In article <YZnvk.276$***@trnddc02>, ***@geneva.rutgers.edu
says...
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Matthew JohnsonSince he
seems to intend to be orthodox, perhaps he took "singularity" to be a
reference to the state of being singular, i.e. one. As far as I
know, it is orthodox to say that God is one. --clh]
Ah, but this is where you depart from the 'standard' meaning of
'Trinity'! No, it is never correct/orthodox to say "God is one"
unless you combine that with "God is three". For this IS what
'Trinity' means: that God is both one and three. The two must not be
separated.
I sometimes suspect that Matthew will never agree with anything I say,
no matter what it is.
Oh, come now. Unless your memory has already failed you, you should be
able to remember a number of times when we agreed on something. Or has
it slipped out of short-term memory into long-term?
Don't forget: the first thing that goes is your memory, and I forget
what the second thing is;)
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduIf it is not orthodox to say that God is one, people other than me are
in trouble.
But why would this be surprising? Of course there are a lot of others
in trouble. It has always been like that.
Are you trying to insinuate that anyone who professes Mark 12:29
believes God is a Monad? But this would in turn imply you did not even
pay full attention as you read to the end of the very passage you
quote. The interpretation "God is a Monad" is not consistent with the
rest of the passage: when asked for ONE greatest commandment, Christ
gave TWO, the one and the "second like unto it (Mk 12:31).
Indeed: as Loren has pointed out many times, there is good linguistic
reason to believe that the "God is one" of Mark 12:29 (and Dt 6:4) is
NOT calling God a Monad, but rather a unity-in-diversity, i.e., an OT
allusion to Trinity (but this is my phrasing, not his).
You may need to take a moment to recover from the shock of learning
that Loren and I agree about anything;)
But back to the topic: as is typical with all OT references to
Trinity, Dt 6:4 is unclear (because of the inherent ambiguity in
H259). Hence the NT clearer references, such as Mt 28:19 Jn
1:1-18. Lossky referred to this progression in clarity as "the
unfolding of the Monad".
In particular, that the interpretation of the unity of God as a
'Monad' is disastrous goes all the way back to St. Basil the Great,
who says in Ch. 18 of "To Amphilochius: On the Holy Spirit":
for we contemplate one image, as it were, expressed in the
unchangeability of Divinity, in God the Father and in God the
Only-Begotten. For the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the
Son. For what the Father is, the Son is; and what the Son is, the
Father is. In this respect they are one. But by the distinction of
persons, they are one and one (NB: St. Basil refuses to allow addition
here!), but by the commonality of essence they are both one.
(for a more stilted translation, but of the whole letter, see
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/basil_spiritu_18.html)
As Lossky says on this same passage:
In other words, the topic is not about a material number, which serves
for counting and in no way can be applied to the spiritual, in which
there is no numerical opposition. In particular, when this number
concerns the indivisible united Divine Hypostasis, the aggregate of
which is always equal to 1 (3=1), the trinitarian number is not a
collection, as we normally understand this; it signifies the the
inexpressible order in God.
[Lossky, V. "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church", ch. 3]
[xlate from http://www.vehi.net/vlossky/03.html]
His "3=1" is the restatement in modern notation, of St. Maximus the
Confessor's words. Unfortunately, he didn't provide a reference.
But my point in all these cites is: the insistence on the naive
intepretation of Dt 6:4 is disastrously wrong. 'Number' does not even
mean the same thing when applied to God as to created things. THAT is
Trinitarianism, NOT simply "one essence, three hypostases".
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduWhile I consider the Trinity to be a useful doctrine, which does
summarize Biblical teachings, I would give priority to terminology
used in the Bible, and particularly the terminology used by Jesus.
And this approach is common today. But unfortunately, it is
nevertheless a bad idea, as the history of Arianism and Semi-Arianism
proved: large parties of anti-Orthodox excused their endorsement
and/or toleration of heresy by saying just as you do, that they needed
to "give priority to terminology used in the Bible".
But the very REASON we developed Trinitarian terminology in the first
place was because the terminology used in the Bible was NOT being
understood the way it was meant! It was therefore NECESSARY to develop
new terminology, even necessary to insist on it.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduI haven't read Tielhard, but the discussions I've seen don't make his
theology sound very attractive to me.
That could be good news. Then again, "not very attractive to me" does
not sound like a very sound criterion for judging whether or not
something is good.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduHowever at least he was trying to look at the theological
consequences of evolution.
But that is neither always good, nor always bad: it depends on HOW one
"tries to look" at it. Tielhard de Chardin was, for whatever reason,
willing and even eager to toss aside an awful lot of Christian
theology in order to "look at the theological consequences of
evolution".
It should have been obvious that this was not acceptable, but somehow,
it was not obvious to him. It was, however, obvious to his superiors
in the Order, who forbade him to publish.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduI will avoid going into specifics of the evidence, because as I've
noted this isn't the place for it. But I consider the evidence for
evolution to be quite convincing. It does indeed have implications
for original sin and other standard Christian doctrines.
But does it really? Or does it instead have consequences for how we
-reach- those conclusions (of standard doctrines)? This is the
question Tielhard de Chardin should have asked. But his writings show
no sign of it.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduTielhard may well not have come to the right conclusions, but it's
worth asking for better answers, rather than allowing the current
incarnation of the Inquisition to shut off the discussion.
But there is a major problem with this approach: people with so little
sense of history that they can make flippant accusations like this, of
being "the current incarnation of the Inquisition", are in NO position
to judge when it is profitable to allow which kind of discussion: if
you ask the wrong question, and then accept a wrong answer to it, you
will NOT get to "better answers".
Consider a more contemporary example: in another NNTP newsgroup,
sci.physics, we have no shortage of people willing to 'discuss'
Special and General Relativity. But a distressing number of these
people are willing ONLY to ignore the scientic method, ignore the
evidence, proclaim their own results, and deny the theories. They then
ignore all correction, and simply shout down those who correctly
correct them.
But since there is no moderation there, those who do speak the truth
are often swamped by these crackpots. So the unprepared reader,
happening across a few crakcpot posts, is easily fooled. The crackpot
_sounds_ reasonable -- at first. It is only after an investment of a
distressing amount of time and effort that the unprepared reader can
find out how wrong the crackpot really is. Yet when anyone tries to
spare these readers that waste of time, what accusation do we hear? We
hear the accusation 'Inquisition', or 'priesthood'!
Now if this can happen in physics, which is a pretty clear cut
subject, then it can happen in theology, too. It can happen much more
easily, since the test for plausibility is nowhere near as clear cut
as in physics. It has been happening this way for centuries. But the
consequences of theological error can be MUCH more serious!
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduUnless the statement of Pius XII has been changed, the Catholic
Church has committed itself to the rather difficult position that
Genesis may not be literal, that evolution may be true, but that
there was a single literal Adam and Eve. We need a better answer than
this.
Which statement are you referring to, and what kind of authority does
it have? Not every Papal statement has the authority of "ex
cathedra". In fact, surprisingly few do.
The Roman Church has got out of the habit of playing at being physical
scientists: they are not going to endorse any particular form of
evolution, but neither will they now deny the right for believers to
accept evolution. They are not eager to repeat the mistake handling
Galileo;)
For that matter, what good does it do to insist "we need a better
answer", if at the same time, you also insist on principles that
guarantee that any other answer you find it worse, not better? But
this is exactly what Tielhard de Chardin did!
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduOf course this comment is not directed against Matthew, as he's
Orthodox, and thus presumably doesn't have the same interests as the
Catholic Church in defending Augustine's view of original sin.
Well, you got that right. But I -do- have an interest in defending
Augustine, who is considered a saint even in the Orthodox Church,
against being accused of too much. Blaming him for the West's errors
concerning original sin fits into this category, as St. Tikhon of
Zadonsk explained so long ago, as Fr. Seraphim Rose reiterated more
recently in http://www.vehi.net/avgustin/rouz.html (not available in
English on the Web).
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduHowever what is directly against Matthew is my assessment of the way
he treats other Christians, as here (both AJA and me). Christians
should be marked by charity in our treatment of others, but
particularly brothers and sisters in Christ. Otherwise we are noisy
gongs or clanging cymbals.
And your own judgment here is itself not marked by charity. It works
both ways. Why, your own judgment and your expression of it, is not
even consistent with your own statements concerning Moderation, as you
supplied them at http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/charter.html.
For example, a post discussing what the proper behavior of one
Christian to another is would be on topic, according to the Charter,
but a post accusing another of "verging on the unforgiveable sin" is
not.
If you are not going to follow the policy then you are breaking your
word. How 'Christian' is that, Charles?
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduJesus did not create very many doctrines.
Not true. He is the ultimate author of all true Christian doctrine.
Well, of course. But the stories themselves have doctrinal
content. Nor were these stories His only form of His teaching in the
whole history of His Body, the Church.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduWhen people met him, he challenged them to react to him personally. It
is very interesting to see how quickly the following generations
turned his challenge to know God and follow him into a demand to hold
a very precisely defined set of doctrines, most of which Jesus would
surely not have recognized.
Ah, but when you say "surely not have recognized", you are being
'sure' where you have no grounds for such surety.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduAs far as I can see, this is a rejection of what Jesus stood for.
Here too, you are being sure where you should not be so sure.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduIndeed if carried far enough, it verges on the one sin that Jesus
pronounced unforgiveable: seeing someone in whom the Holy Spirit is at
work and denying it.
But even this interpretation of the "unforgivable sin" is
impossible. Why, your only possible basis for it is a highly
questionable interpretation of the text of Mat 12:31 etc. The verb He
uses, BLASFHMEW, does NOT mean 'reject'.
Not to mention: harsh though I may have been at times, can you find
even ONE post where I accused someone of "verging on the unforgivable
sin"? No? I didn't think so.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduIf someone does not treat other Christians as brothers and sisters in
Christ, I simply don't care how persuasive their ideas may sound.
Uh, huh. Please explain how it is "treating another Christian as a
brother in Christ" to raise a hedging but spurious accusation of
"verging on the unforgivable sin". While you are at it, please explain
how it is "treating another Christian as a brother in Christ" to
accuse a Trinitarian of contradicting Mk 12:29. You are much more
well-read than many others in this NG: you should know full well that
Mk 12:29 is very important to Trinitarians, and that we never have
read it as implying God is a Monad.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.eduI don't so much reject the conclusions of the early church's doctrinal
arguments
What do you mean? You have already rejected several of them in this
one post. You rejected, for example, the early Church's arguments
concerning the reliability of Scripture when you claimed that "Christ
would surely not have recognized" their doctrines.
Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu-- many of which I think have some degree of usefulness -- as the
priority placed on them and the spirit in which they were done.
Newsflash: this "spirit in which they were done" does NOT allow for
playing fast and loose with the text of Scripture -- as you just did
in your interpretation of Mat 12:31. Nor does it allow for raising
spurious accusations of the "unforgivable sin".
----
[I quoted Mark 12:28-34 in responding to your claim that it is not
orthodox to say "God is one" without also saying that he is three.
I have never used the term "monad". Surely by now you know that
I accept the Trinity.
Teilhard was silenced by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office,
now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. They are
the lineal descendant of the Inquisition. According to Wikipedia, it
was renamed from the Inquisition to the Holy Office in 1908 and to the
Sacred Congregation on 1965.
If you look at Mat 12:22-32, the Pharisees that Jesus accused did not
say anything nasty about the Holy Spirit. Rather, they attributed
Jesus' work, which he says is by the Spirit of God, to Satan. It
appears that Jesus considers that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
I did not intend to reject doctrines such as the Trinity by saying
that Jesus would not recognize it. I accept that it is a reasonable
summary of the Biblical view of God. However it is expressed in terms
that Jesus would not have recognized.
--clh]