steve denies eternal generation and monarchia so he can affirm three persons who are auto-theos. Thus if a man believes in three eternal persons but denies the father's monarchia and origin he has posited three gods, he has no eternal life in him.
DeleteDrake Shelton
ReplyDelete“Yes tritheism. A denial of the Father's Monarchy posits three beginings, thee auto-theoses, three gods.”
Well that’s inept. To say each member of the Trinity is autotheistic hardly entails three “beginnings.” It’s a timeless status.
“I have already had this conversation too many times to get into this again.”
Quoting your response to Jnorm is a red herring. That fails to engage my own position.
“That something’s essence and existence derive from the father in eternity, in a logical series (Like in Lapsarian constructions) not a chronological one. Thus he is begotten not made.”
Unresponsive to what I wrote, since I already said it was timeless. Try again.
“But that is done in a chronological sequence, in the historical order. Eternal generation happens in eternity in a logical order.”
You’re confusing incidental contingencies with the general principle. You need to learn how to think.
“We are according to Historicism, in the time where the whole world wonders after the beast.”
And Drake is branded with the mark of the Beast.
“Yes tritheism. A denial of the Father's Monarchy posits three beginings, thee auto-theoses, three gods.”
DeleteWell that’s inept. To say each member of the Trinity is autotheistic hardly entails three “beginnings.” It’s a timeless status.”
>>>I have already shown you that each person’s timelessness is distinct from causality in the order of existing in eternity. The causality pertains to a logical order not a chronological one. You are not following the arguments.
“I have already had this conversation too many times to get into this again.”
Quoting your response to Jnorm is a red herring. That fails to engage my own position.”
>>>Yes it does. You never defined the term metaphor and applied it to ontology. Is it an analogy of proportion, proportionality, or what? I showed that I hold to the analogy of proportion. You don’t want to have to face the precision of my position and show you throw around labels with no explanation.
“That something’s essence and existence derive from the father in eternity, in a logical series (Like in Lapsarian constructions) not a chronological one. Thus he is begotten not made.”
Unresponsive to what I wrote, since I already said it was timeless. Try again.”
>>>And I already showed you that time-chronological series, do not pertain to eternal generation and auto-theos in the order of existing. You still are not getting it Steve.
“But that is done in a chronological sequence, in the historical order. Eternal generation happens in eternity in a logical order.”
“You’re confusing incidental contingencies with the general principle. You need to learn how to think.”
>>>So then if logical causal series are incidental contingencies (which was asserted not exaplained), one wonders how one escapes open theism when this incidental contingency is applied to Lapsarianism.
Moreover, I have always stated that the eternal generation of the son was necessary to the Father's hypostasis.Thus the Son's eternal generation was not
Deleteincidental.
Drake Shelton
Delete“You are not following the arguments.”
You’re not following your own argument. You said denial of paternal monarchy posits three “beginnings.” It doesn’t. To say each member of the Trinity is autotheistic doesn’t posit three “beginnings.” That’s a non sequitur.
“Yes it does. You never defined the term metaphor and applied it to ontology. Is it an analogy of proportion, proportionality, or what? I showed that I hold to the analogy of proportion. You don’t want to have to face the precision of my position and show you throw around labels with no explanation.”
Your grasp of philosophy is just as inept as your grasp of theology. Philosophers don’t begin with definitions or theories. Rather, they begin with paradigm-cases and pretheoretical impressions. They then form definitions or theories on the basis of these representative examples.
One doesn’t need a ready-made theory or definition of a metaphor to recognize theological metaphors in Scripture. The Bible writers didn’t expect their audience to have a theory of analogical predication in their back pocket.
You need to bone up on the concept of tacit knowledge, Drake. People can have an intuitive grasp of metaphors and other analogies without having a theory of analogical predication. You’re getting the cart before the horse.
“And I already showed you that time-chronological series, do not pertain to eternal generation and auto-theos in the order of existing. You still are not getting it Steve.”
My argument isn’t based on a “time-chronological series” (to use your redundant phrase). You’re the one who’s persistently clueless.
“So then if logical causal series are incidental contingencies…”
You really don’t have what it takes to keep up with this conversation. I didn’t say a logical series was a causal series. And I didn’t equate a logical series with incidental contingencies. Indeed, I said precisely the opposite.
If you’re unable to draw these rudimentary distinctions, you need to bow out of the discussion.
“You’re not following your own argument. You said denial of paternal monarchy posits three “beginnings.” It doesn’t. To say each member of the Trinity is autotheistic doesn’t posit three “beginnings.” That’s a non sequitur.“
Delete>>>Ad hoc assertions are not arguments, neither are they explanation. Stop the apologetics game Steve. You are wasting people's time.
“Your grasp of philosophy is just as inept as your grasp of theology. Philosophers don’t begin with definitions or theories. Rather, they begin with paradigm-cases and pretheoretical impressions. They then form definitions or theories on the basis of these representative examples.
One doesn’t need a ready-made theory or definition of a metaphor to recognize theological metaphors in Scripture. The Bible writers didn’t expect their audience to have a theory of analogical predication in their back pocket.
You need to bone up on the concept of tacit knowledge, Drake. People can have an intuitive grasp of metaphors and other analogies without having a theory of analogical predication. You’re getting the cart before the horse.”
>>>You still didn’t define your use of metaphor. What a surprise. Just reture fro apologetics Steve. It is past time. Throwing insults at me isn’t going to make your arguments any better or your concepts more clearly defined. You are only supplying hubris, and emotional candy for your know-nothing followers to chew on.
“My argument isn’t based on a “time-chronological series” (to use your redundant phrase). You’re the one who’s persistently clueless.”
>>>More hubris and emotional bubblegum.
“So then if logical causal series are incidental contingencies…”
“I didn’t say a logical series was a causal series.”
>>>But I did. I was repsonding to your criticism of my view. Thank you for your admission of straw man. I notice you also did not respond to my statement that the son was necessary to the Father’s hypostasis thus not incidental.
Drake Shelton
Delete"Ad hoc assertions are not arguments, neither are they explanation. Stop the apologetics game Steve."
You need to keep track of your own statements, Drake. You're the one who asserted that denial of the Father's monarchy posits three beginnings. So the burden of proof lies squarely on your own shoulders to prove your assertion.
Moreover, if three autotheoi posit three beginnings, then does one autotheos posit that the Father had a beginning?
"You still didn’t define your use of metaphor."
The Bible doesn't define its use of metaphors either. Why do you require something the Bible doesn't require?
"But I did."
If you think a logical series is a causal series, then you're hopelessly confused. But, of course, we already know that.
2 quick comments;
ReplyDelete"...what’s striking is the degree to which Clarke is using Nicene orthodoxy as his frame of reference. The degree to which he shares certain fundamental assumptions in common with Nicene orthodoxy, but develops them in a “semi-Arian” direction."
Not really - Clarke builds his view on the Bible plus PRE-Nicene catholic theology - see the vast bulk of quotations in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. He seems to hold that somewhere around the 4th c. catholic theologians got too speculative and contentious, so he's not too interested in medieval theology, early or late.
"From what I can tell, both he and the Nicene orthodox regard the Father as the ontological source of the Son and the Spirit. They share that fundamental underlying presupposition."
Yes, and really the bulk of pre-Nicene catholocism, from logos theology well on past Nicea.
'
"Where they differ is how they construe the implications of that presupposition. At best, Clarke is a “homoian Arian.” Father, Son, and Spirit are of “like” substance rather than the same substance (or consubstantial).
The upshot is that so-called Nicene orthodoxy plays into variations of unitarianism. For that reason, Calvin was right to question this framework."
To be fair (yeah, I know you're not the biggest fan of fairness), Clarke isn't any kind of Arian at all; precisely none of his theology is based on theirs. It's all based on the Bible, read by the help of Novation, Origen, etc.
About unitarianism - the original creed of 325 seems to assume the truth of Christian unitarianism - "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty" - the Father here just is the one God. And the Son is not numerically the same as him, for he's derived in some mysterious sense from God/the Father, but the Father isn't. (So the Son too can be called "true god/God", being somehow the same as, because derived from the one True God, i.e. the Father.)
So 325 really is not the watershed statement of trinitarianism, though it has long been spun as such.
Dale
Delete"Clarke isn't any kind of Arian at all."
Does that mean you haven't read Philip Dixon's Nice and hot disputes:
the doctrine of the Trinity in the seventeenth century?
Dale,
DeleteIt's revealing to see you backpedal from your own presentation. In your supplementary Stanford entry on unitarianism, you discuss different classification schemes:
"Recent scholarship has illuminated the views of that groups of fourth-century theologians called 'Arians', 'semi-Arians' ('homoian Arians'), and 'neo-Arians' (sometimes called 'anhomoian Arians')"
Then, in your summary of Clarke's position, you say:
"The early Fathers, he holds, thought Father and Son to be homoousios only in the sense that the latter is ineffably derived from the former—not in the sense of their being the same thing or the exact same kind of thing."
Of course, to say the Father and Son are not the same thing or same kind of thing would make them homoiousios (of like substance) rather than homoousios (of the same substance or consubstantial).
If that's how Clarke interprets the early church fathers, and if he shares their view, then, according to your own classification scheme, that would make him a homoian Arian or semi-Arian.
I'm just working off your own summary and terminology.
Keep in mind, too, that Drake Shelton has classified Clarke as "semi-Arian." You may disagree, but I'm responding to Drake on his own terms.
Read it very thoroughly, and also some of the sources he's discussing. It's a useful book, but is a very partisan, catholic take on the whole affair. In current fashion, he uses "Arian" as a polemical term, for anyone who doesn't posit absolutely equal divinity for the three. It's an abuse of language; never forget that this term was invented as a derogatory label by their opposition. But as Williams's book shows, Arius was just the figurehead - this subordinationist theology went way back.
ReplyDeleteWell, Dale, that cuts both ways. One could just as well say that your negative assessment of his book reflects a very partisan, anti-Trinitarian take on the whole affair, given your own theological commitments. He sides with the orthodox party while you side with opposing party.
DeleteAnd even as a polemical term, "Arian" is standardly used to imply the claim that there was a time when the Son was not - but Clarke always denied this, believing in a mysterious, eternal generation, ala Origen.
ReplyDelete