Hello 37818,
I was going through my archives looking for something and came across an unnamed file dated "30/03/2012" which holds a conversation we were having back then. Given our current discussions I found it interesting, in as much as it highlighted to me, how consistent I have become as a result of using the language and teaching of the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Have a read...but first a bit of light entertainment...
A parable: Sherlock Holmes & Dr Watson went camping. One night Holmes woke Watson anxiously asking "Look up and tell me what you see". Irritated Watson replied "Millions of stars!" Holmes asked "But what does that tell you?" Watson went into great detail about the Astronomical, Astrological, Horological, Meteorlogical and Theological implications. Pleased with his extensive knowledge he then asked Holmes what it told him. Holmes replied "Oh Watson, isn't it obvious to you that someone has stolen the tent!"
________________
As the controversies post Nicea well demonstrate, the phrase people assent to, and what they mean can be two different things, and their meaning might be found to be in direct conflict with the teaching of the Church.
For instance: There were/are the Sabellian types that affirm the words, but hold that the persons were/are transient manifestation of God, each retained in God (but not distinct from God). Then there were/are the Marcellus types that affirm the words, holding the Son & Spirit to be distinct from the Father but teach that such is a temporary expedient of God's, and at the end of time the Son & Spirit will be reabsorbed into the Father and cease to exist as distinct entities. Then there were/are those that affirm the words in respect of the economy, but deny it in respect of the ontology. Then there were/are those that affirm the words but deny the pre-existence of the Son and the Spirit, and hold that the Trinity came to fruition at Pentecost. Then there were/are those who affirm the words, but hold that the three are unbegotten (self existing & without origination), making the distinction Father, Son & Spirit in name only or by appointment (role playing).
There are numerous permutations that the church confronted, all of which, over the centuries, have been examined and refuted by the Church. The first test used by the Church to determine whether a person holds the universal "orthodox" teaching, is to seek affirmation from the person who declares "three persons, one God", that they acknowledge that the Son has real and distinct existence and is natural offspring of the Father, begotten before all ages.
Many modern translations of the Greek (including the NKJV) render "God is Spirit". Vincent's Word Studies declares "The phrase describes the nature...of God. Compare the expressions, God is light; God is love (1 John 1:5; 1 John 4:8)"[/i].
The context of vs24 is vs23, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him'. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.. It is obvious that Jesus' focus here is on his Father and so what is said, is said exclusively of the Father (though by extension, given the Father's communication of his essence to the Son & the Spirit, it also applies to them).
In your earlier post where you said "The Person being the Spirit is what makes the Person the Father with the Person the Son the same God" you appeared to be saying that the "the Spirit" is the source and cause of the Father & the Son's participation in the Godhead. As I remarked, I don't think that is what you meant, but your choice of words does suggest that you are in some state of confusion...
Imu, Orthodoxy holds that the third person of the Trinity is the Spirit, and the Father is the source and cause of the Son & the Spirit, having communicated his essential nature/essence/ousia in the begetal of the Son and procession of the Spirit. Thus it is the commonality of nature (physis) and thus essence (ousia) that leads us to understand that the three distinct and real individuals (hypostases) are consubstantial (homoousios) and in their unity (Trinity) are the one God.
Ousia is used in the NT in reference to a person's temporal wealth (Luke 15:12). In philosophical usage it refers to "the true wealth" of something, what it is about something that makes it what it is - its concrete reality - in English the closest word we have is essence.
I use the word in the way the Church has always used it.
English is inapproprite to express the meaning of the Church, as it just doesn't have the words to convey the full meaning - hence the rise of all the sects in the last two centuries. The majority of Church doctrines/Creeds were originally formulated in Greek, and what can be expressed in a sentence or two using the Greek terms takes pages in English.
As for "high Church rhetoric", it is the most basic terminology in theology. If we went to Greece we might find the terms still used in everyday language and, within limits, readily understood when put in the Church's context. I use the language of theology because, imo, it is precise and avoids the ambiguities of English, Latin etc
If you haven't got time to comprehend the teaching of the Church, then don't run around making blind ascertains that such and such is unblblical, simply because you have no idea what the discussion is about...and you haven't read the scriptures (or understood them) that the Church uses to support its teaching.
The written word of God was in Greek & Hebrew. Translations, of such rarely bring out the subtleties of the original lanaguages, especially as a languages word meanings shift - the reason there are so many versions. So we should take care in accepting a translation as God's word when formulating our understanding and thus doctrine. Comparative study is always required...
I remain a Christian because i believe in the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ.
Not according to scripture! I guess you object to the idea that Jesus is theotēs (state of being God) bodily (Col 2:9).
Obviously not! Ultimately, following the teaching of the Church on the salvific economy I trust in Jesus' God, the one who A.Paul regularly identifies as God, and identifies as the Father, and is declared as the one who raised Jesus from the dead.
Following the teaching of the Church regarding the ontology of the three, I acknowledge that given the commonality of nature (physis) and thus proof of essence (ousia), I understand that the three distinct and real individuals (hypostases) are consubstantial (homoousios) and in their unity (Trinity) are the one God.
I was going through my archives looking for something and came across an unnamed file dated "30/03/2012" which holds a conversation we were having back then. Given our current discussions I found it interesting, in as much as it highlighted to me, how consistent I have become as a result of using the language and teaching of the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Have a read...but first a bit of light entertainment...
A parable: Sherlock Holmes & Dr Watson went camping. One night Holmes woke Watson anxiously asking "Look up and tell me what you see". Irritated Watson replied "Millions of stars!" Holmes asked "But what does that tell you?" Watson went into great detail about the Astronomical, Astrological, Horological, Meteorlogical and Theological implications. Pleased with his extensive knowledge he then asked Holmes what it told him. Holmes replied "Oh Watson, isn't it obvious to you that someone has stolen the tent!"
________________
Originally posted by 37818
For instance: There were/are the Sabellian types that affirm the words, but hold that the persons were/are transient manifestation of God, each retained in God (but not distinct from God). Then there were/are the Marcellus types that affirm the words, holding the Son & Spirit to be distinct from the Father but teach that such is a temporary expedient of God's, and at the end of time the Son & Spirit will be reabsorbed into the Father and cease to exist as distinct entities. Then there were/are those that affirm the words in respect of the economy, but deny it in respect of the ontology. Then there were/are those that affirm the words but deny the pre-existence of the Son and the Spirit, and hold that the Trinity came to fruition at Pentecost. Then there were/are those who affirm the words, but hold that the three are unbegotten (self existing & without origination), making the distinction Father, Son & Spirit in name only or by appointment (role playing).
There are numerous permutations that the church confronted, all of which, over the centuries, have been examined and refuted by the Church. The first test used by the Church to determine whether a person holds the universal "orthodox" teaching, is to seek affirmation from the person who declares "three persons, one God", that they acknowledge that the Son has real and distinct existence and is natural offspring of the Father, begotten before all ages.
Originally posted by 37818
The context of vs24 is vs23, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him'. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.. It is obvious that Jesus' focus here is on his Father and so what is said, is said exclusively of the Father (though by extension, given the Father's communication of his essence to the Son & the Spirit, it also applies to them).
In your earlier post where you said "The Person being the Spirit is what makes the Person the Father with the Person the Son the same God" you appeared to be saying that the "the Spirit" is the source and cause of the Father & the Son's participation in the Godhead. As I remarked, I don't think that is what you meant, but your choice of words does suggest that you are in some state of confusion...
Imu, Orthodoxy holds that the third person of the Trinity is the Spirit, and the Father is the source and cause of the Son & the Spirit, having communicated his essential nature/essence/ousia in the begetal of the Son and procession of the Spirit. Thus it is the commonality of nature (physis) and thus essence (ousia) that leads us to understand that the three distinct and real individuals (hypostases) are consubstantial (homoousios) and in their unity (Trinity) are the one God.
Originally posted by 37818
Originally posted by 37818
Originally posted by 37818
As for "high Church rhetoric", it is the most basic terminology in theology. If we went to Greece we might find the terms still used in everyday language and, within limits, readily understood when put in the Church's context. I use the language of theology because, imo, it is precise and avoids the ambiguities of English, Latin etc
Originally posted by 37818
Originally posted by 37818
Originally posted by 37818
Originally posted by 37818
Originally posted by 37818
Following the teaching of the Church regarding the ontology of the three, I acknowledge that given the commonality of nature (physis) and thus proof of essence (ousia), I understand that the three distinct and real individuals (hypostases) are consubstantial (homoousios) and in their unity (Trinity) are the one God.
Comment