Ontology, the Transcendence of God, and Theosis

[Navidad]

I have no particular expertise to enter into this conversation. I would only encourage provisional certainty in talking about the teaching of the Patristic (first and second centuries) authors like Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, and Origen (more 3rd century). First, they wrote in Koine Greek which requires careful analysis because of so many words, cases, tenses, and voices with different meanings that were all translated into the same English words, with intermediate translations often in Latin or French. Some also wrote in Syriac, but those were a bit later. Second, in some cases we have no or almost no complete manuscripts of their writings. Third, some had certain portions of their beliefs declared heresy by later church fathers. So it is sometimes challenging to know if something was accepted or rejected by the larger community without knowing the intervening history.

OK, now I will go away and tune in to your discussions.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Navidad

[InCognitus]

13 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I think what 3DOP said has merit, and I'll try to keep things simple by using an analogy to geometry:

• Imagine that in Catholic belief, God's Divine Nature is a line. There is no beginning, middle, or end, and there is no stopping or starting point. It's a line that always is, and that is beyond time.
• The Incarnation puts a point on that line, a point that is the Son's human nature. The Son is always the line in His Divine Nature, and He is also a point in His human nature, as the Son fully possesses two natures, Divine and human.
• The Divine Grace provided through the Atoning Sacrifice of the Son allows humans to become rays, or to be reconciled to God in a ray-like fashion. There is some discussion amongst theologians on this point.

I really like your line analogy and how the incarnation is still part of the line.  That's a really good point (pun intended).

Some of the mechanics are a little fuzzy (blurred lines?) and I would ask some questions about the rays, but I'm certain there aren't easy answers (much like any of us trying to explain how the atonement works).

13 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

• Latter-day Saints seem to be saying that God--or gods--and humans are all lines. This runs smack into categorical, ontological issues and also into Catholics' understandings of the Son's Incarnation and Atoning Sacrifice.

I think you'd need to start from the beginning and completely reconstruct the Latter-day Saint version of the analogy, because in the beginning of your Catholic analogy, you defined the line itself as "God's Divine Nature".  From my understanding of later Christian philosophical thinking (and by later I mean late second century AD), God is the Creator of all that is not God, so anything that co-exists with God eternally would be God.  But that is NOT a Latter-day Saint belief at all, and even though we refer to our eternal spirits as our inherent "divine nature" because we are children of God, it doesn't make us "God".  It does mean that we have a "divine potential" (as the Gospel Topic Essay explains).  And to make it even more complicated, the Latter-day Saint view also defines the elements as eternal (without beginning or end), so I suppose we would need lines for that too (or something).  Not all the eternal spirits or intelligences have the attributes that we would consider to be God or gods, and eternal matter itself is not God.  Therefore we need something different in the Latter-day Saint analogy to define God.  The Supreme Line and Ruler of all lines?   I'm not trying to be funny (unusual for me, I know), I'm just trying to figure out a good way to explain it.  

So I suspect that some of your perceived categorical and ontological issues related to the Latter-day Saint view may have something to do with blurring together what is God and what is not God in the Latter-day Saint view because of how Catholics define God (or how you defined the line).  And this also goes to the Catholic's understanding of the Son's Incarnation and Atoning Sacrifice part of it, as well.   

Can you try to explain what you see, in the Latter-day Saint view to be those "categorical, ontological issues" and how it smacks into "Catholics' understanding of the Son's Incarnation and Atoning Sacrifice"?

Thank you very much for your input, this is helpful.

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Third, some had certain portions of their beliefs declared heresy by later church fathers. So it is sometimes challenging to know if something was accepted or rejected by the larger community without knowing the intervening history.

Origen is probably one of those early Christians you have in mind.  But if a teaching is accept in one period of Christian history (as is the case for Origen) but rejected by later church fathers, then we'd need to start asking questions about what changed to cause the teachings to be accepted in one period of history but then rejected later on. 

I think the formation of the Nicene Creed is possibly one of those developments, but there are others as well.

[InCognitus]

22 hours ago, 3DOP said:

The difference between us, I think we should agree, is that you are delighted to be of the same species, exalted and worshipping your most advanced Father. While we, non-LDS, at least Catholics and Orthodox believe that God is raising us above our own natures. You like your way of looking at it. I can see why. Can you see why we like our way of looking at it? Can you see the appeal from how we view it, InCognitus?

Regards always,

Rory

Rory,

I woke up last night in the middle of the night, and what you said here came to my mind.  I hope that my taking on the topic of this thread doesn't do anything to distract from the way that you like looking at your view.  I would never dream of doing such a thing (and since I woke up thinking this, I mean that in a literal way, apparently ).  I hope nothing that is said here is, or will be, offensive to your point of view, and I say that with all respect to your beliefs.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Origen is probably one of those early Christians you have in mind.  But if a teaching is accept in one period of Christian history (as is the case for Origen) but rejected by later church fathers, then we'd need to start asking questions about what changed to cause the teachings to be accepted in one period of history but then rejected later on. 

I think the formation of the Nicene Creed is possibly one of those developments, but there are others as well.

Hi my friend - Real quick it wasn't really later that some views were considered heresy, but contemporary, especially as you suggest with Origen. His own bishop, I believe his name was Eusebius (don't have time to confirm right now) declared some of Origen's teachings as heresy.

[Saint Bonaventure]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Can you try to explain what you see, in the Latter-day Saint view to be those "categorical, ontological issues" and how it smacks into "Catholics' understanding of the Son's Incarnation and Atoning Sacrifice"?

Thank you very much for your input, this is helpful.

Glad to take a shot at it. As before, I'm going for brevity and clarity:

• At the bottom, I'm working with two categories:
  • God (Creator).
  • Everything else (created).
• For me, God is:
  • Eternal, and exclusively so. Nothing else is eternal.
  • Unchanging.
  • Undivided.
  • Being.
  • Approached through the creeds, and ultimately incomprehensible.
• For me, the Atonement is:
  • Worked because Christ is both fully God and fully man. In a Catholic approach, Christ has two natures, which is how man (one nature, a creature) is reconciled to God (a distinct, singular, uncreated, Divine Nature). Latter-day Saints seem to posit that God and man have the same nature--and everyone is a separate being, which I'm sure I'm confused about. I take this "same nature" idea from the LDS belief that we are children of heavenly parents. I may very well be misunderstanding, as I'm not sure how this all fits with the eternal intelligences idea. 
• Latter-day Saints seem to believe God is:
  • Eternal, but there's a different definition of eternal at work than I use. LDS and Catholics use the same word, "Eternal," but attach very different meanings to it. For Latter-day Saints, God seems to be more becoming than being, and on a continuum with humans who also have divine natures (?), but who have not progressed as far.
  • Beings/Becomings. This is confusing on my end. When Latter-day Saints refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three "separate beings (plural!)" it sounds trithesitic (three distinct beings), and not Trinitarian. When LDS speak of God progressing, or humans becoming like God, or becoming like heavenly parents, the whole being/becoming situation feels like a word salad on my end.

If you're interested in theology of this sort in the second century, I'm up for discussions of particular persons and ideas. In my opinion, the classic work Early Christian Doctrines is an absolute must for anyone diving into this stuff. Any academic book that goes into five editions and a paperback is legendary, and J.N.D. Kelly, the author, paved the way for people like Bruce Metzger.

Here's its table of contents:

Quote

 

CONTENTS

      Prefaces
      Abbreviations, etc.

PART I

PROLEGOMENA

    CHAP.
               I.      THE BACKGROUND
           1.      The Patristic Epoch
           2.      Judaism
           3.      Religious Trends in the Roman Empire
           4.      Graeco-Roman Philosophy
           5.      Neo-Platonism
           6.      The Gnostic Way

               II.      TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE
           1.      The Norm of Doctrine
           2.      The Primitive Period
           3.      Irenaeus and Tertullian
           4.      The Third and Fourth Centuries
           5.      The Appeal to the Fathers

               III.      THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
           1.      The Old Testament
           2.      The New Testament Canon
           3.      The Inspiration of Scripture
           4.      The Unity of the Two Testaments
           5.      Typology and Allegory
           6.      The Antiochene Reaction

PART II

THE PRE-NICENE THEOLOGY

               IV.      THE DIVINE TRIAD
           1.      One God the Creator
           2.      The Church’s Faith
           3.      The Apostolic Fathers
           4.      The Apologists and the Word
           5.      The Apologists and the Trinity
           6.      Irenaeus

               V.      THIRD-CENTURY TRINITARIANISM
           1.      Introduction
           2.      Hippolytus and Tertullian
           3.      Dynamic Monarchianism
           4.      Modalistic Monarchianism
           5.      The Roman Theology
           6.      Clement and Origen
           7.      The Influence of Origen

               VI.      THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTOLOGY
           1.      One-sided Solutions
           2.      The Spirit Christology
           3.      The Apologists and Irenaeus
           4.      The Western Contribution
           5.      The School of Alexandria
           6.      The East after Origen

               VII.      MAN AND HIS REDEMPTION
           1.      The Sub-Apostolic Age
           2.      The Apologists
           3.      The Theory of Recapitulation
           4.      The West in the Third Century
           5.      The Doctrine of Man in the East
           6.      Eastern Views of the Work of Christ

               VIII.      THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
           1.      The Beginnings of Ecclesiology
           2.      Early Views of the Sacraments
           3.      Developments in the Doctrine of the Church
           4.      Baptism in the Third Century
           5.      Progress in Eucharistic Doctrine
           6.      The Penitential Discipline

PART III

FROM NICAEA TO CHALCEDON

               IX.      THE NICENE CRISIS
           1.      The Eve of the Conflict
           2.      The Teaching of Arius
           3.      The Theology of Nicaea
           4.      The Aftermath of Nicaea
           5.      The Nicene Party and Athanasius
           6.      The Anti-Nicenes

               X.      THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
           1.      The Return to the Homoousion
           2.      The Homoousion of the Spirit: Athanasius
           3.      The Homoousion of the Spirit: the Cappadocians
           4.      The Cappadocians and the Trinity
           5.      The Trinity in the West
           6.      The Contribution of Augustine

               XI.      FOURTH-CENTURY CHRISTOLOGY
           1.      Introduction
           2.      The Arians and Eustathius
           3.      The Christology of Athanasius
           4.      Apollinarianism
           5.      The Orthodox Reaction
           6.      The Antiochene Christology

               XII.      THE CHRISTOLOGICAL SETTLEMENT
           1.      Nestorianism
           2.      Cyril of Alexandria
           3.      From Ephesus Towards Unity
           4.      The Case of Eutyches
           5.      The West and Leo
           6.      The Chalcedonian Settlement

               XIII.      FALLEN MAN AND GOD’S GRACE
           1.      The Soul’s Origin
           2.      Athanasius and the Fall
           3.      The Greek Fathers
           4.      The West Before Augustine
           5.      The Doctrine of Pelagius
           6.      Augustine and Original Sin
           7.      Grace and Predestination
           8.      The Western Settlement
           9.      The East in the Fifth Century

               XIV.      CHRIST’S SAVING WORK
           1.      The Clue to Soteriology
           2.      Athanasius
           3.      Fourth-century Greek Fathers
           4.      The West in the Fourth Century
           5.      Augustine
           6.      The East in the Fifth Century

               XV.      CHRIST’S MYSTICAL BODY
           1.      Ecclesiology in the East
           2.      The East and the Roman See
           3.      Western Doctrines: Hilary and Optatus
           4.      Western Doctrines: Augustine
           5.      The West and the Roman Primacy

               XVI.      THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS
           1.      General Theory
           2.      Baptism
           3.      Confirmation or Chrism
           4.      Penance
           5.      The Eucharistic Presence
           6.      The Eucharistic Sacrifice

PART IV

EPILOGUE

               XVII.      THE CHRISTIAN HOPE
           1.      The Tension in Eschatology
           2.      Second-century Conceptions
           3.      The Development of Dogma
           4.      Origen
           5.      Later Thought: Resurrection of the Body
           6.      Later Thought: Parousia and Judgment
           7.      Life Everlasting

               XVIII.      MARY AND THE SAINTS
           1.      The Martyrs and Saints
           2.      Mary in the Ante-Nicene Period
           3.      From Nicaea to Ephesus
      INDEX

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth, Revised. (London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 1977), vii–xii.

 

I have many other books and sources on this topic, and specifically on theosis, but in the interest of being polite company I will exercise restraint.

 

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Rory,

I woke up last night in the middle of the night, and what you said here came to my mind.  I hope that my taking on the topic of this thread doesn't do anything to distract from the way that you like looking at your view.  I would never dream of doing such a thing (and since I woke up thinking this, I mean that in a literal way, apparently ).  I hope nothing that is said here is, or will be, offensive to your point of view, and I say that with all respect to your beliefs.

InCog, greetings.

Thank you. I can assure you that you need not worry.

Twenty years I have said the same things here. I hope I have another twenty saying the same things, but in a way better suited to the philosophical tendencies of our community here.

I might not be posting much for now, but I keep an eye on y'all. ☺

Rory

 

 

 

[3DOP]

 

Hi St B

I have been serving word salad for my part for a long time. Do you think we can express the Catholic faith with their language and thought pathways? I think there has to be a way to communicate better. 

I will always be a Thomist, but I am beginning to doubt that what has been so helpful in the West for nearly eight hundred years, is always the best way to explain ourselves.

I am looking for alternatives, in case you have suggestions. 

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Glad to take a shot at it. As before, I'm going for brevity and clarity:

Brevity and clarity is good!  (I'm not so good at that, but I'll try).

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

• At the bottom, I'm working with two categories:
  • God (Creator).
  • Everything else (created).
• For me, God is:
  • Eternal, and exclusively so. Nothing else is eternal.
  • Unchanging.
  • Undivided.
  • Being.
  • Approached through the creeds, and ultimately incomprehensible.
• For me, the Atonement is:
  • Worked because Christ is both fully God and fully man. In a Catholic approach, Christ has two natures, which is how man (one nature, a creature) is reconciled to God (a distinct, singular, uncreated, Divine Nature).

I'm with you here so far (for the Catholic point of view).

What I have trouble understanding is how something created and finite like humans can become eternal, having eternal life and never have an end, and how God remains exclusively eternal in that sense.

I especially wonder about that because Irenaeus seems to be saying, below, something similar to what Joseph Smith said, which is:  That which has a beginning may have an end.  

Quote

But that He did Himself make all things freely, and as He pleased, again David says, “But our God is in the heavens above, and in the earth; He hath made all things whatsoever He pleased.” But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning. But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them, must necessarily in all respects have a different term [applied to them], even by those who have but a moderate capacity for discerning such things; so that He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator.   (ANF 1: Irenæus—Against Heresies—Book III Ch. 8 ¶3)

Irenaeus says above that things that have a beginning are liable to dissolution or be dependent upon God for their continued existence in some way, so I'm not sure how eternal life can really be given unto man.  And Irenaeus says only He who made all things can alone be properly termed God, which makes me wonder how he can turn around in the next book, Book IV chapter 39 of Against Heresies, and ask the rhetorical question:  "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?"

So it's confusing to me how only God can be eternal, yet man can have eternal life.  And only God (the uncreated one) can be called God, yet men can become God (and all based on statements from the same author).

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Latter-day Saints seem to posit that God and man have the same nature--and everyone is a separate being, which I'm sure I'm confused about. I take this "same nature" idea from the LDS belief that we are children of heavenly parents. I may very well be misunderstanding, as I'm not sure how this all fits with the eternal intelligences idea. 

I had some things I wanted to say here, but it's getting late and I'm having trouble putting my thoughts together (this is all a huge topic).  I'm going to give this part some thought.

9 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If you're interested in theology of this sort in the second century, I'm up for discussions of particular persons and ideas. In my opinion, the classic work Early Christian Doctrines is an absolute must for anyone diving into this stuff. Any academic book that goes into five editions and a paperback is legendary, and J.N.D. Kelly, the author, paved the way for people like Bruce Metzger.

I'm glad to see you recommend this book.  I obtained a 4th edition of this book recently (a used book), but I haven't read it yet.  I did some skimming of parts of it this afternoon (when I should have been working), but what I saw looks good.  In fact, I may use something from the book to respond to the Origen question for Navidad  

Thank you so much for your views on this.

[InCognitus]

On 5/8/2023 at 11:42 PM, Navidad said:

Hi my friend - Real quick it wasn't really later that some views were considered heresy, but contemporary, especially as you suggest with Origen. His own bishop, I believe his name was Eusebius (don't have time to confirm right now) declared some of Origen's teachings as heresy.

I researched this the last time you brought this up, and I think you may be thinking of Demetrius, but he didn't condemn Origen on his doctrine, rather, he was offended because he was ordained a presbyter and seemed to be jealous of him.  St. Jerome wrote of this situation as follows: 

"When he [Origen] had already reached middle life, on account of the churches of Achaia, which were torn with many heresies, he was journeying to Athens, by way of Palestine, under the authority of an ecclesiastical letter, and having been ordained presbyter by Theoctistus and Alexander, bishops of Cæsarea and Jerusalem, he offended Demetrius, who was so wildly enraged at him that he wrote everywhere to injure his reputation. "   (Jerome: De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men))

In our prior discussion on Origen, you wrote:

Quote

Regarding Origen's contemporaries and accusations of heresy - I would suggest the most important person in his life in Alexandria as a budding Christian thinker was Demetrius, his bishop. Origen requested ordination from his bishop and his bishop refused because of the heterodox teachings and writings. They allowed him to teach, but not to preach or perform ordinances. Origen then began in real time bishop-hopping. He found a bishop, I believe in Caesarea who agreed to ordain him as some form of minister. Origen then left Alexandria and moved to Caesarea. His ordination was controversial among his peers. His own synod condemned his views. From that point on, Origen's travels and teachings were primarily done outside of the jurisdiction of his own synod. I don't have time today to go back through sources, but I have no doubt I could find a number of examples of his contemporaries not supporting his theological speculations. He was a thinker. No question about that. At times his thinking went too far afield, apparently even for his own bishop and peers. I have been under the authority of a bishop. During that time, he was the most important religious contemporary in my life.

I'm curious to know where you get your details on where Demetrius refused his ordination because of his heterodox teachings and writings.   According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Origen, it says that Demetrius (1) had given Origen a letter of recommendation (like what Jerome said in the quote above), but (2) was offended by the ordination because it took place without his knowledge and he thought it in derogation of his rights:

Quote

It was probably in 215 or 216 when the persecution of Caracalla was raging in Egypt that he visited Palestine, where Theoctistus of Caesarea and Alexander of Jerusalem, invited him to preach though he was still a layman. Towards 218, it would appear, the empress Mammaea, mother of Alexander Severus, brought him to Antioch (VI, xxi). Finally, at a much later period, under Pontian of Rome and Zebinus of Antioch (Eusebius, VI, xxiii), he journeyed into Greece, passing through Caesarea where Theoctistus, Bishop of that city, assisted by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, raised him to the priesthood. Demetrius, although he had given letters of recommendation to Origen, was very much offended by this ordination, which had taken place without his knowledge and, as he thought, in derogation of his rights. If Eusebius (VI, viii) is to be believed, he was envious of the increasing influence of his catechist. So, on his return to Alexandria, Origen soon perceived that his bishop was rather unfriendly towards him. He yielded to the storm and quitted Egypt (231). The details of this affair were recorded by Eusebius in the lost second book of the "Apology for Origen"; according to Photius, who had read the work, two councils were held at Alexandria, one of which pronounced a decree of banishment against Origen while the other deposed him from the priesthood (Biblioth. cod. 118). St. Jerome declares expressly that he was not condemned on a point of doctrine.

It also says that he was not condemned on a point of doctrine (and I've tried to research the source of that comment, but no luck yet). 

I was reading this afternoon on pages 3 and 4 of the book recommended to me by Saint Bonaventure, above, and I noticed that J.N.D. Kelly said essentially the same thing I said about some of these theologians being orthodox in their own day, but not later on, and he even uses Origen as an example:

Quote

If he is to feel at home in the patristic age, the student needs to be equipped with at least an outline knowledge of Church history and patrology. Here there is only space to draw his attention to one or two of its more striking features. In the first place, he must not expect to find it characterized by that doctrinal homogeneity which he may have come across at other epochs. Being still at the formative stage, the theology of the early centuries exhibits the extremes of immaturity and sophistication. There is an extraordinary contrast, for example, between the versions of the Church's teaching given by the second-century Apostolic Fathers and by an accomplished fifth century theologian like Cyril of Alexandria. Further, conditions were favourable to the coexistence of a wide variety of opinions even on issues of prime importance. Modern students are some­ times surprised at the diversity of treatment accorded by even the later fathers to such a mystery as the Atonement; and it is a commonplace that certain fathers (Origen is the classic example) who were later adjudged heretics counted for orthodox in their lifetimes. The explanation is not that the early Church was indifferent to the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy. Rather it is that, while from the beginning the broad outline of revealed truth was respected as a sacrosanct inheritance from the apostles, its theological explication was to a large extent left unfettered. Only gradually, and even then in regard to comparatively few doctrines which became subjects of debate, did the tendency to insist upon precise definition and rigid uniformity assert itself.  (Early Christian Doctrines, by J.N.D. Kelly, Fourth Edition, pp. 3-4)

The so called "Origenist crises" didn't start until the late fourth century AD (long after his death), but this was primarily against others who took some of Origen's writings beyond what he actually taught.

And please understand that I'm just trying to figure out what actually happened.  So if you have any additional information that you are aware of, I'd honestly like to know about it.

Edited May 10, 2023 by InCognitus

[Saint Bonaventure]

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Brevity and clarity is good!  (I'm not so good at that, but I'll try).

I'm with you here so far (for the Catholic point of view).

What I have trouble understanding is how something created and finite like humans can become eternal, having eternal life and never have an end, and how God remains exclusively eternal in that sense.

In short, what is finite doesn't become eternal. Nothing becomes eternal as eternal simply is, as declared by "I am the I am." 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I especially wonder about that because Irenaeus seems to be saying, below, something similar to what Joseph Smith said, which is:  That which has a beginning may have an end.  

Irenaeus says above that things that have a beginning are liable to dissolution or be dependent upon God for their continued existence in some way, so I'm not sure how eternal life can really be given unto man.  And Irenaeus says only He who made all things can alone be properly termed God, which makes me wonder how he can turn around in the next book, Book IV chapter 39 of Against Heresies, and ask the rhetorical question:  "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?"

So it's confusing to me how only God can be eternal, yet man can have eternal life.  And only God (the uncreated one) can be called God, yet men can become God (and all based on statements from the same author).

I think your confusion is understandable. With Irenaeus, one must always keep reading as while his context seems to shift, what he's up to here is a refutation of the Gnostics. I have a book chapter which my software allows me to put in PDF form, Irenaeus on the Christological Basis of Human Divinization, by Jeffrey Finch (2006). It's in volume one of Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology, that was published as part of the Princeton Monograph series. I don't think just putting it up on the board is a good idea, but I can make it available to you privately.

Briefly, Irenaeus a Trinitarian who believes in one God in three Persons, argues that man is neither absorbed by God nor annihilated by God, but can, through the Atonement, be assimilated to God, i.e. assimilated to the eternal.

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I had some things I wanted to say here, but it's getting late and I'm having trouble putting my thoughts together (this is all a huge topic).  I'm going to give this part some thought.

I'm glad to see you recommend this book.  I obtained a 4th edition of this book recently (a used book), but I haven't read it yet.  I did some skimming of parts of it this afternoon (when I should have been working), but what I saw looks good.  In fact, I may use something from the book to respond to the Origen question for Navidad  

Thank you so much for your views on this.

More soon!

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If you're interested in theology of this sort in the second century, I'm up for discussions of particular persons and ideas. In my opinion, the classic work Early Christian Doctrines is an absolute must for anyone diving into this stuff. Any academic book that goes into five editions and a paperback is legendary, and J.N.D. Kelly, the author, paved the way for people like Bruce Metzger.

I, along with many others, used Metzger's books in my first three years of Koine Greek studies in the sixties. He was a fine Evangelical scholar that we all looked up to, especially since he came from such an atypical small town and college in Pennsylvania - same as many of us. Back in the sixties, he helped make Evangelicalism academically acceptable and did much to make the distinction between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Same as Carl F. H. Henry, who I believe (I may be wrong) was born in the same year. They were among the early Evangelicals those of my generation looked up to with respect. They are probably one of the reasons why I get so finicky sometimes about making accurate distinctions between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. I know many don't care, but I lived through the transition and sometimes suffered because of it, so it is important to me! Best wishes to all.

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I researched this the last time you brought this up, and I think you may be thinking of Demetrius, but he didn't condemn Origen on his doctrine, rather, he was offended because he was ordained a presbyter and seemed to be jealous of him.  St. Jerome wrote of this situation as follows: 

"When he [Origen] had already reached middle life, on account of the churches of Achaia, which were torn with many heresies, he was journeying to Athens, by way of Palestine, under the authority of an ecclesiastical letter, and having been ordained presbyter by Theoctistus and Alexander, bishops of Cæsarea and Jerusalem, he offended Demetrius, who was so wildly enraged at him that he wrote everywhere to injure his reputation. "   (Jerome: De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men))

In our prior discussion on Origen, you wrote:

I'm curious to know where you get your details on where Demetrius refused his ordination because of his heterodox teachings and writings.   According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Origen, it says that Demetrius (1) had given Origen a letter of recommendation (like what Jerome said in the quote above), but (2) was offended by the ordination because it took place without his knowledge and he thought it in derogation of his rights:

It also says that he was not condemned on a point of doctrine (and I've tried to research the source of that comment, but no luck yet). 

I was reading this afternoon on pages 3 and 4 of the book recommended to me by Saint Bonaventure, above, and I noticed that J.N.D. Kelly said essentially the same thing I said about some of these theologians being orthodox in their own day, but not later on, and he even uses Origen as an example:

The so called "Origenist crises" didn't start until the late fourth century AD (long after his death), but this was primarily against others who took some of Origen's writings beyond what he actually taught.

And please understand that I'm just trying to figure out what actually happened.  So if you have any additional information that you are aware of, I'd honestly like to know about it.

Hi my friend. Thanks for the information. I wrote and acknowledged I wasn't sure about the name. I should have checked prior to writing, but am in the midst of my final dissertation push and at 74 years of age, don't have much time! I still have it in my mind that some of Origen's work were claimed as heresy by contemporaries, but I stipulate that for sure that could have been because of jealousies of the time. I can state that even into modern times, some of those jealousies continued. I once spent some time attending an Antiochan Orthodox Church and the old priest was certain that no theological good came out of anywhere that didn't start with an A and end with an H!

I also seem to remember that Demetrius (thanks for the correction) refused to ordain Origen for his incorrect (according to Demetrius) beliefs and that he went to a whole other country to be ordained by another bishop whose name I also don't remember. I also seem to remember that some contemporaries refused to recognize Origen's ordination for that reason. I may have that all messed up and certainly am not a scholar in the area.

On my post yesterday or the day before, I guess, in my own crude way I was agreeing with the statement from Kelly that theology was stilling forming in the first two centuries. I think using statements from that era as confirming is  probably something that should be used, as I said (or intended to say if I didn't) with provisional certainty. Using a statement by this or that patristic as normative of doctrine at that time or as confirming of a modern belief, might be an uncertain thing to do.  I have several other thoughts as well, but just don't have time right now. Thanks so much for your comments, time, and effort. My very best wishes - there are reasons that most folks of my age are retired. I just don't always have the wisdom and discretion to take my fingers off of the keyboard.

[pogi]

21 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Do you think we can express the Catholic faith with their language and thought pathways? I think there has to be a way to communicate better. 

Its easy!  Call the missionaries, get baptized, become one of us, see/believe things from our perspective, experience our language and thought pathways, then you would be better equipped to express the Catholic faith to us in a way we understand.  

[InCognitus]

On 5/10/2023 at 11:18 AM, Navidad said:

I should have checked prior to writing, but am in the midst of my final dissertation push and at 74 years of age, don't have much time!

I know all too well about not having enough time!  And when I try to make a post here, I often get interrupted several times before I can even finish a sentence!  (No wonder I don't make sense sometimes).

On 5/10/2023 at 11:18 AM, Navidad said:

I still have it in my mind that some of Origen's work were claimed as heresy by contemporaries, but I stipulate that for sure that could have been because of jealousies of the time. I can state that even into modern times, some of those jealousies continued. I once spent some time attending an Antiochan Orthodox Church and the old priest was certain that no theological good came out of anywhere that didn't start with an A and end with an H!

I also seem to remember that Demetrius (thanks for the correction) refused to ordain Origen for his incorrect (according to Demetrius) beliefs and that he went to a whole other country to be ordained by another bishop whose name I also don't remember. I also seem to remember that some contemporaries refused to recognize Origen's ordination for that reason. I may have that all messed up and certainly am not a scholar in the area.

If you ever have the time to look it up, I would really be interested in seeing any other information on what happened.

On 5/10/2023 at 11:18 AM, Navidad said:

On my post yesterday or the day before, I guess, in my own crude way I was agreeing with the statement from Kelly that theology was stilling forming in the first two centuries. I think using statements from that era as confirming is  probably something that should be used, as I said (or intended to say if I didn't) with provisional certainty. Using a statement by this or that patristic as normative of doctrine at that time or as confirming of a modern belief, might be an uncertain thing to do. 

I understand what you are saying, but I also think that approach begs the question, since it then becomes a huge assumption that what was solidified as Christian doctrine later on was the proper way to understand the teachings to begin with.  That's why I think this period of Christian history is the most important period to study.  If multiple teachers in multiple locations taught a particular thing and it is something that would border on heresy later on, then we should be asking questions about how that change happened, and why.

[InCognitus]

On 5/10/2023 at 8:56 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I think your confusion is understandable. With Irenaeus, one must always keep reading as while his context seems to shift, what he's up to here is a refutation of the Gnostics. I have a book chapter which my software allows me to put in PDF form, Irenaeus on the Christological Basis of Human Divinization, by Jeffrey Finch (2006). It's in volume one of Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology, that was published as part of the Princeton Monograph series. I don't think just putting it up on the board is a good idea, but I can make it available to you privately.

Briefly, Irenaeus a Trinitarian who believes in one God in three Persons, argues that man is neither absorbed by God nor annihilated by God, but can, through the Atonement, be assimilated to God, i.e. assimilated to the eternal.

Thank you again for the recommendation.  I have access to that publication, so I will check it out.

[InCognitus]

On 5/9/2023 at 2:25 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Glad to take a shot at it. As before, I'm going for brevity and clarity:

I'm going to try to respond to the Latter-day Saint portion of your post now that it's not close to bed time and maybe I can process what I'm thinking  

On 5/9/2023 at 2:25 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Latter-day Saints seem to believe God is:

• Eternal, but there's a different definition of eternal at work than I use. LDS and Catholics use the same word, "Eternal," but attach very different meanings to it. For Latter-day Saints, God seems to be more becoming than being, and on a continuum with humans who also have divine natures (?), but who have not progressed as far.

From what I understand of your point of view (and I think I summarized this in an earlier post), your definition of "eternal" is that only God is eternal (without beginning, without end, self existent).  Consequently if matter was said to be eternal (or anything else, really), then it would be "God".  (Please correct me if I'm wrong). That definition is totally foreign to Latter-day Saint thinking.

We define "eternal" in a similar way but without the "God" part of the definition.  We define eternal as:  Without beginning or end and self existent.  As for how we define God, he is the Supreme Being, the "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Ephesians 4:6).  The intelligences or spirits that co-exist with God have been "organized" by God and begotten by God (he is the Father of spirits - Hebrews 12:9) to enable them to progress to become like he is.  This is the "becoming" part that you mention above.  But even for God (the Supreme Being), he increases in glory as he creates new worlds (by organizing the "eternal fabric" of the worlds) and as he brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 

I think this is similar to what you are saying about the Latter-day Saint view above, but I wanted to make the differences clear.

On 5/9/2023 at 2:25 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• Beings/Becomings. This is confusing on my end. When Latter-day Saints refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three "separate beings (plural!)" it sounds trithesitic (three distinct beings), and not Trinitarian. When LDS speak of God progressing, or humans becoming like God, or becoming like heavenly parents, the whole being/becoming situation feels like a word salad on my end.

I think this is confusion over the term "being" (perhaps), but also not helped by the definition of how God the Father and Jesus Christ are "one" in the Nicene Creed.  

When we say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings, we mean that they are separate and distinct living and intelligent entities.  We are not referring to their essence or nature, since all three of them are eternal in their nature and they share the attributes of deity (sinless, perfect, complete, omnipotent, omniscient, and even omnipresent in their power and influence).  We don't accept the "homoousious" definition of the oneness of God as defined in the creed, at least in the sense it has come to be understood today. 

As you probably know, we do say the three members of the Godhead are "one God" in unity of will and attributes of perfection, but this is the same kind of oneness that Jesus prayed for to the Father for his disciples in John 17:20-23, "that they may be one, even as we are one".  We see this as sufficient revealed evidence for how the Father and Son are "one God" and don't need any further explanation.  

And yes, this can possibly be viewed to be teaching that the Father and Son are separate and distinct Gods who are one God in unity, but I think this is also clearly shown in the New Testament where God the Father is taught to be the very God and Father of Jesus Christ (John 20:17, Rom 15:6, 1 Cor 11:3,  2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3, Eph 1:17; Heb 1:8-9, 1 Pet 1:3) and even the resurrected Jesus refers to God the Father as "my God" no less than four times in Revelation 3:12.

I think it makes complete sense, scripturally, reading the scriptures for what they say.

Does that help at all?

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

From what I understand of your point of view (and I think I summarized this in an earlier post), your definition of "eternal" is that only God is eternal (without beginning, without end, self existent).  Consequently if matter was said to be eternal (or anything else, really), then it would be "God".  (Please correct me if I'm wrong). That definition is totally foreign to Latter-day Saint thinking.

I think that spirit IS matter (but "but more refined") per D&C.  I see that as a statement saying poetically that matter and energy and spirit are one, figuratively foreshadowing  E=mc2. (Or sumptin' lak 'at thar 🤪)

(Conservation of matter/energy stuff, it just changes form- Maybe helps Catholic Eucharist per Aquinas?)

Anyway from our perspective then MAYBE matter and spirit and energy can be said to be "co-eternal"? And God then has a body in this paradigm of spirit/matter/God all being co-eternally the same "stuff" because we cannot imagine it any other way that makes logical sense?

We need to remember that the LDS perspective is materialist IF we see that matter = spirit= energy for all practical purposes in this universe, AND this cohere with scientific paradigms, and God himself imo sacrificed his transcendence to have us as his children.  That ultimately leads to the Incarnation where God becomes Man, portrayed by Adam in the Garden of Eden temple play, and confuses Brigham Young into making the Adam character into God.

The Fall = The Incarnation for me. We must overcome the world as we see it to become Transcendent in ourselves, hence eternal progression. 

And Adam/God then becomes also "Everyman" in that ancient temple play.

Maybe.     

I love this church.

 

 

 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

From what I understand of your point of view (and I think I summarized this in an earlier post), your definition of "eternal" is that only God is eternal (without beginning, without end, self existent).  Consequently if matter was said to be eternal (or anything else, really), then it would be "God".  (Please correct me if I'm wrong). That definition is totally foreign to Latter-day Saint thinking.

I think that spirit IS matter (but "but more refined") per D&C.  I see that as a statement saying poetically that matter and energy and spirit are one, figuratively foreshadowing  E=mc2. (Or sumptin' lak 'at thar 🤪)

Yes, from the Latter-day Saint perspective, matter is eternal.

I was referring to the philosophical thinking of late second century Christians who adopted the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo, and I was comparing the Latter-day Saint view to their reasoning (based on my understanding of their reasoning).  From their point of view, anything that is eternal would be God, making God to be in a completely different category.

For example, Tatian wrote:  “For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.”  (Tatian – Address to the Greeks, Chapter 5)

Gerhard May (who credits Tatian and Theophilus as the first to teach the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo) also explains this as part of the basic argument of Theophilus, in his book:  Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of 'Creation out of Nothing' in Early Christian Thought, page 160 (emphasis in bolded italics is mine):

Quote

 

Theophilus opposes the acceptance of an unoriginate matter basically on the same lines as Tatian, but his argumentation is carried further and displays new aspects. Three main arguments can be distinguished: 1. If in the Platonist conception not only God but also matter is unoriginate, then God can no longer be thought of as in the fullest sense creator of everything and the divine Monarchy' is not preserved.  2. God is unoriginate and therefore by his nature immutable; if matter were also unoriginate, it would also be immutable and in that godlike. We have already found this argument in Tatian.  3. It would be nothing great if God had made the cosmos out of pre-existent matter.  There would be no difference between him and a human craftsman who out of a given material fashions what he wants.

God's power is shown precisely in that he creates out of nothing what he wills, just as he alone confers life and movement. Theophilus thus puts creatio ex nihilo in parallel with the conferring of life. A man can of course put together an image, but he cannot give reason, breath and sensual awareness. God on the other hand creates beings who possess all these faculties. It also reflects his superior power that he creates and did create being out of nothing and that he creates what and how he wills.

 

One of the footnote references that May provides for Theophilus is this one:

“But if God is uncreated and matter uncreated, God is no longer, according to the Platonists, the Creator of all things, nor, so far as their opinions hold, is the monarchy of God established. And further, as God, because He is uncreated, is also unalterable; so if matter, too, were uncreated, it also would be unalterable, and equal to God; for that which is created is mutable and alterable, but that which is uncreated is immutable and unalterable.”  (Theophilus - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter 4.)

I have also come across other Christian Fathers making similar arguments, such as this one from Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD):  

“The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution whenever the Creator so wishes it.” (Hippolytus—Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29–30)

To be honest, this kind of thinking is baffling to me.  

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

To be honest, this kind of thinking is baffling to me.  

Completely agree; it us based on the Greek notion that perfection means completion- finished- while we see perfection is on on-going process toward a goal. Science will never be "finished"

Do you read Heraclitus? He tends to be obtuse but opposed Plato in believing that reality is a kind of "stream of consciousness" symbolized by a never finished eternal "river" changing from second to second, into which one may not step twice, because the river has changed in detail between the first and second step; therefore one cannot step twice into the "same" river. The floating leaf is now there rather than here, the fish have all moved, the shoreline eroded, the passing atoms of water are new etc etc.

Perfection to us today is unimaginable as unchanging; it is a useless fantasy! You can never get "better" than some static notion of completion?

Stuck in the perfect clothes you are wearing forever? 😜

It is the birth of postmodernism!

If his philosophy was a bit easier to read and took hold, Cartesian dualism might have been seen as absurd.

But of course our contemporary philosophy is much more like Heraclitus than Plato!

Image postmodern Greeks?

Where would we be today?

Edited May 15, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Completely agree; it us based on the Greek notion that perfection means completion- finished- while we see perfection is on on-going process toward a goal. Science will never be "finished"

Do you read Heraclitus? He tends to be obtuse but opposed Plato in believing that reality is a kind of "stream of consciousness" symbolized by a never finished eternal "river" changing from second to second, into which one may not step twice, because the river has changed in detail between the first and second step; therefore one cannot step twice into the "same" river. The floating leaf is now there rather than here, the fish have all moved, the shoreline eroded, the passing atoms of water are new etc etc.

Perfection to us today is unimaginable as unchanging; it is a useless fantasy! You can never get "better" than some static notion of completion?

Stuck in the perfect clothes you are wearing forever? 😜

It is the birth of postmodernism!

If his philosophy was a bit easier to read and took hold, Cartesian dualism might have been seen as absurd.

But of course our contemporary philosophy is much more like Heraclitus than Plato!

Image postmodern Greeks?

Where would we be today?

You may find an article interesting that I came across when I was corresponding with my friend and led to me creating this thread topic.

The article is:  Transcendence: A Uniquely Christian Concept, Craig A. Carter · December 28, 2021

Carter is a Professor of Theology at Tyndale University, and he explains the philosophy that separates "Christian" doctrine from all others, and also separates God from everything else.  He starts off with creation:

Quote

The question for Christian theology is what it means to say that God is transcendent and the traditional answer has been that God is transcendent of creation because he is the Creator of creation. As the first lines of the Nicene Creed put it:

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

The creed follows the pattern of Scriptural language. “Heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1) is a Hebrew idiom for “the totality of reality” and “visible and invisible” is taken from Hebrews 11:1-3, as discussed above. God is transcendent of creation, that is, transcendent of all creation.

At this point I think Latter-day Saints agree with the distinction between the creator and creation from our point of view here in mortality.  God is greater than his creation, and he is in fact the greatest of all.  

But then he explains how this led up to the reasoning of the Christians that utilized the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo:

Quote

This is one major factor that differentiates the Christian Platonism of Augustine from the Neoplatonism of Plotinus. Both agree (against the materialists) that the cosmos has both a material part and an immaterial part and both agree that being is arranged hierarchically. Both agree that the cause of things is to be sought in the higher parts of the hierarchy. But for Plotinus the Divine Mind that works on matter to make the universe into what it is now is not really transcendent. And even the One, which is beyond the Divine Mind, is nevertheless the source of all other being and at the top of the hierarchy. Whether the One is truly transcendent or not is a debated and complex issue within Neoplatonism.

Later Neoplatonic philosophers apparently were moving in the direction of affirming the utter transcendence of the One. The problem is that the more they moved in this direction the more the One became unknowable. Lacking special revelation, the Neoplatonists faced the dilemma of making the One a particularly refined and perfect part of the being of the cosmos, in which case it could be known, or making the One different in kind and thus utterly transcendent, in which case we can say nothing about it. The first option seemed more true, but to the extent that option was chosen it seemed that philosophy had come to a dead end.

Christianity and Philosophy

This is why Christianity was the fulfillment of the philosophical quest. Augustine’s Christian Platonism superseded Plotinus’s Neoplatonism because it had a way to avoid this dead end.

Augustinian theology understood that the One had revealed himself to Israel as Yahweh and supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. So the revealed Triune God of Scripture was the transcendent Creator of all things other than himself. In Neoplatonism, the being of the One, the Divine Mind, Soul and the visible cosmos all differ by degree of purity, but not in kind. This is where the specially revealed doctrine of creatio ex nihilo made Christian theology utterly unique in world history. The orthodox doctrine of God sees God as transcendent of both the material and immaterial spheres of creation and so divine being is qualitatively different from created being. Yet, by means of special revelation and a working concept of analogical language, we can speak of the being of God in himself truly, although of course not exhaustively.

This distinction between Divine and created being is fundamental to all of Christian theology. But there are two ways it can be compromised. The first is that it can be compromised by eliding the radical difference in kind between the being of God and created being. In this case, God becomes a projection of creaturely being and Feuerbach’s criticism of Christian theology is vindicated. The “god” spoken of in this case is either a pantheistic conception, that is, “god” becomes another name for the cosmos considered as a whole, or else the “god” spoken of is understood in terms of theistic personalism, that is, “god” becomes a being among beings within the cosmos. Either god becomes Nature or a god-like the gods of paganism – usually the high god of the pantheon.

The second way the Creator-created being distinction can be compromised is by affirming Divine transcendence in such a way as to place the being of God beyond being altogether. This is done in certain strands of postmodern theology with the result that God comes to seem unreal. If such a One has no being and nothing can be said about him (it?) then how is such a One decisive for understanding reality? How is God the cause of the world? Does the cosmos not become functionally autonomous? Have we not reached the goal of modernity by another route than atheism?

Carter refers to the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo as coming by "special revelation", or that it was "specially revealed".  Later on in the article he makes it clear that he thinks that this doctrine comes from the scriptures (even though it really does not):  

Quote

The uniqueness of Christianity among all the theologies and philosophies of the world rests on the foundation of the transcendence of God as the Creator of all that is not God and on the qualitative difference between Divine and created being. Only the special revelation given in Scripture as articulated in the trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy of the Great Tradition is a sufficient basis for maintaining the uniquely Christian faith. Only this doctrine can undergird a living and powerful gospel and ensure that the church worships the one, true, living, God and not idols created out of the vain imagination of fallen human beings.

But it's not just that it was revealed in scripture, but that it is "the special revelation given in Scripture as articulated in the trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy of the Great Tradition".  That just seems like another way of saying that it has to be interpreted the same way that later Christians interpreted it in order to get that out of the text.

Carter portrays this as a struggle between philosophical concepts in advancing the thinking about God, and he affirms that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo makes God to be “transcendent of both the material and immaterial spheres of creation and so divine being is qualitatively different from created being”.  But he says the first way that the distinction between the Divine and the created being can be compromised, is by “eliding the radical difference in kind between the being of God and created being”, and one way that this particular “compromise” plays out is that “’god’ becomes a being among beings within the cosmos”. 

He also says, "Only this doctrine can undergird a living and powerful gospel and ensure that the church worships the one, true, living, God and not idols created out of the vain imagination of fallen human beings."  "Only this doctrine"?  I wonder how this plays out for the apostle Paul, who while addressing the Athenian pagans on Mars Hill (the Areopagus) in Acts 17, used the argument that we are all the very same kind of being as God is (we are his "offspring", the génos of God - Acts 17:28-29) to make his point that this is why we shouldn't be worshipping idols of gold or silver or stone?  That is, since we are all the same kind of being as God, it is completely illogical to even consider that God is stone, or gold, or silver, because we are not stone, or gold, or silver.   If Paul was only saying that we are merely God’s creations, then Paul’s audience could easily reason that a god of any kind (gold, silver, or stone) could “create” anything it desires, and Paul’s point would be meaningless.   

Anyway, this is just more food for thought for this thread.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

You may find an article interesting that I came across when I was corresponding with my friend and led to me creating this thread topic.

The article is:  Transcendence: A Uniquely Christian Concept, Craig A. Carter · December 28, 2021

Carter is a Professor of Theology at Tyndale University, and he explains the philosophy that separates "Christian" doctrine from all others, and also separates God from everything else.  He starts off with creation:

At this point I think Latter-day Saints agree with the distinction between the creator and creation from our point of view here in mortality.  God is greater than his creation, and he is in fact the greatest of all.  

But then he explains how this led up to the reasoning of the Christians that utilized the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo:

Carter refers to the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo as coming by "special revelation", or that it was "specially revealed".  Later on in the article he makes it clear that he thinks that this doctrine comes from the scriptures (even though it really does not):  

But it's not just that it was revealed in scripture, but that it is "the special revelation given in Scripture as articulated in the trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy of the Great Tradition".  That just seems like another way of saying that it has to be interpreted the same way that later Christians interpreted it in order to get that out of the text.

Carter portrays this as a struggle between philosophical concepts in advancing the thinking about God, and he affirms that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo makes God to be “transcendent of both the material and immaterial spheres of creation and so divine being is qualitatively different from created being”.  But he says the first way that the distinction between the Divine and the created being can be compromised, is by “eliding the radical difference in kind between the being of God and created being”, and one way that this particular “compromise” plays out is that “’god’ becomes a being among beings within the cosmos”. 

He also says, "Only this doctrine can undergird a living and powerful gospel and ensure that the church worships the one, true, living, God and not idols created out of the vain imagination of fallen human beings."  "Only this doctrine"?  I wonder how this plays out for the apostle Paul, who while addressing the Athenian pagans on Mars Hill (the Areopagus) in Acts 17, used the argument that we are all the very same kind of being as God is (we are his "offspring", the génos of God - Acts 17:28-29) to make his point that this is why we shouldn't be worshipping idols of gold or silver or stone?  That is, since we are all the same kind of being as God, it is completely illogical to even consider that God is stone, or gold, or silver, because we are not stone, or gold, or silver.   If Paul was only saying that we are merely God’s creations, then Paul’s audience could easily reason that a god of any kind (gold, silver, or stone) could “create” anything it desires, and Paul’s point would be meaningless.   

Anyway, this is just more food for thought for this thread.

Great points; I am familiar with these issues.

These are all metaphysical metanarritives no longer useful in contemporary philosophy.

Words like Being, causation, mind, source, transcendence and others are so ambiguous they need to be precisely defined, and often are not. 

Platonism itself cannot accommodate the very notion of a material God- that would be an automatic oxymoron for them, by definition.

I don't think these ancient issues are worth further discussion frankly because of their very modes of thought are obsolete.

They have been debated for 2 thousand years without drawing any cohesive resolutions. 🤔

It's time for a new way of seeing it all!  What is needed is maybe a Restoration of Christianity?

Ever heard of such a thing? 

 

 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Great points; I am familiar with these issues.

These are all metaphysical metanarritives no longer useful in contemporary philosophy.

Words like Being, causation, mind, source, transcendence and others are so ambiguous they need to be precisely defined, and often are not

I'm really glad to hear YOU say that, because the terminology makes my head spin.  I have a really hard time with the philosophical jargon and the intended meaning behind it.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't think these ancient issues are worth further discussion frankly because of their very modes of thought are obsolete.

They have been debated for 2 thousand years without drawing any cohesive resolutions. 🤔

I bring them up only to try to understand how things are seen by traditional Christians today.  I'm merely trying to understand the thinking behind, and maybe try to bridge, the gap that men have built between God and man.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It's time for a new way of seeing it all!  What is needed is maybe a Restoration of Christianity?

Ever heard of such a thing? 

Sounds like a "plan"  

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I'm really glad to hear YOU say that, because the terminology makes my head spin.  I have a really hard time with the philosophical jargon and the intended meaning behind it.

I bring them up only to try to understand how things are seen by traditional Christians today.  I'm merely trying to understand the thinking behind, and maybe try to bridge, the gap that men have built between God and man.

Sounds like a "plan"  

At some point, imo, it is like arguing about phrenology or the sorcerer's stone or why precisely Leos and Libras should or shouldn't get married. 🤔 But some folks find it interesting an I get that!

There may be  a seed here or there that could grow into... who know what!

But I'd rather take care of the seedlings with potential for growth!  

Most of that is no longer even philosophical jargon- it's just words shown to be undefinable that someone made up!

I mean look at "substance".  An idea with meaning? A glob of oil? Some glob to be analyzed in a lab? A piece of bread? A rich guy? Something at the bottom of something else?

An "appearance" is something that appears.

No thanks! 

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I mean look at "substance".  An idea with meaning? A glob of oil? Some glob to be analyzed in a lab? A piece of bread? A rich guy? Something at the bottom of something else?

Sounds gooey.  Or it could be the stuff (honey?) on top of the bread.

The KJV makes this even more fun, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)   Now I feel like having a faith sandwich.