On matters of doctrine

[Thomas]

It feels to me like an offense against God to think of him as being made of some kind of substance, like a chair made of wood or a sword made of steel.

No-one ever thought that.

I think the Church of Latter Day saints does, but that's down to them.

Yours, as I said, is a modern understanding, assuming 'substance' in English is what the Latins meant by substantia, which I've explained above, is not the case.

The Latin for the stuff you're thinking of is materia. The Greek is ύλη, hyle.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Absolutely.

The Apocalypse of John 1:8
Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος, λέγει ὁ κύριος ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὁ παντοκράτωρ
egō eimi alpha kai ō archē kai telos legō ho kyrios ho ōn kai ho ēn kai ho erchomai ho pantokratōr
"'I am the alpha and the omega,' says the Lord God, 'the one who is and who was and who is coming, the ruler of all.'"

Nicaea was not, as the conservatives hoped, a looking-back to the past, but a looking forward, a statement of faith in the Church's telos (end) as much as its archē (principle or beginning).

Nicaea was an inspired interpretation of the received tradition, explored and explained in new concepts, a synthesis of a past tradition guided by a sense of that eschatalogical telos.

Nicaea affirmed an ancient tradition that has come down to us, generally attributed to Athanasius, that "God became man so that man might become God", On the Incarnation of the Word, written around 318–325CE.

The theology is much older, and the doctrine of divinisation or theosis developed progressively from its scriptural roots. The idea is there in the Pauline and Johannine writings, and directly in 2 Peter 1:4, "so that through these you may become communicants in the divine nature" (Hart).

Before Athanasius, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180CE) said: "... but following the only true and steadfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." (Against Heresies, Book 5, Preface).

Thanks for the follow up information Thomas. I think I understand the inspiration of Nicaea, in the desire to set a unified vision of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The question I must then ask is, if it added meaning, how were the additions reconciled against past guidance such as Proverbs 30:5–6 at the Nicaea?

I ask this, as the word as recorded, speaks to each of us as individuals, as we, one and all, the way I read the word, is that we are personally accountable unto God for our own choices. This is the quandary I see about adding meaning that was not recorded at the time of revelation, or recorded later from an appointed apostle.

I had written a lot more, deleted all that.

Regards Tony

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I had written a lot more, deleted all that.

I hate it when that happens.

 

[DerekhHikmah]

I've carried these questions from @DerekhHikmah over from the 'Arian banquet verses' thread because I think they are worthwhile:


A two-part question.

As for 'what did he actually believe' – I'll answer that over on the 'banquet' thread. But for brevity here, we can reliably reconstruct his beliefs enough to pinpoint the actual elements of the dispute.

As for how he was represented, the answer to that is he was personally grossly and viciously misrepresented and maligned, primarily by Athanasius, who goes at some length to destroy his name, reputation and the theology he was re-presenting, at some length and with great vitriol, as the father of 'Arianism' and the founder of a group of heretics he referred to as 'Ario-maniacs' (Discourse 1 Against the Arians, para4)

+++


The distinguishing feature is, of course, the presence of the apostles in the debate, but even from Acts 15 we can see the debate was discussed at some length, and opinions were divided.

We can assume some degree of resolution was arrived at, with James, Peter and Paul in agreement – but that did not end diversity of belief in the Church, much as 'traditional' historians would like to say that orthodoxy was established at this time.


So the process devolved to the nascent hierarchy of the Church – bishops, priests and deacons. This led to the synod as the manner of governance and determination. Because of geographical distances, etc., the respective bishops has a fair degree of autonomy and rules were established to ensure such. Having said that, there were influential catechetical schools, such as at Alexandria and Antioch.


A wide variety of concepts, as Scripture is nowhere near as prescriptive as we might like – by which I mean providing categorical answers to questions arising.


No. One of the big impediments at Nicaea was the fact that the term homoousios does not appear in scripture, and the bishops were rather hoping that scripture itself would suffice to prevent conflict ... clearly it did not.

Theological waters are further muddied because the definitions of terms changed over time, so even when a term dies appear in scripture, such as hypostasis, (three times in Hebrews and twice in 2 Corinthians) the manner in which the term came to be defined is not precisely in accord with the definition Paul or the author of Hebrews had in mind.

This is a very nice response, thank you, and I have several things to say. I want to first pick up on Acts 15 because that is an important event and precedent for seeing how the holy spirit and the process of adjudicating scriptural and doctrinal points is handled.

Acts 15:2 explicitly says there was “no little dissension and disputing,” and verse 7 says that “much discussion” occurred. So you are right that there was genuine disagreement and debate, and I also agree that the presence of the apostles is obviously important. We know they were genuinely anointed with God's spirit (Acts 2). However, I think we need to tighten the epistemology a little around how the conclusion is actually reached.

The letter says: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things.” — Acts 15:28.

Notice how Luke presents their judgment as one in which the holy spirit itself is operative. Luke does not record this as though the apostles had simply arrived at an agreed-upon compromise which they could all live with. The apostles themselves are under authority: “the holy spirit and we.”

Acts 15:25 is also interesting because, after all the disagreement and discussion, they speak of having come to a unanimous decision, or acting with one accord. So the movement in the chapter is not from disagreement to permanent pluralism, but from disagreement, through discussion and discernment, into agreement under the direction of the holy spirit.

Moreover, Acts 16:4 describes Paul and Timothy subsequently delivering “the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem” for the congregations to observe. So this was not merely a suggestion or recommendation that individual congregations were free to accept or reject according to preference. These were *dogmata* — decisions or decrees — transmitted as authoritative, and subsequently included in scripture in this instance.

Paul later treats the attempt to impose circumcision on Gentile Christians not as another equally legitimate Christian position, but as a serious distortion of the good news. We see that particularly in Galatians 2:3-5 and 5:2-6.

Jesus had said: “When that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth.” — John 16:13.

Paul likewise says: “For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God.” — 1 Corinthians 2:10.

So apostolic authority is not:

apostles → truth.

It is more like:

God and Christ → holy spirit → apostolic witness → congregation.

In other words, the holy spirit does not become authoritative because enough apostles agree. Rather, the apostles come into agreement through their submission to God and to what he has disclosed through Christ, the inspired Scriptures, and the holy spirit.

That seems to me to be an important distinction before we move on to the question of what happens once the apostles are gone. I have much more to say but I will have to respond in time further. Thanks for discussing this important issue though, I genuinely enjoy our conversations.

 

[Thomas]

That seems to me to be an important distinction before we move on to the question of what happens once the apostles are gone. I have much more to say but I will have to respond in time further. Thanks for discussing this important issue though, I genuinely enjoy our conversations.

My pleasure, and thanks for your thoughtful questions.

The end of the Apostolic Era, as you say, marks a turning point.

I look forward to further dialogue.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Tony —

The question I must then ask is, if it added meaning, how were the additions reconciled against past guidance such as Proverbs 30:5–6 at the Nicaea?

Proverbs 1:5-6 says:
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (KJV)

It 'adds meaning' in the sense that it increases our insight and understanding, not that it adds something to what is recorded in Scripture. So in that sense, the Nicene Creed doesn't add to or alter what is said in Scripture. It is founded in and on Scripture.

... is that we are personally accountable unto God for our own choices.

Yes, I completely agree, we are.

This is the quandary I see about adding meaning that was not recorded at the time of revelation, or recorded later from an appointed apostle.

I would suggest the meaning was implicit in Scripture.

2 Peter 1:4, "whereby he has given us his precious and majestic promises, so that through these you may become communicants in the divine nature, having escaped from the decay that is in the cosmos on account of desire." (Hart).

The question then is, when we read Scripture, do we assume the absolute minimum of what is said, or do we assume the absolute maximum?

Nicaea was, in that sense, all about a minimalist v a maximalist theology. Were it dependent on just this verse or that, I would say we cannot necessarily assume the maximal reading, but when the entirety of scripture points in that direction, then that is what we are called to do.

We could discuss Paul, in Romans 8, if you like, and I'll walk us through it.

 

[Thomas]

A point of reference, @DerekhHikmah, is how the Catholic Church regards 'dogma' and 'doctrine'.

Dogmas refers to truths divinely revealed in Scripture or Tradition, formally defined as binding and irrevocable, as they're considered infallible.

Infallible doctrines (or definitively proposed doctrine) are those truths that are infallibly taught by the Magisterium as having a necessary connection to revealed dogmas, or as part of the apostolic tradition, but are not formally defined as divinely revealed.

 

[Thomas]

Doctrine as coherence in the face of contradiction
One of the misunderstood facts about the emergence of Christian doctrine from the Ecumenical Councils is that the theologians behind them were working toward resolving confusion and contradiction. The debates of the 4th century mark the laborious and often messy and contentious process to specify how God is one and God is three.

The crowning achievement belongs to the Cappadocian Fathers – Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, who took two Greek words, long used almost interchangeably, ousia and hypostasis, and drew out and defined their distinctions.

Ousia would name what God is – God is One, whole and undivided).
Hypostasis would name who God is – Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each distinct by relation to the others.

Since what is one and what is three is affirmed in different respects, there is no contradiction.

Doctrine as continence in the face of excess
Another misunderstanding is the reserve the Councils evidence as a guard against claiming too much.

This Cappadocian distinction neither explains the Trinity nor demonstrates its coherence, since demonstrating coherence would require a full comprehension of the divine nature, which no one can do. St Thomas Aquinas, centuries later, stated the principle with precision: The truths of faith cannot be demonstrated, yet every argument brought against them can be answered, because the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated (ST I.1.8).

Mystery owes the world no proof of its consistency; it owes only the assurance that no one has shown it to be nonsense – a by its very nature exceeds the mind, whereas a contradiction cancels itself out.