5.
Lohse also tells us that Origen used the concept of homoousios to describe a unity and harmony of will (p. 46). In fact, Origen also wrote: "The Father and Son are two substances ... two things as to their essence." - Should You Believe in the Trinity? - p. 7. So the "unity of 'substance'" (homoousios) concept which was used by those who much later developed the "orthodox" trinity doctrine apparently meant merely a unity of will for Origen. "The term Homoousios had begun to become current with Heracleon [c. 160 A.D.] who had claimed that those who worshiped God in Spirit and in truth were themselves spirit and 'of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father'." - p. 394., note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985. Obviously homoousios, as it was first used within Christendom by Heracleon, did not have the same meaning as later trinitarians made it seem!
And as for Origen's development of the "Eternal Generation" of the Son - it is true that existing manuscripts today indicate that he used the term, but it is apparent that it did not mean to him what those later trinitarian developers insisted that it did. Lohse tells us: "It has thus an entirely different foundation from that of a similar idea found in the later theology of the Trinity .... It is immediately apparent that this second feature ['eternal generation'] is considerably more problematical than the first." (p. 47.)
In fact Origen apparently even considered all creation as 'eternally generated.' At least he thought that Logos and the world, were coeval {'of the same age or duration'} with God. Furthermore he did not believe anything that was "eternally generated" could actually be God! "The 'eternal generation' of the Logos did not for {Origen} imply that the Logos is God's equal; being 'generated' or 'begotten' entailed being secondary - i.e., subordinate." - p. 93, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribners, 4th ed. So, since being "generated" connotes "being secondary" and "subordinate" to God, then his being "eternally generated" likewise connotes Jesus' being eternally secondary and subordinate to God!
6.
"(d) The Tract against Noetus. .... On comparing this tract with the exposition of the truth given at the end of the Refutation, the identity of doctrine, and sometimes of form of expression, decisively proves common authorship. The same doctrine is found, that the Logos, Which had from eternity dwelt in the Deity as His unspoken thought, afterwards assumed a separate hypostatic existence; differing from created things not only in priority but also because they were out of nothing, He of the substance of the Godhead; and being the framer of the universe according to the divine ideas (in the Platonic sense of the word) which had dwelt in Him from the first. That the Son's personal divinity was not by the original necessity of His nature, but given by an act of the divine will, is stated more offensively than in the earlier tract. He says to his reader, 'God has been pleased to make you a man, not a god. If He had willed to make you a god He could have done so; you have the example of the Logos [the Word of John 1:1.]' - ["The Refutation of all Heresies", Ch. xxix. (p. 151, Vol. 5, ANF.)]" - http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/iii.viii.xxxiv.htm
7.
Another such example found in trinitarian translations of Hippolytus' writing concerns the probable intended meanings of huparchon (see PHIL study) and ek (or ex). The trinitarian mistranslation of the commentary on Gen. 49:21-26 by Hippolytus where he paraphrases Phil. 2:6 (see the PHIL study) is "For as the only begotten Word [Logos] of God, being God of God [theos huparchon ek theou], emptied himself, according to the Scriptures, humbling himself of his own will to that which he was not before, and took unto himself this vile flesh, and appeared in the 'form of a servant,' and 'became obedient to God the Father, even unto death,' so hereafter he is said to be 'highly exalted'..." - ANF, 5:167.
ek
(and ex) literally mean "from" or "out of" and is used to denote the source of a thing. The phrase ek theou is used frequently in the Bible and means "from God." It shows that God is the source of something.
Although "of God" was understood in the Elizabethan English of the 400-year old KJV as "from God" (the correct meaning of ek theou), it is usually misunderstood in modern English. That is why most modern Bible translations often translate it differently to make sure the proper meaning of ek is brought out for modern readers. For example 1 Cor. 11:12 b (literally, "but all [is] ek tou theou") is translated as follows:
"God is the source of all" - NEB; REB.
"All things originate from God" - NASB; CBW.
"They all have their origin from God" - MLB.
"It is God who brings everything into existence" - GNB.
"both man and woman, like everything else, owe their existence to God" - Phillips.
"Both come from God" - JB.
"both men and women come from God their creator" - LB.
"all comes from God" - NIV; NJB; TEV; and Beck (NT).
"All things are from God" - RSV; NRSV; NAB.
So, just with the proper translation of ek theou alone, we should read Hippolytus' words describing the only-begotten Word as "being a god whose source is God;" or "being a god who owes his existence to God;" or "being a god who originates from God;" or "being a god who comes from God his Creator;" etc.
But there is also the misunderstood huparchon to be considered. It literally means "to make a beginning (hupo, 'under'; arche, 'a beginning')" - W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 390. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines it as "to begin under (quietly), i.e. COME INTO EXISTENCE" - #5225. So even though it may be translated as "being;" "existing;" "was;" etc., it nevertheless must also be understood as something that has come into existence. (It is important that you also examine the study PHIL which examines this term and others used at Phil. 2:6.)
We can see that with the actual literal (and most probable) meaning of huparchon and the actual literal (and most probable) meaning of ek, this trinitarian interpretation (like Phil. 2:6 itself) actually becomes anti-trinitarian: "The only-begotten Word of God, a god [theos without the article - see the PRIMER study paper] who came into being [huparchon] from [ek] God...." And, as we have already seen, these very same trinitarian translators had previously admitted that Hippolytus taught that God had made the Word "a god" - ANF, 5:151.
8.
Ignatius also wrote "But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word before time began" - [long version] - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume I, page 52.
Also see Ephesians ch. 3 & 6; Magnesians (end of ch. 8) ;Trallians, ch. 1 - Lightfoot.
9.
Even the trinitarian editors of Theophilus' work have noted that he has already identified wisdom as Christ in this very same work (as did most other Ante-Nicene Fathers) - note 3, p. 101, Vol. 2, ANF. However, even if we insisted on interpreting Theophilus' statement as describing God, Jesus (the Word), and the holy spirit (wisdom) as some trinitarians want to do, we must still admit that this is describing God as one entity and Jesus and the holy spirit as two other separate entities! Yes, there is a threeness here all right, but it is a threeness in which God is not Jesus (nor the holy spirit)! The "triads" of the other early Christians are typified by the earliest Creeds quoted above and the quote from Irenaeus above (quoted from ANF, 1:330).
Consider any other triad. For example, the triad of some families would be: father, mother, and only child. If we were to use the trinitarian method of describing Theophilus' triad above ("God, Word, and Wisdom are all equally God"), we would have to say that in this family the father, mother, and only child are all equally the father! This is clearly not what was intended by the original writer!
10.
Notice how distinguished trinitarian NT scholar Robert M. Grant renders this passage by Theophilus:
Dr. Grant continues by comparing this to other early writings including Ptolemaeus' teaching
Granted, Grant grants that Theophilus' triad and tetrad are different from Ptolemaeus' in that they are composed of different things. Nevertheless, the important points here are (1) the fact that trinitarian Grant properly renders the word as "triad," not "trinity," (2) that he acknowledges that the fourth day of creation contains a "tetrad" for Theophilus, and (3) that the intended meanings of the words "triad" (triados) and "tetrad" used by the contemporary Ptolemaeus are not what certain trinitarians would want them to be.
Obviously Ptolemaeus used the word "tetrad" in the same way Theophilus uses "triad" - a group made up of that number of different things. Ptolemaeus most certainly did not mean that the tetrad of God, Beginning, Heaven, and Earth were all equally God. He would have been shocked if anyone could have possibly distorted the obvious meaning to such an extent. He would think you the worst of fools if you interpreted him to mean, for example, the Earth was God!
In exactly the same way do we know that Theophilus' triad of God, Wisdom and Word are not a trinity wherein, for example, Wisdom is equally God!
11.
This particular quote, with its ellipses, is often attacked by trinitarian critics. They say that the writer has left out important portions of the original quote [as shown by the ellipses (....)] which prove the original writer believed just the opposite of what was quoted "out of context." So for their benefit, here is the entire quote with their important trinitarian content:
"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them - i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. [emphasis added]
"The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as "persons" (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons."
It should be reasonably obvious to readers that the portion (in blue here) which was left out by me, deals with the trinitarian writer's biased opinions. Citing Matt. 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 certainly does not comprise "proof" nor even appropriate evidence for the writer's conclusion that "Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity." And none of it denies the factual information quoted by me (in black here). Whether this trinitarian criticism is a straw man argument or a red herring isn't important. Whatever it is, it has no bearing on the way I quoted the relevant portions.
No comments:
Post a Comment