Misunderstandings about theology

[TheLightWithin]

If you want to understand how beliefs can be considered as harmful, think of how slavery, subjugation of women, and discrimination against gays were justified by religious beliefs

That depends on what's being said.

Some construe Scripture in really harmful ways ... the latest influx of 'manosphere' adherents claiming traditional Christianity affirms their views is toxic, wrong, and needs to be challenged at every opportunity.

Sorry for being repetitive, but I'm not having difficulty understanding something practical like this. Not at all.

What I am having difficulty understanding is the supposed harmfulness of the formal so called "heresies" Christological Trinitarian Non-Nicene Non-Chaldeconian etc.

The harm in the slavery and subjugation are obvious. To me. But they aren't labeled heresy, and definitely weren't labeled heretical in the earliest days of the church for darn sure.

Yes, Scripture is construed harmfully. I have no doubts at all about that.

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how non Trinitarianism is even remotely comparable to using Scripture to subjugate.

 

[TheLightWithin]

If you ever take a look at the Five Points of Calvinism, each point links together with every other point in a very tight logic.

I've tried to follow the logic. It doesn't really make sense.

I have no idea why this is the case, but I seem to remember systematic theology being more obvious among Christian than Jewish scholars. But hey, maybe I'm just not aware.

I believe systematic theology is not that much used in Judaism.

I'm not even sure all Christian denominations use it.

It can tend to be eisegetical.

 

[Longfellow]

Sorry for being repetitive, but I'm not having difficulty understanding something practical like this. Not at all.

What I am having difficulty understanding is the supposed harmfulness of the formal so called "heresies" Christological Trinitarian Non-Nicene Non-Chaldeconian etc.

The harm in the slavery and subjugation are obvious. To me. But they aren't labeled heresy, and definitely weren't labeled heretical in the earliest days of the church for darn sure.

Yes, Scripture is construed harmfully. I have no doubts at all about that.

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how non Trinitarianism is even remotely comparable to using Scripture to subjugate.

I don’t think the problem was actually anybody’s beliefs. I think that the problem was when people started using some beliefs as reasons for massive disruptive actions. The leaders responded by denouncing the beliefs. Misguided, maybe, but it’s what people often do.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I don’t think the problem was actually anybody’s beliefs. I think that the problem was when people started using some beliefs as reasons for massive disruptive actions. The leaders responded by denouncing the beliefs. Misguided, maybe, but it’s what people often do.

Maybe. I just think the leaders of the emerging early church didn't like anything that wasn't in lock step with their opinions.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I've tried to follow the logic. It doesn't really make sense.

While I'm more than qualified to explain it, I just don't feel like it is my job anymore since I'm now Jewish. Hope you understand. There are plenty of Christians in here who I'm sure are up to the task.

believe systematic theology is not that much used in Judaism.

I'm not even sure all Christian denominations use it.

It can tend to be eisegetical.

Except for Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, and One-ness Pentecostals, all Christian denominations are Trinitarian, which is the poster child for systematical theology. And I've never run across a single Christian who didn't believe in Substitutionary Atonement, also systematical theology. Original Sin. Christology. Justification. The list goes on.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Except for Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, and One-ness Pentecostals, all Christian denominations are Trinitarian, which is the poster child for systematical theology. And I've never run across a single Christian who didn't believe in Substitutionary Atonement, also systematical theology. Original Sin. Christology. Justification. The list goes on.

Also the Christadelphians, and Unitarian Christians, and the COG7 and the remnants of the WCG. There's Iglesia Ni Cristo. There's an international ministry called Living Hope International Ministry which is non-trinitarian (though many regular trinitarian churches use the same name)
I think there are still Christians who follow something like a Ransom theory, I think that might remain in some of these heterodox denoms.
There are multiple theories of atonement. Some seem more reasonable than others.

 

[TheLightWithin]

While I'm more than qualified to explain it, I just don't feel like it is my job anymore since I'm now Jewish. Hope you understand. There are plenty of Christians in here who I'm sure are up to the task.

I'm not really looking for that.

My point was that Calvinism and its idea of logic is deeply flawed, not that I'm trying to learn or seeking a qualified teacher to help me with it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Also the Christadelphians, and Unitarian Christians, and the COG7 and the remnants of the WCG. There's Iglesia Ni Cristo. There's an international ministry called Living Hope International Ministry which is non-trinitarian (though many regular trinitarian churches use the same name)
I think there are still Christians who follow something like a Ransom theory, I think that might remain in some of these heterodox denoms.
There are multiple theories of atonement. Some seem more reasonable than others.

My friend, you are bringing up teeny, tiny groups. There are billions of Christians in this world; Catholics alone are 1.4 billion strong. While you are correct, you are not overturning my point, which is that Trinitarianism is overwhelming the norm among Christians. Not that they understand it well, and not that they can articulate clearly. But it is nevertheless what they hold to. AND it is the product of systemical theology, which was the actual topic of my post.

We can discuss the other theologies you brought up, but all I'm going to say is "ditto."

I hope life has been treating you good.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not really looking for that.

My point was that Calvinism and its idea of logic is deeply flawed, not that I'm trying to learn or seeking a qualified teacher to help me with it.

I rather assumed you believe you are correct. Don't we all? But the nature of a religion forum is to discuss are differences. And I'm just saying, I don't have a dog in this race.

 

[Thomas]

He's saying that there was never a time when the Son was not begotten or when he was a part of God. Apart from being begotten, he was always fully God.

Not quite correct – just for the sake of clarity for others –

Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia:
Para 3: "We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full [of grace and truth], God, the only-begotten, unchangeable."
The emphasis is mine, and is open to misunderstanding.

Para 4: "Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest."

The issue was not the divinity of the Son, Arius defended that, but that there was a time when the Son did not exist (contra Origen, Athenagoras and Justin Martyr before him).

Arius is arguing the Son is He whom we call God, but He is not part of the Unbegotten "in any way", and that the Son "had a beginning" in a heavenly time before our created time, and that He is "not a portion of God or anything else", not in essence or substance, not co-equal nor co-eternal, which would inevitably lead to claims of bitheism.

 

[Thomas]

Sorry for being repetitive, but I'm not having difficulty understanding something practical like this. Not at all.

I think your difficulty is not actually over doctrine, but over ideas.

Orthodoxy comes from the Greek ὀρθοδοξία (orthodoxía; ortho 'right' + doxia 'opinion').

Heresy comes from the Greek root αἱρέω (haireó, 'to choose') and from there to the noun αἵρεσις (hairesis) to imply 'a personal choice', and was used in the NT to identify 'schools' or 'sects' within Judaism. The term stresses the personal aspect of choice – and hence how being a Sadducee (cf Acts 5:17) was sharply distinguished from being a Pharisee (cf Acts 15:5; 26:5).

Jesus was seen by Jews as a blasphemer and therefore one to be put to death, but one could argue his teaching was, by the same standard, heretical.

From early Antiquity, up until the Modern era, ideas that sought to undermine the sound social fabric were regarded as extremely dangerous and the powers would take all measures to preserve what they saw as good order.

Really, this goes far wider than Christian trials for heresy. Any criminal activity was seen as detrimental the the social good and the penalty was invariably death.

What I am having difficulty understanding is the supposed harmfulness of the formal so called "heresies" Christological Trinitarian Non-Nicene Non-Chaldeconian etc.

Because there ideas mattered in a way we cannot comprehend.

Without getting into politics, part of the 'problem' we face with populists ideas that are profoundly racist, misogynistic, vengeful, etc., is that we've dismantled the methods of dealing with them, because we assumed we had become too civilised for such things to occur. I'm not saying go back to Middle Age solutions, but simply that 'the beast' lurks in all of us, and the right call will bring it to the surface.

I'm not defending the past, but nor am I flatly condemning it, rather I target the wrongful practices then, and which have emerged in more subtle form in recent times – here in the UK we have the equivalent of fascist 'blackshirts' that were themselves modelled on the Nazi Party's
SD (Sicherheitsdienst), who were tasked with pointing the finger at 'internal enemies' (Jews, communists, artists, non-binary identifiers, Roma, foreigners, etc., etc.) They monitored and directed public opinion, and were recognised by their brown shirted military style ... today its balaclavas and para-military uniforms.

I would say, however, we need to understand this, not because of 4th century or 14th century disputes, but because the same violence is emerging in the 21st. 'Fake News' is, we are told, the false truth (heresy) that undermines our values and will lead to the collapse of Western Civilisation, and people have already been killed because of it ...

The harm in the slavery and subjugation are obvious. To me.

Yes, because you've grown up in the late Modern era.

Slavery was not considered such a terrible thing in Antiquity.

But slavery and subjugation is still widespread, and is a global industry worth billions, if not trillions – and we turn our gaze away. (The fashion industry depends on it, for one. The US penal system is slavery under a civilised guise. The sex-traffic industry is global, and we defend the rights of social media companies to use their tech to create new audiences and new demands ... )

But they aren't labeled heresy, and definitely weren't labeled heretical in the earliest days of the church for darn sure.

No. But many of the things we champion – free speech, the free access of minors to porn on to internet, 'fast (highly processed) food', vaping ... some of these things would have been considered heretical in the Ancient World, and on many instances they have every right to call us hypocrites.

Yes, Scripture is construed harmfully. I have no doubts at all about that.

Anything can be construed harmfully, if one is so inclined.

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how non Trinitarianism is even remotely comparable to using Scripture to subjugate.

Well non-Trinitarians are a minor sect, although the Arians were quite happy to subjugate Trinitarians – Arius was exiled once, Athanasius was exiled five times!

But the point is, non-Trinitarians were never in a position to subjugate anyone – today they compose about 3% of the Christian world – but we can be sure that were the situation reversed, they would have done, human nature being what it is.

 

[Longfellow]

Not quite correct – just for the sake of clarity for others –

Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia:
Para 3: "We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full [of grace and truth], God, the only-begotten, unchangeable."
The emphasis is mine, and is open to misunderstanding.

Para 4: "Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest."

The issue was not the divinity of the Son, Arius defended that, but that there was a time when the Son did not exist (contra Origen, Athenagoras and Justin Martyr before him).

Arius is arguing the Son is He whom we call God, but He is not part of the Unbegotten "in any way", and that the Son "had a beginning" in a heavenly time before our created time, and that He is "not a portion of God or anything else", not in essence or substance, not co-equal nor co-eternal, which would inevitably lead to claims of bitheism.

The translation "Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist" contradicts everything else in Arius's letters, including the first part of that same sentence. There is another translation which does not: "There was no (no such thing as) 'before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established.'" And the first part of that same sentence is "He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only unchchangeably begotten." That is, the only difference between Father and Son is that the Son is begotten, and the Father is not. "Before time and before ages" is exactly the language that everywhere else is equated with "eternal."

 

[Thomas]

The translation "Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist" contradicts everything else in Arius's letters.

What 'everything else'?

 

[Aupmanyav]

For understanding, I think that it’s better for people to immerse themselves in the story and read the relevant passages themselves in that context.

One can do just as well even without any story.

 

[Thomas]

The translation "Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist" contradicts everything else in Arius's letters, including the first part of that same sentence.

You think Arius contradicts himself?

There is another translation which does not: "There was no (no such thing as) 'before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established.'"

You mean another translation which inserts a text into the text to reverse its meaning? Where is this translation?

And the first part of that same sentence is "He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only unchchangeably begotten."

That is not disputed.

That is, the only difference between Father and Son is that the Son is begotten, and the Father is not.

But no-one disputed that?

"Before time and before ages" is exactly the language that everywhere else is equated with "eternal."

Yet clearly Arius is saying "there was a time when he was not" which was the basis of the whole dispute.

 

[Thomas]

Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia:
"... because the bishop [Alexander] is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil. Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was “always a God, always a Son;” “as soon as the Father, so soon the Son [existed];” “with the Father co-exists the Son unbegotten, ever-begotten, begotten without begetting;” “God neither precedes the Son in aspect or in a moment of time;” “always a God, always a Son, the Son being from God himself."
This was a fundamental Christian teaching, and this was what Arius was railing against, and refusing to be silenced.

The letter goes on:
"Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence... "

Letter of Arius and his followers to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria
"... he (God) begot an only-begotten Son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages [Heb 1:2] and all that was made; who begot him not in appearance, but in reality; and that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures ... "

"... but the Son, begotten apart from time by the Father, and created and founded before the ages, was not in existence before his generation, but was begotten apart from time before all things, and he alone came into existence from the Father. For he is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two unbegotten beginnings. But God is before all things as monad and beginning of all. Therefore he is also before the Son ..."

The Thalia (lit. 'banquet')
"And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. He alone has no equal, no one similar, and no one of the same glory. We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten. We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning. We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist.

"He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him. He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God’s own being For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being as him.

"So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings are not mixed together among themselves. As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other. The Father in his essence is foreign to the Son, because he exists without beginning...

"... It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God. Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will, He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others

"In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son. For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable, So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them. For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself. For the Son himself does not even know his own essence, For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.

"The Logos is not true God. For although he is called God, he is not true [God], But through the participation of grace, just as all others, he is called God only in name...

+++

I shall stop quoting the Thalia here, as it goes on to position Arius as opposed in almost every aspect of the understanding of the relation of the Dather to the Son, and the relations within the Trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit ... so much so that it's hard to see how Arius explains this in light of the Gospel of John.

The Thalia is reconstructed from citations in documents of those contending against Arius – but we should not therefore assume they simply made stuff up, Arius was there to defend himself, and he could rightly say 'show me where I wrote that' – so the language is quite likely highly critical, but to say that words were put into his mouth is perhaps going too far, and if they were, he could refute them.

 

[Longfellow]

Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia:
"... because the bishop [Alexander] is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil. Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was “always a God, always a Son;” “as soon as the Father, so soon the Son [existed];” “with the Father co-exists the Son unbegotten, ever-begotten, begotten without begetting;” “God neither precedes the Son in aspect or in a moment of time;” “always a God, always a Son, the Son being from God himself."
This was a fundamental Christian teaching, and this was what Arius was railing against, and refusing to be silenced.

The letter goes on:
"Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence... "

Letter of Arius and his followers to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria
"... he (God) begot an only-begotten Son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages [Heb 1:2] and all that was made; who begot him not in appearance, but in reality; and that he made him subsist at his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures ... "

"... but the Son, begotten apart from time by the Father, and created and founded before the ages, was not in existence before his generation, but was begotten apart from time before all things, and he alone came into existence from the Father. For he is neither eternal nor co-eternal nor co-unbegotten with the Father, nor does he have his being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two unbegotten beginnings. But God is before all things as monad and beginning of all. Therefore he is also before the Son ..."

The Thalia (lit. 'banquet')
"And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. He alone has no equal, no one similar, and no one of the same glory. We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten. We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning. We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist.

"He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him. He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God’s own being For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being as him.

"So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings are not mixed together among themselves. As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other. The Father in his essence is foreign to the Son, because he exists without beginning...

"... It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God. Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will, He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others

"In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son. For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable, So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them. For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself. For the Son himself does not even know his own essence, For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.

"The Logos is not true God. For although he is called God, he is not true [God], But through the participation of grace, just as all others, he is called God only in name...

+++

I shall stop quoting the Thalia here, as it goes on to position Arius as opposed in almost every aspect of the understanding of the relation of the Dather to the Son, and the relations within the Trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit ... so much so that it's hard to see how Arius explains this in light of the Gospel of John.

The Thalia is reconstructed from citations in documents of those contending against Arius – but we should not therefore assume they simply made stuff up, Arius was there to defend himself, and he could rightly say 'show me where I wrote that' – so the language is quite likely highly critical, but to say that words were put into his mouth is perhaps going too far, and if they were, he could refute them.

It seems possible to me that Athanasius did not fabricate or even modify any part of the banquet verses. However, it’s an open question for me whether not the verses were actually written by Arius. If so, then he seems to be telling one story to his followers, and an entirely different one to the bishops.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I think your difficulty is not actually over doctrine, but over ideas.

Doctrines are ideas. Can you clarify and expand on this?

What I am having difficulty understanding is the supposed harmfulness of the formal so called "heresies" Christological Trinitarian Non-Nicene Non-Chaldeconian etc.

Because there ideas mattered in a way we cannot comprehend.

Can you explain?

Without getting into politics, part of the 'problem' we face with populists ideas that are profoundly racist, misogynistic, vengeful, etc., is that we've dismantled the methods of dealing with them, because we assumed we had become too civilised for such things to occur. I'm not saying go back to Middle Age solutions, but simply that 'the beast' lurks in all of us, and the right call will bring it to the surface.

What methods of dealing with them? I'm not completely sure what you're getting at... a little too oblique.

... many of the things we champion – free speech, the free access of minors to porn on to internet, 'fast (highly processed) food', vaping ... some of these things would have been considered heretical in the Ancient World, and on many instances they have every right to call us hypocrites.

I'm not sure all of those things are championed exactly. Certainly not equally. Free speech. that's the only thing on your list actually championed by anybody really.

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how non Trinitarianism is even remotely comparable to using Scripture to subjugate.

Well non-Trinitarians are a minor sect, although the Arians were quite happy to subjugate Trinitarians – Arius was exiled once, Athanasius was exiled five times!

I think you missed my point. My point was that using scripture to subjugate people is harmful and bad. Being a non trinitarian is not even close to that on the level of badness. It's not even bad.

 

[Thomas]

It seems possible to me that Athanasius did not fabricate or even modify any part of the banquet verses.

We cannot be certain. All we can rely on was the fact that Arius' position was clearly stated, and Athanasius was disputing that. He would not be required to make up stuff, when there was clearly stuff there that was sufficient for his case.

However, it’s an open question for me whether not the verses were actually written by Arius.

For you, perhaps, but not for scholars. I don't know of anyone who disputes the idea that Arius wrote the Thalia.

Athanasius identifies occasions in the Thalia that seem to be copied from the Syntagmation (c.322), written by Asterius, a work commissioned by Eusebius of Nicomedia, to promote Arius's cause across Syria. It seems likely that Arius then drew on that text when composing the Thalia (c. 323), incorporating Asterius's phraseology into his own work.

It should be noted however, that this influence was late and superficial, a matter of "refinement and nuance in presentation, not his (Arius') basic theological orientation and vision."

If so, then he seems to be telling one story to his followers, and an entirely different one to the bishops.

I really don't see why you should think this – there's no contradiction as far as I can see – and nor does anyone else.

 

[Thomas]

Doctrines are ideas. Can you clarify and expand on this?

A doctrine is a teaching. A teaching is based on an idea. Ideas can lead to conflict. Conflict can overthrow nations ...

Christ taught, and the poeple tried to stone him. In the end, the Sanhedrin thought it best that he die to save the many.

I think you missed my point. My point was that using scripture to subjugate people is harmful and bad. Being a non trinitarian is not even close to that on the level of badness. It's not even bad.

I think you're conflating 'badness' and 'trinitarian'?