History of Philosophy | 18 Middle and Neo-Platonism

[Ahanu]

The Fathers reason the validity of the doctrine from philosophy, they believe the doctrine from Scripture.

You're assuming that first-century Jewish thinkers would have made the same sharp distinction between "Scripture" and "philosophy" that we do today. But that's anachronistic. For them, these categories were likely much more fluid. Think of Philo of Alexandria.

 

[Thomas]

That phrase makes it sound like Platonism was just a stylistic choice.

OK. But it's not.

That's a hypothetical claim.

Well clearly, but not unreasonable.

You can't simply assert that the doctrine would have emerged "regardless" of Plato when the historical record shows otherwise.

Well I can, as the Fathers would have to harmonise apparently contradictory texts in Scripture.

Justin Martyr's writings provide a clear example of the interplay between Scripture and philosophy. His concept of the Logos as a "second God," subordinate to the Father, clearly draws on Middle Platonic ideas about a hierarchical divine realm.

Quite. and it was rejected by later theologians, as well other 'clearly Platonic ideas' that sat uncomfortably with the statements in Scripture.

 

[Thomas]

You're assuming that first-century Jewish thinkers would have made the same sharp distinction between "Scripture" and "philosophy" that we do today. But that's anachronistic. For them, these categories were likely much more fluid. Think of Philo of Alexandria.

No, I'm not.

I'm saying there is their faith, and how they reason their faith.

They believe in Plato only so far as he provides useful tools, the believe in God the Father, according to Scripture, not according to the Platonic 'One'.

 

[Ahanu]

OK. But it's not.

Okay. How is it more than that? Explain how Platonism influenced the Fathers beyond mere style.

Well clearly, but not unreasonable.

The question is whether that's the most plausible explanation given the historical record. The fact that Justin's views differ from later Trinitarianism actually strengthens the argument for philosophical influence. If Justin's views were already fully Trinitarian in the later orthodox sense, it would be harder to argue for significant philosophical influence. It suggests that other factors were at play - not the idea that the doctrine developed in an "uninfluenced" way, solely from Scripture.

Quite. and it was rejected by later theologians, as well other 'clearly Platonic ideas' that sat uncomfortably with the statements in Scripture.

You're right, Justin Martyr's specific views were later rejected. But that's precisely the point. He represents an early stage in the development of Christian thought. And at that stage, we see clear evidence of philosophical influence.

 

[Ahanu]

The Fathers reason the validity of the doctrine from philosophy, they believe the doctrine from Scripture.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: "The New Testament contains no explicit trinitarian doctrine." So, how can you claim the Fathers simply believed it from Scripture when it's not explicitly there?

The very need to infer the Trinity, as the encyclopedia points out, shows us that it's not a straightforward reading.

 

[Thomas]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: "The New Testament contains no explicit trinitarian doctrine." So, how can you claim the Fathers simply believed it from Scripture when it's not explicitly there?

The very need to infer the Trinity, as the encyclopedia points out, shows us that it's not a straightforward reading.

Oh, come on ...

The entry goes on to state:
"However, many Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers hold that the doctrine can be inferred from what the New Testament does teach about God."

 

[Thomas]

Put another way ... why did the Fathers look to Platonism for a doctrine of the Trinity at all?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Well, a Trinitarian doctrine would have emerged from the contemplation of Scripture regardless of Plato, and would have expressed a harmony of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as different 'persons' nevertheless the same in essence.

That's a hypothetical claim. The reality is that early Christian thinkers did engage with Platonic philosophy, and their writings clearly show the influence of those ideas on their understanding of God and Christ. You can't simply assert that the doctrine would have emerged "regardless" of Plato when the historical record shows otherwise. Early Christian thinkers, like Justin Martyr, did use Platonic categories to articulate their understanding of God and Christ. This shows us that philosophical ideas were influential in a conceptual sense, influencing not just how they thought, but what they thought.

Yes, a hypothetical claim.
If the doctrine of the Trinity is so clear from scriptures, it has be scratching my head about two things
1 WHY were there alternate theories, that is, so called "heresies" before, and alternative theories in minority, heterodox denominations more recently? Where do they come from, if not the scriptural material as well?
2 WHY would Plato or other Greek philosophy be necessary if the idea was so clear and inevitable in the new testament materials?

Did the idea form some other way, and the idea of what would be included in the New Testament get chosen based on whether the words could be construed to support the theory?
The canonization of scripture did not happen overnight, and there were a lot of other writings.

 

[Ahanu]

Oh, come on ...

The entry goes on to state:
"However, many Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers hold that the doctrine can be inferred from what the New Testament does teach about God."

And as the encyclopedia goes on to explain, there's no consensus on how to infer it. It states that some claim it's deductive, others inductive, others that it's implicit, and some even admit there's no real biblical basis for it.

 

[Ahanu]

". . . other Christians admit that their preferred doctrine of the Trinity not only (1) can’t be inferred from the Bible alone, but also (2) that there’s inadequate or no evidence for it there, and even (3) that what is taught in the Bible is incompatible with the doctrine. These Christians believe the doctrine solely on the authority of later doctrinal pronouncements of the True Christian Church (typically one of: the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox tradition, or the mainstream of the Christian tradition, broadly understood)."
-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Thomas]

Yes, a hypothetical claim.
If the doctrine of the Trinity is so clear from scriptures, it has be scratching my head about two things
1 WHY ...

Whoa a second ...

Before continuing, why is there an assumption that the Christian Scriptures have to be so implicit as unmistakable even at a casual glance?

The Hebrew Scriptures are not treated as such. The Quran Scriptures are not treated as such.

There are commentaries on all sacra doctrina.

That said sacra doctrina needs to be self-evident and self-explanatory is a very recent idea and quite misguided.

 

[Thomas]

And as the encyclopedia goes on to explain ...

The Trinity, along with a number of other matters constitute a Divine Revelation and therefore cannot be proven by logic – were that the case, they would be self-evident to the mind and thus not constitute a Divine Revelation as such.

So the question comes down to ... does one accept Revelation or not?

One cannot prove Revelation – the Divinity of the Incarnate Son, the Virginity of Mary, the efficacy of the Sacraments, the Resurrection and the Ascension.

They are matters of faith.

But that faith can be reasoned, and in being reasoned, means being presented in a manner that the world can understand, even if it chooses not to believe, because that reasoning cannot itself constitute a proof as such, only that the belief is reasonable.

Same goes for a Jew with regard to the Torah, a Muslim with regards to the nature of the Quran, a Buddhist with regard to ... and so on.

Same with a Baha'i with regard to the Bab, to Baha'u'llah, and so on.

 

[Thomas]

1 WHY were there alternate theories, that is, so called "heresies" before, and alternative theories in minority, heterodox denominations more recently? Where do they come from, if not the scriptural material as well?

They mostly do, and to what degree is a matter, and how they present their case, is all grist for the mill.

2 WHY would Plato or other Greek philosophy be necessary if the idea was so clear and inevitable in the new testament materials?

It's not necessary for the ideas ... it's necessary to demonstrate the ideas are reasonable.

Fathers like Justin and Origen argued with philosophers – Justin with the possibly fictitious figure of Trypho, a learned Jew, and in Origen's case Celsus, a philosopher, believer in the Greek religious tradition, and considered Christianity to be an irrational superstition.

Did the idea form some other way, and the idea of what would be included in the New Testament get chosen based on whether the words could be construed to support the theory?

D'you mean were they already, say, Platonists, and adapted the New Testament to fit their beliefs – I think that would be a nigh-on impossible task to prove, as the NT was there before they were.

The canonization of scripture did not happen overnight, and there were a lot of other writings.

But it was largely in place before these issues arose, even if the strict order of books was not formally codified.

In fact the 'Canonical Bible' was not dogmatically declared, until the Council of Trent in 1546! It was generally accepted long before then ...

 

[Ahanu]

The Trinity, along with a number of other matters constitute a Divine Revelation and therefore cannot be proven by logic – were that the case, they would be self-evident to the mind and thus not constitute a Divine Revelation as such.

The New Testament is silent on the Trinity. Trinitarian concepts like co-equality are later inventions, and they are heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. The shift to creation ex nihilo (as shown by Paula Fredrikson), which was driven by philosophical concerns about pre-existent matter, was a key moment. It forced a re-evaluation of Christ's status, flaming debates that were shaped by philosophical ideas of contingency and being, and they ultimately led to the idea of co-equality. The controversies surrounding the doctrine and the creeds produced to define it show a gradual constructed doctrine, not a revelation.

"Philosophically educated readers of the LXX, whether Jewish (like Philo in the first century) or gentile (like Justin in the second), understood the biblical creation narrative in these terms. The divine lower rational agent in creation, God’s logos, is Philo’s “second god,” as he is Justin’s heteros theos, the pre-incarnate Son. And while biblical exegetes from Philo through Clement to Athenagoras will assert that the world was made “out of nothing,” their word choice is both cautious and telling. Cosmos is shaped ek mē ontos, not ek ouk ontos. The subjunctive form of the negative (μη) implies relative, not absolute non-being, “that is to say, [the world] is made not from that which is absolutely non-existent, but from relative non-being or unformed matter, so shadowy and vague that it cannot be said to have the status of ‘being’." In brief: relative “nothing” is still something.

As the metaphysical opposite of theos, hylē represented imperfection and change. Despite the divine impress of Form, primal matter could communicate its intrinsic deficiencies to cosmos, especially in the sublunar realm. Hylē thus provided this system with a theodicy: unformed matter, not the perfect god, was the ultimate source of the world’s imperfections. In the crucible of developing second-century Christianities, however, various theologians fretted over this idea. Did pre-existent matter imply some kind of limit on God? Why would the good God have pronounced creation itself “good” if it were based in and on deficient matter? And to what degree would matter imply or enact a cosmic realm independent of God? It was only in these circumstances, as a battle between Christian intellectuals over the moral status of matter, that the (counterintuitive) idea of creation ex nihilo eventually took hold.

Creation ex nihilo drove the arguments fueling later classical Christology. If only God was God, and if he “created” out of nothing, then was anything that was not-god by definition a part of his creation? To which pole of such a binary should Christ be assigned? Theologically (thus, philosophically) speaking, the issue was contingency. Was the Son independently God? If so, not ditheism? If not, was that then Sabellianism? Was Christ, qua “Son,” not contingent upon the Father? Simple vocabulary pulled in one direction (contingency), concerns about cosmology and soteriology pulled in another (equal- ity); and the great Origen, alas, could be read in support of either position. Imperial politics compounded the controversies; consensus documents (also known as “creeds”), hammered out by committee, shed more heat than light. The factions that resulted from all the fourth- and fifth-century Christological infighting remain to this day."
-Paula Fredrikson, "How High Can Early Christology Be?"

 

[Thomas]

For the sake of

The New Testament is silent on the Trinity.

And yet it speaks of it to me, and has spoken to me.

As for Paula Fredrikson, even those who offer laudable critiques – indeed I have referenced her – do not shy away from pointing out the errors and assumptions she rests on as if proof ...

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

For the sake of

And yet it speaks of it to me, and has spoken to me.

As for Paula Fredrikson, even those who offer laudable critiques – indeed I have referenced her – do not shy away from pointing out the errors and assumptions she rests on as if proof ...

I would have only one observation, which raises a question of scripture, about adding ro the words/commands

Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.

Deuteronomy 12:32
"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Who had authority to add such extra meaning? Who had the authority to interpret the words into a meaning called the trinity?

History has shown that It became a teaching that ended in persecution for those that did not see a "trinity doctrine" in those verses.

Regards Tony

 

[TheLightWithin]

Before continuing, why is there an assumption that the Christian Scriptures have to be so implicit as unmistakable even at a casual glance?

All I can say is that people claim certain ideas are in the writings, but they don't seem self evident, so how can anyone be sure that one reading or interpretation is correct and another is incorrect?

To me, when I read through the bible as a kid and tried to read through later, I thought, I do not know how people draw conclusions from this material, much less how doctrine, theology, and church teaching come from it.

 

[Thomas]

I would have only one observation, which raises a question of scripture, about adding ro the words/commands

But Traditional Christianity does not add to scripture.

Who had authority to add such extra meaning? Who had the authority to interpret the words into a meaning called the trinity?

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him." (John 4:23)

"God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24)

"The Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you." (John 14:17)

"But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me." (John 15:26)
Very much a triune here – the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth; Jesus, and the Father – three distinct entities.

"But when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you." (John 16:13)

"We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." (1 John 4:6)

+++

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 11:15)

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 13:9)

"Then shall the just shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 13:43)

"And he said: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Mark 4:9)

+++

That hearing did not stop when the last drop of ink dried on Scripture, nor with the death of the last apostle ...

 

[Thomas]

All I can say is that people claim certain ideas are in the writings, but they don't seem self evident ...

As I have said, the idea that scripture need be 'self evident' is mistaken.

People can misunderstand the simplest things – the label on a jar, an instruction manual for a domestic device – to expect Scripture to be self-evident is somewhat extravagant. People barely understand scripture, and poetry leaves many untouched.

If Scripture were infallibly self-evident, I'd say there is a proof of God, right there.

... so how can anyone be sure that one reading or interpretation is correct and another is incorrect?

By resort to Tradition.

 

[TheLightWithin]

But Traditional Christianity does not add to scripture.

Well, depending on whom you ask.

Rabbi Tovia Singer thinks the entire New Testament was simply added "glued onto" as he says, the Hebrew Bible. He doesn't agree with the reasons for that.

Different canons exist in some churches too --there's the Catholic and Orthodox Apocrypha -- did the Protestants wrongly removed things? Is it true that Martin Luther almost threw out the Book of Revelation? Was he wrong, or were the original committees wrong? is it the Ethiopic church that has something like 84 books of scripture? Did they add something they should not have? Did others omit something they should not have?

Are they answers to these things actually knowable?