Ask a Theologian III

[Plotinus]

I added some more texts that they used to my previous post.

So, would you suggest Trinitarianism (Based on the Bible) is incorrect, or would you say both sides could be argued, or something else?

I would say that both sides could be argued. The biblical authors were not typically thinking in these terms, so they did not, for the most part, explicitly address these issues.

I don't see why the Proverbs verse is talking about Jesus Christ at all. It could certainly be "Wisdom" but why would people assume it was talking about the Son?

Because the Son is the Wisdom of the Father. That is one of the things that the Logos theology of the first chapter of John is about. There, the Logos speaks in terms drawn from the Wisdom literature. The church fathers universally regarded Christ as the Logos and as the biblical Wisdom, and interpreted any passage where Wisdom speaks as Christ speaking.

Moreover, of course, the church fathers invariably assumed that any given verse of the Bible was relevant to whatever it was they were talking about. In the work I linked to, you will see that Athanasius spends several chapters arguing that "created" in the Proverbs verse doesn't really mean "created"; it never seems to occur to him to argue that this verse wasn't about Christ at all. The early Christians did not think like that.

"The Father is Greater than I" could be valid, but you could more easily argue that he was simply less while on Earth since he made himself less. And yeah, he was limited of knowledge since he made himself Human, not because he wasn't divine.

Perhaps so. But you'd need to argue these points with an Arian, if you can find one!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Of course. The classic texts that the Arians appealed to the most are:



And



The latter text is spoken by "Wisdom", traditionally taken to be identical with the Son.

They also appealed to:



(which implies that he was not exalted before)



(which implies that he was rewarded and therefore did not enjoy all blessedness to start with)



(which implies both that he is similar in kind to the angels, though better, and that he is created or made)



(which implies that he was appointed by God and therefore not divine, and also similar to Moses, though better)



(which implies that he wasn't Lord before)



(which implies that God and Jesus are distinct)

These texts and others are discussed by Athanasius in Against the Arians showing that they were used by real Arians in support of their views.

Plus of course there are plenty of texts suggesting that Jesus was limited in knowledge, power, etc. One might take these to imply that he was not divine (assuming that being limited in these ways is incompatible with being divine, which is open to question).

God and Jesus are distinct because "God" usually refers to the Father. That does not mean Jesus isn't God.

Matthew 28 19-20 Seems like all one needs to discount Arianism.

 

[Arakhor]

I already said to you, Domination, that merely listing the members of the Trinity does not in any way disprove Arianism or prove the triune nature you expect God to have.

 

[SuperJay]

Plotinus, slightly off-topic question here, but how do you so quickly locate the Biblical verses or texts to provide examples of your points? Like in your post to Dom about Arianism, you just rattle all those off no problem. Is that all from memory or are you referencing a physical book as you write your posts? I assume it's a combination of the two (after studying the Bible for what, 15 years or so, you probably have an intimate familiarity and can likely flip to the right spot?) but I couldn't help but be curious. You always seem to have the appropriate references at your fingertips. Probably kind of important for a theologian, huh?

 

[Plotinus]

God and Jesus are distinct because "God" usually refers to the Father. That does not mean Jesus isn't God.

I don't think that's a very good response. If you think "God" refers to the Father more than it refers to Jesus, then you're saying that the Father is more (properly) divine than the Son is. That's at least semi-Arianism, isn't it? In a Trinitarian context, the Father and the Son are equally God. The only difference between them is that the Father is the father of the Son and the Son is the son of the Father.

Matthew 28 19-20 Seems like all one needs to discount Arianism.

As Arakhor quite rightly says, it doesn't in the slightest. Arians believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They simply denied that the Son is one in substance with the Father. The Homoian Arians believed that the Son is like the Father in every way -including being a proper object of worship - except nature (i.e. he does not share in the divine essence). You won't find anything in Matthew 28 to counter that, for the very good reason that the author of Matthew probably wouldn't have understood a word of this stuff.

Plotinus, slightly off-topic question here, but how do you so quickly locate the Biblical verses or texts to provide examples of your points? Like in your post to Dom about Arianism, you just rattle all those off no problem. Is that all from memory or are you referencing a physical book as you write your posts? I assume it's a combination of the two (after studying the Bible for what, 15 years or so, you probably have an intimate familiarity and can likely flip to the right spot?) but I couldn't help but be curious. You always seem to have the appropriate references at your fingertips. Probably kind of important for a theologian, huh?

I'm not much of a student of the Bible. I know some parts pretty well but most of it I have never studied and much of it I don't really know; I don't find the Bible very interesting and have almost no interest in the Old Testament. In fact I often know some of this stuff by heart, but more often than not I just know where to look it up. In this case, I knew that the first two passages I quoted to Domination3000 were the standard Arian proof-texts, but after posting them it occurred to me that no doubt there were more that I didn't know. So I thought the obvious place to find out - given that no works by the Arians themselves survive - would be a major work written against them. So I looked up Athanasius' Against the Arians online, at the site I linked to, and found that he goes through the Arian proof texts one by one. So in this case I needed only to know that Athanasius was one of the major anti-Arian writers, and that his work could be found online, and that it probably contained the information requested. If you know that then finding out the details isn't hard. That's why I try to link to the texts when I can so other people can do the same thing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think that's a very good response. If you think "God" refers to the Father more than it refers to Jesus, then you're saying that the Father is more (properly) divine than the Son is. That's at least semi-Arianism, isn't it? In a Trinitarian context, the Father and the Son are equally God. The only difference between them is that the Father is the father of the Son and the Son is the son of the Father.

It only means that God is sometimes used as a synonym to the Father. And Jesus is equal to God, but his ROLE (At least while he was on Earth) was the role of submission. Kind of like how "Wives submit to your husbands" doesn't mean the wife is inferior, but that she has a different role.

Also, the Arians denied that the Holy Spirit even existed....

 

[Kyriakos]

What does that mean? Clearly they're as temporal as we are. Do you mean that they have no memories? It seems to me that any animal that can learn, no matter how little, must have some kind of memory.

I recall an experiment with some insect which carried something to its nest. The nest entrance was covered by a small piece of stone, or sand, so the insect had to first leave what it was carrying so as to be able to move that cover. Then, after it had moved it, it would turn again to what it was carrying.
So the human would each time place the stone back where it was covering the entrance. The insect would find it covered, and make the same move, again and again and again.
It might mean that this particular creature had no sense of time, since it did not appear to wonder at the entrance being covered after it had uncovered it.

But again, what's the connection between being held accountable for our actions and life after death?

It is not a connection which would prove there is an afterlife, merely a connection which under some circumstances would make it more humanly reasonable that there is one. After all if we had no deliberation at all then even if an afterlife existed definitely it would not be linked to our own progress in this one, since the latter would be empty of our own decisions. Generally the degree of free will that exists at least allows one to think that his thoughts and actions might matter, if there is some continuation of life- or at least matter in this life.

I would agree that freedom is a matter of degree, at least if one has a compatibilist understanding of free will. Of course, some people have a very different concept of free will. (But they're wrong!)

"Everything in moderation" perhaps is valid here as well

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Random question that occurred to me:

So, Christianity arose in an area where at least some people were literate, and writing played a role in its early days. And it first grew in an area with literacy, and later its expansion was accompanied by the spread of writing (especially in the New World).

So were there any nonliterate, or mostly nonliterate, Christian societies?

 

[Plotinus]

It only means that God is sometimes used as a synonym to the Father. And Jesus is equal to God, but his ROLE (At least while he was on Earth) was the role of submission. Kind of like how "Wives submit to your husbands" doesn't mean the wife is inferior, but that she has a different role.

But if "God" is used as a synonym for "the Father" then that's a tacit admission that the Father is more properly called "God" than the other Persons are. If he weren't, then it would be inappropriate to use "God" to refer to him more than the others. And we're not talking about Jesus, we're talking about the Son, which is not the same thing (even though they may be identical in some way). Within the Trinity, the Son's role is certainly not to be submissive, because, according to orthodoxy, he is exactly like the Father in every way with the sole exception of his relation of generation to the Father (i.e., the Son is generated by the Father, and that's the only thing that distinguishes the Son from the Father). All three Persons act as one, so there cannot be any submission between them - for how could a person who is God be submissive to someone else, even another person who is God?

Also, the Arians denied that the Holy Spirit even existed....

I don't know where you picked that up from, but of course they didn't. They thought that the Holy Spirit is not divine, of course, but they certainly thought he exists - although that was not the focus of the controversy.

I recall an experiment with some insect which carried something to its nest. The nest entrance was covered by a small piece of stone, or sand, so the insect had to first leave what it was carrying so as to be able to move that cover. Then, after it had moved it, it would turn again to what it was carrying.
So the human would each time place the stone back where it was covering the entrance. The insect would find it covered, and make the same move, again and again and again.
It might mean that this particular creature had no sense of time, since it did not appear to wonder at the entrance being covered after it had uncovered it.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it exists in an eternal present, because it might not be sentient at all. After all, my pen expresses no surprise at finding things changed, but while it would be true to say that my pen has no sense of time, there's nothing remarkable about that because my pen has no sense of anything.

It is not a connection which would prove there is an afterlife, merely a connection which under some circumstances would make it more humanly reasonable that there is one. After all if we had no deliberation at all then even if an afterlife existed definitely it would not be linked to our own progress in this one, since the latter would be empty of our own decisions. Generally the degree of free will that exists at least allows one to think that his thoughts and actions might matter, if there is some continuation of life- or at least matter in this life.

If we made no decisions in this life, and there were an afterlife, it could surely be linked to our earthly life by things other than decisions. For example, we might have memories of our earthly life, or retain the same personalities, or whatever. Or indeed there could be substantial continuity, if there is such a thing as a soul. So I don't really see why decision-making abilities are required for there to be continuity from one life to the next. Certainly we might think that without decision-making abilities neither an earthly life nor one after death would be very meaningful or matter very much, but that's surely a different issue - the value of something does not have much bearing on its possibility, does it?

Random question that occurred to me:

So, Christianity arose in an area where at least some people were literate, and writing played a role in its early days. And it first grew in an area with literacy, and later its expansion was accompanied by the spread of writing (especially in the New World).

So were there any nonliterate, or mostly nonliterate, Christian societies?

That is an interesting question and I'm not sure. Obviously there have been Christian societies where a great many people - perhaps most - were illiterate. In the European Middle Ages, most people were illiterate, which is why churches had stained glass windows and engravings and things to illustrate biblical stories and the like. But I'm sure there was still some level of literacy. I can't think of any Christian societies that have been functionally illiterate, because the Bible has always been so important. I'm sure there must have been some at least at some stages. Perhaps some African churches of the early twentieth century - those founded by African missionaries rather than by westerners - might be the most likely candidates. I'm thinking of movements such as those of the Prophet Harris or Kimbanguism.

 

[Kyriakos]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it exists in an eternal present, because it might not be sentient at all. After all, my pen expresses no surprise at finding things changed, but while it would be true to say that my pen has no sense of time, there's nothing remarkable about that because my pen has no sense of anything.

Ok, but we were talking about insects, not inanimate objects. It seems plausible that what is true for one insect is possibly having a likeness to what is true for another.

If we made no decisions in this life, and there were an afterlife, it could surely be linked to our earthly life by things other than decisions. For example, we might have memories of our earthly life, or retain the same personalities, or whatever. Or indeed there could be substantial continuity, if there is such a thing as a soul. So I don't really see why decision-making abilities are required for there to be continuity from one life to the next. Certainly we might think that without decision-making abilities neither an earthly life nor one after death would be very meaningful or matter very much, but that's surely a different issue - the value of something does not have much bearing on its possibility, does it?

There would have been the possibility of an afterlife even without decision-making, sure, but like you said it would seem to be mostly a sort of meaningless progression from one stage to the next, unless for some reason the next life or lives would feature decision-making as well.
There is a covert wish to project meaning from this life to the next, if such a thing exists, since it would have been very beneficial. Besides, we obviously have the capacity for willing and deciding, and therefore if such a thing as a next life exists it seems quite possible that it could be something shaped in a way through precisely our thoughts and actions. I am not going as far as to claim that it would be following the christian dogma of a christian ethos being rewarded, but it seems possible to me that our entire being is projected into another plane, based on its attributes. Of course another life may not exist at all, which brings me again to the question of what is non-existence, since i maintain that we do not have any notion of it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Question, is there any way of knowing what the earliest Christians believed about transubstantiation (The belief that the bread and wine became the literal body and blood of Christ.)

 

[Jehoshua]

You probably mean real presence compared to transubstantiation, transubstantiation is a dogmatic definition that was defined later once the doctrine of the real presence was challenged and it is a descriptor of the process of the change rather than the belief that the change happens and that the bread and wine really become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in and of itself (which is what you seem to be describing).

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ah, OK thanks for clearing it up. I'm more familiar with Protestant doctrine than Catholic doctrine.

And to ask an even more direct question as well: How much grounds are there for the idea that the Catholic Church is the "One true Church?" Is there any solid evidence for the proposal. Is there any good arguments AGAINST the proposal.

 

[Jehoshua]

I think that has been discussed earlier and although I cannot remember its precise content I believe his opinion included the moniker that the Catholic Church has at least a better claim than protestantism. (although that may simply be in being in continuity with the early Church, I can't remember precisely and am hardly going to trawl back)

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think that has been discussed earlier and although I cannot remember its precise content I believe his opinion included the moniker that the Catholic Church has at least a better claim than protestantism.

Actually, as I recall, Plotinus thinks the Orthodox Church is more like the ancient Church than any other (Although I could be wrong about that.)

But I'm curious about what the different arguments are. I know what MY arguments are, but I know I'm certainly not the #1 Protestant apologetic, not by a long shot

 

[Jehoshua]

Well Plotinus is entitled to his opinion. I could go to a plethora of other theologians and get an equal variety of different opinions on theological and ecclesiological matters including upon which Church has the better claim. Hans Kung for example would have a far different view than say Benedict XVI. Thing is priveleging the ideas of a single theologian and saying; because [insert name here] says so it must be right, is a deeply flawed mentality, afterall those same theologians are limited, fallible and prone to error just as all men are of their own ability.

Anyways we should wait now until you get that opinion from Plotinus you so dearly wished to gain.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well Plotinus is entitled to his opinion. I could go to a plethora of other theologians and get an equal variety of different opinions on theological matters. Hans Kung for example would have a far different view than say Benedict XVI. Thing is priveleging the ideas of a single theologian and saying; because [insert name here] says so it must be right, is a deeply flawed mentality, afterall those same theologians are limited, fallible and prone to error just as all men are of their own ability.

Anyways we should wait now until you get that opinion from Plotinus you so dearly wished to gain.

I'm obviously not saying Plotinus is automatically right (Far from it) but I simply wished to get a neutral opinion before continuing.

And yes, let's stop spamming

 

[Jehoshua]

no opinion is ever entirely neutral, and yes lets cease the spamming (so don;t reply to this)

 

[Plotinus]

Question, is there any way of knowing what the earliest Christians believed about transubstantiation (The belief that the bread and wine became the literal body and blood of Christ.)

You probably mean real presence compared to transubstantiation, transubstantiation is a dogmatic definition that was defined later once the doctrine of the real presence was challenged and it is a descriptor of the process of the change rather than the belief that the change happens and that the bread and wine really become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in and of itself (which is what you seem to be describing).

I don't think this is quite right. Certainly the word "transubstantiation" was a later innovation which was introduced in the Middle Ages - after all, it is based upon Aristotelian terminology, which the early Christians hated. However, it does not follow from that that the doctrine which this word expresses was unknown at earlier times. After all, the word "Trinity" was not introduced into Christianity until the end of the second century, but it does not follow from this that Christians did not believe in the Trinity before that time.

The doctrine of transubstantiation is simply that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, but that they still perfectly resemble bread and wine. "Real presence" is the less specific doctrine that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but not necessarily that the elements are transformed into his body and blood. The Reformed churches, for example, typically hold that Christ is really present, but do not locate this presence in the consecrated elements.

As for the early church, a quick Internet search reveals this page of patristic quotations. Note that the purpose of this page is to show that the Fathers held the Catholic view, so any quotations that might detract from that do not appear. However, I don't know of any such quotations. Oddly, that page also omits the passage that comes to my mind instantly when I think about this topic: Ignatius of Antioch's description of the Eucharist as "the medicine of immortality" (Ephesians 20:2). So the answer is that there's a lot of evidence for the views of early Christians on the Eucharist and the Real Presence, and that a lot of them affirm a view very much like transubstantiation.

And to ask an even more direct question as well: How much grounds are there for the idea that the Catholic Church is the "One true Church?" Is there any solid evidence for the proposal. Is there any good arguments AGAINST the proposal.

What is the proposal? What does the claim "The Catholic Church is the one true church" actually mean? Does it mean that that church, alone, teaches what is actually true? I'm not sure what could count as evidence for such a claim. I know what would count as evidence against such a claim, namely if one could find examples of the Catholic Church's teaching that are or are very probably false. However, I'm not sure if there are any such examples. The Catholic Church certainly teaches a lot of things that I think are false or even implausible, but I don't have any way of proving their falsity. To the extent that the Catholic Church disagrees with the findings of biblical scholars about (say) the authorship and provenance of many biblical texts, to that extent I'd say that there's evidence that the Catholic Church is wrong in some of its teachings. But (a) biblical scholars are not infallible, so that is not conclusive evidence, and (b) I'm not sure to what extent the Catholic Church requires one to believe things of this kind.

 

[Jehoshua]

I don't think this is quite right. Certainly the word "transubstantiation" was a later innovation which was introduced in the Middle Ages - after all, it is based upon Aristotelian terminology, which the early Christians hated. However, it does not follow from that that the doctrine which this word expresses was unknown at earlier times. After all, the word "Trinity" was not introduced into Christianity until the end of the second century, but it does not follow from this that Christians did not believe in the Trinity before that time.

I suppose my wording was less than adequate, the intention was that the specific understanding of the process of transubstantion (in terms of substances and accidents) was defined later compared to the undefined but still believed in teaching that the bread and wine actually changed into the body and blood of Christ. For example the eastern orthodox believe the same thing but many reject the term transubstantiation in favour of terms such as metousiosis metarrhythmisis and transelementation.

What is the proposal? What does the claim "The Catholic Church is the one true church" actually mean?

He was probably responding to something I mentioned in the ask a catholic thread that is the Catholic teaching that the Catholic Church is the One True Faith in that it alone contains the fullness of the truth with any other religion only containing truth insofar as it concurred with Catholic teaching.

Perhaps Dom3k's question was worded with a lack of clarity in this regard. But I think in answering his question one would have to look at the nature of the doctrines regarding the infallibility of the Church which further then goes into the claim that the Catholic Church was the original Church founded by Christ continuing from the time of the apostles to the present.