OK ... I fear we'll end up walking round in circles here ... I agree with everything Prof. Holmes is saying, and you still seem to take issue?
In circles we go.
Remember your first post,
@Thomas?
Yes! A really interesting video!
I was uncertain for a moment, is he saying that the Trinity Doctrine is derived from Neoplatonism? No, but it uses the philosophical language of the day to explain itself – the Fathers believing that faith in God was both reasonable and rational.
A basis is stated at 16:55:
"so what begins to take shape on the horizon now, and it's on the horizon still, is a distinction between dualism, okay, dualism as in the gnostics, pantheism as in the neoplatonists, and theism as in Christian thought.
Dualism where things are formed out of eternal matter, ex materia, pantheism with things formed ex deo, out of the very substance of God, and theism with creation ex nihilo, out of nothing at all – giving rise to three very different World Views and in a real way the history of the first five six centuries of Christian thought is the history of trying to make those distinctions clearly..."
By focusing on the idea that the Church Fathers used the "philosophical language of the day" to explain the Trinity, you're pretty much downplaying the possibility of a deeper conceptual influence here.
I'm not disputing that. No-one disputes that. What is the subject of much scholarly debate is the degree of dependence the Christioan formula has on the Neoplatonic formula.
Professor Holmes makes this statement at 21:47, that the Neoplatonic model is 'a pre-Christian conception ... in a purely pagan context'.
That context was the emanation theory of Neoplatonism which has the One, divine, simple and undifferentiated at the top, 'overflowing' in a series of hierarchical steps, the One, the Logos, the World Soul, and so on through the various states of being (the Great Chain of Being) to base matter at the bottom of the hierarchical ladder – a monistic and panentheistic conception – owing much to Stoic influence.
Earlier, at 15:39-59:
"Neoplatonism were pretty pantheistic when Christianity assimilated middle platonism as many Christians did. They found they had to make distinctions between God and creation which were not inherent in this Emanation Theory ..."
The question then is what distinctions were made, and why?
The answer is that the Neoplatonic model or concept does not correlate with Scripture. Either Scripture needs to be corrected to fit the Neoplatonic philosophy, of the Neoplatonic philosophy needs to be corrected in the light of the New Testament – and of the two, the New Testament was regarded as Revelation, and this indisputable.
So yes, I have no issue with Christian theologians assimilating (taking in the ideas of) Neoplatonism, but is so doing they saw the need to redefine the system in accordance with their understanding of the Biblical texts – and with regard to Trinity – the doctrine was eventually dogmatically defined as a perichoresis, a 'mutual indwelling' of the Three Persons, which was unique and quite distinct from the hierarchic understanding of the various Emanationist theories of contemporary Greek thought.
It's not until this post that you inform us that you agree Middle Platonism had a pre-Christian proto-Trinitarian concept.
But there's still a problem: While Scripture was undoubtedly important, the
interpretation of Scripture was also influenced by existing philosophical frameworks.
Think about the assertion that the baptismal formula ("in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit") somehow proves the Trinity. The formula itself only suggests a triad, not necessarily the specific doctrine of the Trinity as it later developed, as is rightly pointed out in the discussion with Khalil Andani here:
Here the speaker critiques the tendency to read the full-blown doctrine of the Trinity
into the baptismal formula, calling it "tremendous over interpretation." The doctrine of the Trinity owes more to later theological reflection (influenced by philosophy) than to the plain meaning of the biblical text itself.
I think I have?
It suggests such, but then the development of doctrine has to be followed to see where the doctrine distances itself from the Neoplatonic influence. In so doing it becomes apparent that Christian theology is radically different as regards the nature of the Cosmos, the origin of creation and the nature of the relation of the Neoplatonic triune the One, the Intellect and the Soul, and the Christyian formulation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Put another way ... how could the philosophers of the early Christian era read the words and deeds of Christ, as contained in Scripture, and explain the relationship between Father and Son (for example) ... and not draw on contemporary philosophical ideas and lexicon?
'philosophical basis for some sort of' – yes, again, I don't deny that – and the debates on the Trinity were framed in this language, but the acid test was whether or not that language conformed to what is said in Scripture – and where it did not, it was changed or redefined – or baptised and transfigured, one might say.
All you're doing is minimizing the significance of philosophical influence by emphasizing the later divergences in Christian theology.
OK ... I fear we'll end up walking round in circles here ... I agree with everything Prof. Holmes is saying, and you still seem to take issue?
Professor Holmes was a Christian and seems to have no difficulty in accepting a pre-Christian intimations of the Holy Trinity, and nor do I.
When I started my BA, my Course Director, knowing my inclination towards Christian Neoplatonism said:
"Christianity is Hebrew Revelation in light of the Greek philosophical Tradition."
I have no problem declaring that philosophical speculation is not necessarily invalidated by Revelation, nor do I have any issue with the Fathers assimilating Greek philosophy into their theology when it can be seen to accord to Scripture.
The only proviso I make is that Doctrine is founded on and shaped by Scripture and explained philosophically, not the other way round.
Yep. You've downplayed the significance of Middle Platonic influence the entire time. Professor Holmes's Christian faith is irrelevant to the argument.
Scripture is central to Christian theology. However, the interpretation of Scripture is not a vacuum. Existing philosophical frameworks could have influenced how early Christians understood and interpreted biblical texts. Your statement ("Founded on and Shaped by Scripture") ignores this main point. You seem to picture early Christians reading Scripture and directly deriving doctrines from it, without any external intellectual baggage.
We end up walking around in circles here because your argument is circular in nature: Christian doctrine is based on Scripture; therefore, any apparent similarities to other philosophies are merely superficial. You acknowledge the pre-Christian existence of the proto-Trinitarian concept in Middle Platonism and the use of contemporary philosophical ideas by early Christians, yet you simultaneously insist that Scripture is interpreted independently of any philosophical influence. You have some sort of passive receptive understanding of how early Christians used pre-existing philosophical frameworks in their assimilation. You're essentially saying: "Doctrine comes from Scripture, therefore Scripture is interpreted independently of philosophy." But the question is how Scripture is interpreted in the first place.
