Does Proverbs 8 refer to the Preincarnate Christ?

[GrayPilgrim]

In this thread I woudl like to examine if Proverbs 8 refers to the preincarnate Christ or if it is merely a metaphor for Wisdom. I forsee this thread proceeding in the following manner. First I would like to propose an exegetical approach to Widsom Literature, as a genre, followed by a specific examination by this approach of Proverbs 8, I am planning on working on this tomorrow and posting it in the evening. Afterwards we shall see how it develops.

[dizzle]

Hmmm

In this thread I woudl like to examine if Proverbs 8 refers to the preincarnate Christ or if it is merely a metaphor for Wisdom.

Yes and yes. JPHolding has a great article on Wisdom Christology at his site.. if you would like the link I can get it to you.

[GrayPilgrim]

Sorry, but I will be delayed a day or two. I had to go to the doctor today to get a rash look at, nothing serious (basically from what I gathered it's like poison ivy, only wihtout the itch :thumb: ). I was able to get some good work done, but nothing ready for posting, and as I teach a Sunday school class on Genesis, I don't know if I'll get to this until Sunday afternoon.

GP

[Jaltus]

In the NT, wisdom is not used as a metaphor for Christ, but the concept of logos is (John 1, Acts repeatedly, Luke repeatedly).

The other question to explore, is the logos a continuation of the wisdom tradition, even within the OT?

[smilax]

The site (http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html) shows the New Testament references to Wisdom. Some are somewhat subtle, (Colossians i, 15-17;) others are quite blatant, (I Corinthians i, 24.) Brings back memories of the Holy Trinity thread with Evangelion...

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey Jaltus.

In the NT, wisdom is not used as a metaphor for Christ,

**8** eh? Jesus is explicitly called "Wisdom" in the NT a few times. "Jesus the power of God and the wisdom of God", "Therefore, the wisdom of God sends them prophets, some of which they..."

but the concept of logos is (John 1, Acts repeatedly, Luke repeatedly).

**7** are you claiming that Jesus is identified as ho logos in the Lucan corpus?

The other question to explore, is the logos a continuation of the wisdom tradition, even within the OT?

**8** yes. see Ben Witherington's _John's Wisdom_ and _Jesus the Sage_. in Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, Sophia and the Logos are either equivocated or identified.
an even more important question--where, if not in the Wisdom tradition, can we find an articulation of the nature of the Son's sonship within Scripture?
being more specific, why was it especially appropriate for the Son to become incarnate, rather than, say, the Father?
peace in Christ.

[GrayPilgrim]

Just a little sneak peak of where I am going. Currently my biggest strugle/question is if someone wants to see Lady Wisdom, yes it is lady, as a hypostasis, then to be consitent they would need to make lady folly a hypostasis as well, which is not a move I have seen. Moreover, since the two are juxtapose it seems to be a necessary step

Currently one sticking point for me is in 8:22, "The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old." I think the ESV got htis right when they translated "qanah", possessed. To show my reasoning I'll insert a bit of lexical work I did on this word for Psa 139.


"First, we need to discern the usage of "qanah" in this passage (verse 13). As noted below all modern translations and commentators render it as “created/formed” and thus invest this passage with creation language. However, taken in conjunction with verse 5 this seems unconvincing. The semantic range of qnh means to acquire, and when it refers to a person it means to acquire a slave (cf. Gen 39:1). Moreover, when is used in a theological context it denotes Yahweh’s redemption of Israel, here particularized in the Davidite.

Allen, Anderson, Dahood, Kraus, and all modern English translations have some form of "create". The English King James Versions (1611) and Geneva Bible (1599), and German Unrevidierte Elberfelder (1905) follow the LXX and Vulgate with “acquire”. with possessed as opposed to the MT and all moder translation. Thus I am following the LXX here, and IMHO the actual intention of the MT usage of qanah. Here is my translation of verse 13:

"Surely, you possessed me in my kidneys, and protected me in my mother’s womb."

The problem as as I see it, is if we are to see lady wisdom referring to the hypostasis of Christ then we will be forced to accept the Augustinian/Edwardsian concept of the Trinity (see the Trinity thread for a discussion of the problems there.

These were just afew quick thoughts. And preliminary questions that I am wrestling through as I think this through.

GP

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey Gray--

The problem as as I see it, is if we are to see lady wisdom referring to the hypostasis of Christ then we will be forced to accept teh Augustinian/Edwardsian concept of the Trinity

**7** orthodox Trinitarian Christology is based on the identification of Christ with Wisdom. this was something that Augustine inherited (and what was wrong with his concept anyway?), not something he invented; also, it was held by orthodox Trinitarians whose articulations of the doctrine were quite distinct from Augustine's (such as Origen).
see--
http://www.tektonics.org/PS_NC.html
i agree with your take on "qanah", though i think that translating it as "created" wouldn't support Arianism in the least.
see the section on "Holt on the origin of the Son of God"--
http://www.tektonics.org/holtb01.html
peace in Christ

[Robyn Banks]

GrayPilgrim:
In this thread I woudl like to examine if Proverbs 8 refers to the preincarnate Christ or if it is merely a metaphor for Wisdom.
The figure of Woman Wisdom is a metaphor for Wisdom within the Book of Proverbs. It is a personification, not a hypostasis (emanation of God). By the time of the Wisdom of Solomon, in the deutero-canonical or apocryphal wisdom books, Woman Wisdom has arguably become more of a hypostasis - an emanation of God. Therefore, when early church fathers looked back at Woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8, they interpreted her hypostatically - in the light of their understanding of the Wisdom of Solomon - as an emanation from God.

The commonly accepted definition of ‘hypostasis’ by Osterly & Box is appropriate for Wisdom as she appears in the Wisdom of Solomon: “a quasi-personification of certain attributes proper to God, occupying an intermediate position between personalities and abstract beings.”

And this in turn provided a convenient and central way of explaining the person of Christ. Due to the more flexible methods of interpretation in place at the time (compared with our modern exegesis), Proverbs 8 was constantly used as a 'proof text' of Jesus' divinity. This was so at each stage of the development of the doctrine of the trinity in the first four centuries. Proverbs 8 was as important as John 1 in the development of trinitarian theology.

Going back to Proverbs itself, it is notable that there are striking similarities between Wisdom and the Egyptian Ma’at. Both personify wisdom, which is both a divine value and a divine figure. Both exist before creation, are the darlings of God, having the possession of life in their hands. Yet, the monotheism of Proverbs restricts Wisdom to a personification rather than a separate god. Not until the Wisdom of Solomon is there something that might be termed a hypostasis of God in the figure of Woman Wisdom.

There is some speculation that “Hokmot” (Wisdom) may have been a Canaanite goddess, but no definitive evidence of the suggestion.

The Wisdom of Solomon (c1st C BC) has a bold new understanding of Woman Wisdom as a reflection of the divine being. She becomes “a manifestation of God to human beings, and an emanation of divine attributes” (Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 168). She is also Solomon’s bride, enabling him to rule wisely and justly. She functions in parallelism with the divine word, and is identified with God’s spirit. Woman Wisdom is described as a pure emanation of the glory of God, the creator of all things, and an image of his goodness. She is described with the very attributes of God in 21 epithets: intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, penetrating through all spirits and pervading and penetrating all things. Woman Wisdom “renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets” (Wis 7:27), and accounts for the coherence and permanence of the cosmos. She is the very presence of God on earth.

Hope that helps.

- Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

GrayPilgrim:
Currently my biggest strugle/question is if someone wants to see Lady Wisdom, yes it is lady, as a hypostasis, then to be consitent they would need to make lady folly a hypostasis as well, which is not a move I have seen.
The two are only linked in Proverbs. In the Wisdom of Solomon, Woman Wisdom is developed into a hypostasis, but Woman Folly left behind. That is possibly the reason why subsequent trinitarians concentrated only on Woman Wisdom.




GrayPilgrim:
Currently one sticking point for me is in 8:22, "The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old." I think the ESV got htis right when they translated "qanah", possessed.
Athenogoras understood the passage as meaning that God was eternally "endowed with reason [logikos]', had the Logos within himself eternally, and that therefore the Son, as Logos, "did not come into existence" but was eternal (Leg 10.2).

Hippolytus paraphrased the passage to read: "He begot me before all ages." (Haer 6.14.3)

Ierenaeus 'proves' that the Logos was always with the Father from Prov 3.19-20, and applies the same passage to the Spirit always being with the Father, too. This is followed by a long quotation of Prov 8.22-25, 27-31, leaving it unclear whether it was the eternal pre-existence of the Son or Spirit or both being demonstrated.

Prov 8.22 is used to support subordination in Tertullian (Prax 7.3; 11.3), Justin (Dial 129.4), Origen (Princ 4.4.1), Dionysius of Alexandria (Ath Dion 4.2), and by the Arians. Of course, the dominant Arian interpretation lost out in the fourth century. Dionysius of Rome objects to 'created' meaning the same as 'made', but gave it a sense of 'begotten' or not being made (Ath Decr 26.5). Athanasius uses the words of the two Dionysius's to 'prove' that the Arian exegesis of Prov 8.22-31 was not from the early fathers.

Prov 8.22-31, exegeted correctly from the Hebrew as 'created', is more suitable to defending Arianism than orthodoxy. It is a different story from the LXX, as you say. But, in any case, the passage had to be interpreted 'mystically' if it was to be understood as referring to Christ in the first place, as it does not exegetically refer to any figure but personified Wisdom.

Here's a good quote from Newman on Prov 8.22-31, in that regard:
"It may almost be laid down as an historical fact, that the mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together."

Hope that helps.

- Robyn

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey robyn--

Prov 8.22 is used to support subordination in Tertullian (Prax 7.3; 11.3), Justin (Dial 129.4), Origen (Princ 4.4.1), Dionysius of Alexandria (Ath Dion 4.2), and by the Arians. Of course, the dominant Arian interpretation lost out in the fourth century.

**7** in what sense, exactly, do you maintain that the above authors regarded the Son to be "subordinate" to the Father?
peace!

[Robyn Banks]

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** say hey robyn--
Yo.
Robyn:
Prov 8.22 is used to support subordination in Tertullian (Prax 7.3; 11.3), Justin (Dial 129.4), Origen (Princ 4.4.1), Dionysius of Alexandria (Ath Dion 4.2), and by the Arians. Of course, the dominant Arian interpretation lost out in the fourth century.
phantaz sunlyk:
**7** in what sense, exactly, do you maintain that the above authors regarded the Son to be "subordinate" to the Father?
They each believed that the Son was lesser than the Father. Only Dionysius of Alexandria went so far as to consider the Son to be merely created, I think - and he was refuted by Dionysius of Rome. But most of them considered that the Father was God in the strict sense, as ho theos. The Son was only theos, God by participation or derivation from the Father. Origen would, for instance, not allow prayer to the Son, because he was a generative being. The generation of the Son was seen as pre-creational, but maybe not eternal with God.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Patroclus]

Henry Chadwick in The Early Church (1969) on Justin Martyr

Justin's debt to Platonic philosophy is important for his theology in one respect of far-reaching importance. He uses the concept of the divine Logos or Reason both to explain how the transcendent Father of all deals with the inferior, created order of things, and to justify his faith in the revelations made by God through the prophets and Christ. The divine Logos inspired the prophets, he says, and was present entire in Jesus Christ. This inspiring activity and its culmination in the actual iincarnation are special cases of divine immanence. It is implicit in Justin's thesis that the distinction between 'Father' and 'Son' corresponds to the distinction between God transcendent and God immanent. The Son-Logos is necessary to mediate between the supreme Father and the material world. Justin therefore insists that the Logos is 'other than' the Father, derived from the Father in a process which in no way diminishes or divides the being of the Father, but in a manner in which one torch may be lit from another. He is Light of Light (77).

I know this is a secondary source, but I think it answers a question about Justin. He says more about Tertullian and Origen, but I do not want to make this post too long right now.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey robyn--

Yo.

**7** dig it.
ya said--

Hope that helps.

**8** not really, because too many authors were collapsed under the same heading without the heading being specified (enough). i think your definition of "subordination"
may be a category confusion. lemme know if i'm wrong here.
i distinguish between two forms of subordinationism: ontological and functional. ontological subordinationism cannot be reconciled with orthodoxy as it places the Son in a lower category of being than the Father (contingent creation created ex nihilo); functional subordination maintains the metaphysical necessity of the Son's being (i.e., the Son exists in every actually possible world in virtue of his properties) whilst simultaeneously affirming his being caused by the Father, with his operations ad extra being grounded in his procession ad intra--as such, functional subordination is orthodox. i'm puzzled as to why you include the ante-Nicenes with the Arians?
ya said--

The Son was only theos, God by participation or derivation from the Father.

**7** the term "participation" is unfortunate. the soteriology of the Greek fathers was based on participation in the very being of God via the humanity of the Incarnate Logos; participation through grace. your identical predication of the Son is therefore misleading, for the fathers believed the Son to be intrinsic to the identity of God (J Martyr, Dial. 61; Tertullian from the very chapter you cite; Origen, Com. Heb. 1:8, and also from the sentence after the portion from De. Princ. which you cite).
saying that the Son is God "by derivation" of the Father is a more accurate charge, but irrelevant. for example, are the following comments indicative of "subordinationism" according to you--
The Son is second in order from the Father, because he is from him; and in dignity, because the Father is his origin and cause, whereby the Father is his Father, and because it is through the Son that access and approach is had to God the Father
and
The Father and Son were not begotten from some preexisted first cause so that they might be called brothers. The Father is the origin of the Son and begat him, and the Father is Father and did not become anyone's son. The Son is Son and not a brother. If he is called the everlasting offspring of the Father, he is called so correctly.
and
And therefore he knows all that the Father knows; but for him, to know is from the Father, just as to be is from the Father.
and
in praying to the Son and Spirit, we are necessarily carried on beyond them to the source of Godhead from which They are derived.
--?? are these the beliefs of an orthodox or heterodox theology re subordinationism?
ya said--

Origen would, for instance, not allow prayer to the Son, because he was a generative being.

**8** this is also misleading. in Contr. Cels. 5:4-5 Origen advocates prayer to the Son whilst subsequently disallowing petitions to the angelic host. while it is true that Origen advocated prayer properly to the Father only, this isn't very remarkable as the Catholic Church to this day directs the Liturgy to the Father, specifically.
ya said--

Only Dionysius of Alexandria went so far as to consider the Son to be merely created, I think - and he was refuted by Dionysius of Rome.

**7** again, misleading. (where'd you get your documentation, by the way?) the verse from Dio of Alexandria you cite is from Athanasius' defense of him. in it, Dionyisius proclaims the Son to be eternal and caused eternally by the Father from whom he takes his origin--this based on Sophiology and mutually defining terms "Son" and "Father".
ya said--

The generation of the Son was seen as pre-creational, but maybe not eternal with God.

**8** i'd challenge that all day long. any specifics you wanna bring forward?
and oh yeah!--

Ierenaeus 'proves' that the Logos was always with the Father from Prov 3.19-20, and applies the same passage to the Spirit always being with the Father, too. This is followed by a long quotation of Prov 8.22-25, 27-31, leaving it unclear whether it was the eternal pre-existence of the Son or Spirit or both being demonstrated.

**7** ...along with much of your post, this was taken almost verbatim from Jaroslav Pelikan's _The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Vol. 1_, (pg. 192)
next time you're going to use someone else's work, try giving them credit :thumb:
and by the way, the quote from Newman is from his _Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_, 7:3:5, and was not directed specifically to the patristic usage of Prov. 8:22.
trace the globe and ShAkE yA pAnTs!!!!!! :yipee:

[Robyn Banks]

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** not really, because too many authors were collapsed under the same heading without the heading being specified (enough). i think your definition of "subordination"
may be a category confusion. lemme know if i'm wrong here.
i distinguish between two forms of subordinationism: ontological and functional. ontological subordinationism cannot be reconciled with orthodoxy as it places the Son in a lower category of being than the Father (contingent creation created ex nihilo); functional subordination maintains the metaphysical necessity of the Son's being (i.e., the Son exists in every actually possible world in virtue of his properties) whilst simultaeneously affirming his being caused by the Father, with his operations ad extra being grounded in his procession ad intra--as such, functional subordination is orthodox. i'm puzzled as to why you include the ante-Nicenes with the Arians?
I don't believe that the ante-Nicenes had sufficiently developed the trinity doctrine - so that many of their ideas of 'subordination' had as much in common with Arians as with the emerging orthodox. Do you really think they properly distinguished economic and ontological concepts at this stage? Origen was definitely an ontological subordinationist. So was dionysius of Alex. Maybe Justin wasn't.

Robyn:
The Son was only theos, God by participation or derivation from the Father.
phantaz sunlyk:
**7** the term "participation" is unfortunate. the soteriology of the Greek fathers was based on participation in the very being of God via the humanity of the Incarnate Logos; participation through grace. your identical predication of the Son is therefore misleading, for the fathers believed the Son to be intrinsic to the identity of God (J Martyr, Dial. 61; Tertullian from the very chapter you cite; Origen, Com. Heb. 1:8, and also from the sentence after the portion from De. Princ. which you cite).
saying that the Son is God "by derivation" of the Father is a more accurate charge, but irrelevant. for example, are the following comments indicative of "subordinationism" according to you--
The Son is second in order from the Father, because he is from him; and in dignity, because the Father is his origin and cause, whereby the Father is his Father, and because it is through the Son that access and approach is had to God the Father
and
The Father and Son were not begotten from some preexisted first cause so that they might be called brothers. The Father is the origin of the Son and begat him, and the Father is Father and did not become anyone's son. The Son is Son and not a brother. If he is called the everlasting offspring of the Father, he is called so correctly.
and
And therefore he knows all that the Father knows; but for him, to know is from the Father, just as to be is from the Father.
and
in praying to the Son and Spirit, we are necessarily carried on beyond them to the source of Godhead from which They are derived.
--?? are these the beliefs of an orthodox or heterodox theology re subordinationism?
I tend to think that at this stage in development, the formulations are not nuanced enough to be completely 'orthodox'. But it is a tough call to call them 'heterodox'. Origen was a heretic, mind you - but in relation to mortal souls, I think.

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** i'd challenge that all day long. any specifics you wanna bring forward?
I'd have to go read them again, though! There's worse things in life, though. :)

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** ...along with much of your post, this was taken almost verbatim from Jaroslav Pelikan's _The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Vol. 1_, (pg. 192)
next time you're going to use someone else's work, try giving them credit :thumb:
That's right! I took it from my old notes, and thought it was from that book in about 1974 about the development of the trinity ('Fortun'?), but this was from Pelikan. I didn't credit because my notes didn't. Otherwise, I always provide credit in my posts.

phantaz sunlyk:
and by the way, the quote from Newman is from his _Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_, 7:3:5, and was not directed specifically to the patristic usage of Prov. 8:22.
trace the globe and ShAkE yA pAnTs!!!!!! :yipee:
I bow to thou Patristic knowledge, cloud of unknowing

Robyn

[Chuck_D]

Jaltus:
In the NT, wisdom is not used as a metaphor for Christ,


Not explicitly, but Jesus' "foxes have their holes . . . " statement, as well as the "Children in the Marketplace" bit and "take my yoke upon you" correspond to statements in interetestamental Wisdom Lit. This may be a case of subtle-self-identification. Details can be found in the Tekton article linked to earlier.

[GrayPilgrim]

I'm stepping in as the thread starter, and invoking my privledge to get this thread back to the topic that I'm interested in, i.e. Prov. 8. I will start a thread here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=522) for the discussion of subordination, because I am interested in that but it fits more properly in the Christology 101 section.

Thanks,
GP

[Gavin]

be forced to accept the Augustinian/Edwardsian concept of the Trinity

What is that (pardon my ignorance)?

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey robyn, this is why i think that the common view of the ante-nicenes needs and official upgrade. ya said--

I tend to think that at this stage in development, the formulations are not nuanced enough to be completely 'orthodox'.

**8**--as regards four quotes i put up, requesting a comment on the nature of their orthodoxy. guess who these quotes were from? Basil of Caesarea, Athanasius, Augustine, and Cardinal Newman.
hence...

I don't believe that the ante-Nicenes had sufficiently developed the trinity doctrine - so that many of their ideas of 'subordination' had as much in common with Arians as with the emerging orthodox.

**7** nay, because...

Do you really think they properly distinguished economic and ontological concepts at this stage?

**8** ...actually, yes. i have no problem at all with the ante-Nicene testimony.
you are correct in thinking that the categories shifted in the fourth century, yet the two defining marks of heresy were--the confession that the Son is a contingent creation created ex nihilo, and the confession that the Son is of a different substance than the Father.
neither of these claims was made by the ante-Nicenes (save maybe Lucian). they simply stuck to Wisdom Christology articulated in light of salvation history.
ya said--

Origen was definitely an ontological subordinationist. So was dionysius of Alex.

**7** again, the reason we can't call Origen and 'ontological subordinationist' is because (heterodoxical) subordinationism was about 75 years in the making (of which Origen denied the chief tenent in affirming the Son's intrinsic existence)--as you suggested, the category had yet to be defined. likewise with Dio of Alexandria.
i'm sorry about making a big deal of Pelikan. forgive me?
peace in Christ.

[smilax]

Gavin:
What is that (pardon my ignorance)?smilax:
Augustine reasoned that the God the Father "imagined" Himself, and that this "image" of Himself would be perfectly like Him, for God would not imagine Himself wrong. This image would be the Son, the Word, and the Father and Son would share a bond of love and fellowship, which would be identified with the Holy Spirit.

[GrayPilgrim]

Gavin,

It was brought up in the Trinitarian thread early on Ao I was bring it over from that discussion where my orignal desire to look at this passage originated, so no pardon ncessary. Instead of flubbing all over my thought of what it is I will let Edrwards speek for himself. I will quote here some excerpts from Edwards' Observations Concerning the Scripture Oeconomy (sic) of the Trinity, And Covenant of Redemption, It was brought up in the Trinitarian thread early on. You can find what I am quoting in John Piper's The Pleasures of God, rev. & expanded, p. 42 n. 22 and 44, n. 24 as well.

“Jonathan Edwards develops the view of the Son's deity...He first considers a human analogy,” Piper, 42.

If a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that pass'd in his mind, all the series of ideas and exercises in every respect perfect as to order, degree, circumstances, etc. for any particular space of time past, suppose the last hour, he would really, to all intents and purpose, be over again what he was that hour. And if it were possible for a man by reflection perfectly to contemplate all that is in his own mind in an hour, as it is and at the same time that is there in the in its first and direct existence; if a man, that is, had a perfect reflex or contemplative idea of every thought at the same moment or moments that the thought was and of every exercise at and during the same time that the exercise was, and so through a whole hour, a man would really be two during that time, he would indeed double, he would be twice at once. The idea he has of himself would be himself again…

“Edwards then carries the analogy over to God and says,” (Piper same n. con’t)


Therefore as God with perfect clearness, fullness and strength, understands Himself, views his own essence (in which there is no distinction of substance and act but which is wholly substance and whole act), that idea which God hath of Himself is absolutely Himself. This representation of the Divine nature and essence is the Divine nature and essence again: so that by God’s thinking of deity must certainly be generated. Hereby there is another person begotten, there is another infinite eternal almighty and most holy and the same God, the very same divine nature.

And this person is the second person in the Trinity, the only begotten and dearly beloved Son of God; He is the eternal necessary, perfect, substantial and personal idea which God hath of Himself; and that it is so seems to me to be absolutely confirmed by the word of God:


Edwards then cites and exegetes Scripture for a number of pages. At this point, we are left with the question of the Holy Spirit and its procession from the Father and the Son (and here is a defense of the filioque clause, “and from the Son” in the Nicene Creed added in AD 589 at the Council of Toledo)

The Godhead being thus begotten by God’s loving idea of Himself and shewing forth in a distinct subsistence or person in that idea, there proceeds a more pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and the Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other, for their love and joy is mutual, Prov. viii, 30, – “I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him,”—This is the eternal and most perfect and essential act of the divine nature, wherein the Godhead acts to an infinite degree and in the most perfect manner possible. The Deity becomes all act, the Divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of subsistence, and there proceeds the third person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz. the deity in act, for there is no other act but of the will.

And that in a nutshell is the Edwardsian/Augustinian conception of the Trinity.

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
I don't believe that the ante-Nicenes had sufficiently developed the trinity doctrine - so that many of their ideas of 'subordination' had as much in common with Arians as with the emerging orthodox. Do you really think they properly distinguished economic and ontological concepts at this stage?
phantaz sunlyk:
**8** ...actually, yes. i have no problem at all with the ante-Nicene testimony.
you are correct in thinking that the categories shifted in the fourth century, yet the two defining marks of heresy were--the confession that the Son is a contingent creation created ex nihilo, and the confession that the Son is of a different substance than the Father.
neither of these claims was made by the ante-Nicenes (save maybe Lucian). they simply stuck to Wisdom Christology articulated in light of salvation history.
I always had the impression that pre-Nicenes would make Christ 'begotten' (sure, not 'created', usually), and assert that (when pushed) that this was in ontological understanding (functional, certainly, but that's ok) a lesser quality than God the Father.

You disagree?

phantaz sunlyk:
i'm sorry about making a big deal of Pelikan. forgive me?
peace in Christ.
Fair enough. I may have done the same if someone else did the same, and I recognised where it was from.

Robyn

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey rock-a-tron robyn, wussup? and hey! be sure and read & answer my message to ya at the "Innerrancy" thread too.
ya asked--

I always had the impression that pre-Nicenes would make Christ 'begotten' (sure, not 'created', usually), and assert that (when pushed) that this was in ontological understanding (functional, certainly, but that's ok) a lesser quality than God the Father.
You disagree?

**7** well, i think that both the East and the West believed in the eternality of the Son, and both based this on the identification of the Son with Logos/Sophia.
however, the Western padres had a tendency to identify the 'procession' (Prov. 8:22, Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14) of the Son from the Father with the creation of the universe. this isn't to say that they denied the Son's existence (and 'existence from the Father') prior to that time. Karl Rahner and Hans urs von Balthasar, with whom i'm sure you're familiar, make pretty much the same move.
the Easterners (Athenagoras, and from Origen onward), on the other hand, speak of the 'procession' in light of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.
you ask whether or not the Son was thought of as (if the issue had been pushed) being 'less' in an ontological sense? two things. first, it must be remembered that this wasn't the question in those days, and when the question did arise, it was settled fairly decisively. secondly, when this was settled, the way in which the Father and Son were understood vis-a-vis one another was this--the Son is the Father's 'power' (1 Cor. 1:24) whereby he is Almighty.
i've written more extensively on these issues at Tekton.
peace in Christ; don't forget to answer that question at the 'innerancy' thread, arooooooooooo! :cheers:

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey Gray, i anxiously await your thoughts on Prov. 8:22 vis-a-vis the Son of God!
peace!

[GrayPilgrim]

Sorry, I'd gotten bussy and so will try to get at this this week.