Subscribe in 10 days or be Excommunicated

That was the choice put by Cyril from Alexandria to Nestorius.

Nestorius who was enthroned  patriarch of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) in 428 C.E. differed on certain points with Cyril of Alexandria over Christology which after a letter exchange ended up into a synod where his views were condemned and Cyril was ordered to take make sure he was treated as excommunicate.

Their main difference was over whether or not the title Theotokos (God-bearing or mother of God) was applicable to Mary or like Nestorius argued, Christotokos (Christ-bearing). The implications of both these titles were quite grand and as such Pope Celestine convened a synod in 430 C.E. where it was decided in favour of Theotokos.

Nestorius was told that he was to adjure his teachings within 10 days of receiving the notification and get in line with the Church of Rome, Alexandria and the whole Catholic Church or else be treated as excommunicate.

Cyrils letter contained 12 anathemas (curses) which can be found here (scroll down) as well as Nestorius’ replies.

What amazed me while reading all this was the ruthless charge, “subscribe to these beliefs or be excommunicated”. Especially after reading Nestorius’ Christology which certainly was no less philosophically sophisticated than that of Cyril’s. Evidently here were two men who put hours and hours into thinking about this issue and they just ended up with different beliefs.

Still, one was forced to accept the others position (which he didnt). And I wonder in what sense the synod expected a person who holds beliefs to change those within 10 days of notification. You either believe it or you dont would be my guess.

Which brings me to the following: can a person be held accountable for beliefs? I read a discussion of this in light of Rabbinic sources but unfortunately dont have Shapiro’s book to my disposal at the moment. I personally incline to attach more significance to actions, though its hard to separate belief and actions.

Any thoughts?

Subordination II: Origen

A while ago I blogged about what looked to me as subordinationism in Justin Martyr and a pleasant and interesting discussion ensued. Patristic thought of the 2nd and 3rd century isnt easy to understand and the more I read about it, the more I realize it is virtually impossible to understand without having a working knowledge of Philosophy, in particularly Middle -and Neo-Platonism (which I dont have).

Fortunately there are authors that can help you understand where the Church Fathers were coming from and what they meant but this is of course not similar to having first-hand knowledge of the philosophical sources that influenced them and through which they articulated their thoughts.

At any rate, for now I must rely on authors and fellow bloggers to read the Church Fathers but I hope, with the help of God, to get more in touch with Greek Philosophy as time permits.

As I said the first blogpost was more about some verses from Justin Martyr but as the current title indicates, I would like to take a glance at Origen.

Kelly writes that “the impact of Platonism reveals itself in the thoroughgoing subordinationism which is integral to Origen’s Trinitarian scheme.” (131) And presents a few verses from his works that given an indication of this, one that was most telling:

“He who submitted to death for the sake of men, He to whom God bore testimony through the prophets, and who has done great things in heaven and earth, should receive on that ground honour second only to that which is given to the Most High God.” Contra Celsius 7:57

In the footnotes he also refers to the following bit:

“For Christ is, in a manner, the demiurge, to whom the Father says, “Let there be light,” and “Let there be a firmament.” But Christ is demiurge as a beginning (arche), inasmuch as He is wisdom.” Commentary on John 1.22

In the previous discussion on subordination some suggested that second(ary) was simply order and did not indicate subordination, but I think this is harder when reading Origen, as he is much more talking about the Son as an emanation. And I would think that an emanation is not only functionally subordinate unto its source but ontologically as well, this would be even more applicable when seeing Christ in like manner as the demiurge. 

Kelly also points to the parallel in Origen’s thinking with Albinus, who was a philosopher in the school of thought of Middle Platonism. Middle platonism as represented by Albinus “distinguished the First Mind or God, Who is unmoved, the Second Mind or World-Intellect, through which He operates and which is set in motion by desire for Him, and the World-Soul” (Kelly, 20). He retained Plato’s world of forms but enivisioned them as God’s thoughts. Similarly Origen held that there was “a world of spiritual beings, or souls, coeternal with [God] Himself” (ibid.).

Albinus believed that the supreme Father had organized matter through a second God (World-Soul) and that the generation of the Son was the result of His contemplation of the Father. Which again sounds kind of similar to Origen. Where Origen parted with Albinus was in his beliefs around the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly Celsius, Origen’s literary opponent belonged to the school of Middle-Platonism but while this may suggest that Origen simply used this language to engage in a discussion and convince him, I think his system is so thoroughly influenced by Middle-Platonism that it seems to be less a cover but more the paradigm he held to himself.

Closing I would like to say that I think one could still hold to Trinitarianism while admitting [ontological] subordinationism in the Apologists. Im not saying one should, but perhaps a more mature view towards history would see “religious beliefs, like scientific, aesthetic, and moral beliefs, develop gradually in very different historical and cultural contexts” (Ward, 93), hence it being “not at all suprising that they should differ” (ibid.).

This is in fact what we we see, that some of the Apologists made use of Middle-Platonism in setting out their thoughts and ended up with certain conclusions whereas the fathers that came after that would be faced with again different philosophical environments (e.g. Neo-Platonism).

This does not mean that one can accept any current of thought and that it is all relative but it does warn of homogenizing the whole, where the rich diversity is given up for an artificial (and hence weak) unity.

————————————–

J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: HarperOne, 1978)

Keith Ward, Religion & Revelation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994)

On Order and Ranking

I am having this interesting discussion overhere about how to read certain passages found in the Apologists that seem, at least to me, to indicate some form of subordination.

As usual my blog receives more hits when topics like this are discussed and Im genuinely interested what other people’s thoughts are out there (hint: comment if you havent done so already:P).

At any rate I have now arrived at Tertullian, whose called the father of Latin Christianity and expresses an interesting albeit difficult array of thought.

But I have found a passage that may be one explanation for how to read the numbers:

For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are προβολαί, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring. Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God.

Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word—the Father and His Son—two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated. Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. (Adv. Prax. 4)

His analogy seems to relate the order of things coming into existence; root-tree-fruit. So maybe we can see in this a move that is more closer towards Nicea? Ranking seems not really to be the point here, though of course in that the latter is contingent on the former, there is some form of ranking. I think Im beginning to understand also why the concept of eternal generation was so important as Geert indicated in his comment.

In any case I find it highly interesting and a pity these things are not taught in church, I dont mean so much the actual doctrine but the development. In my opinion many Christians simply recite these creeds without having a clue what happened behind those creeds, what the basis was for including certain words and lines etc.

Subordination?

As I indicated before Ive slowly started to read more about the formation of Christian doctrines with the help of among other sources, J.N.D Kelly. His book is quite densely written and as such I only read two pages a day, to get a good grip on what he’s relating.

Ive now come to the section that deals with the Apologists and their understanding of the relationship of the Logos to the Godhead. And what strikes me is the distinction that seems to be made between the Father as the Supreme God and the Logos as a “second God”, who is worshipped “in secondary rank” (1 Apol. 13 as quoted on p. 101).

According to Kelly it would be a mistake to read subordination into this, but I dont really get what else you could read into this?

Indeed a statement like “we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all” (ibid.) seems to indicate some form of subordination?

In another book Im reading by Hans Küng about the Catholic Church its related that with the insertion of homo-ousios into the creed by Constantine, “any opinion was rejected that held the Son in any regard lower than the Father (‘the’ God), like it generally had been taught by Origen and other early theologians” (p. 57).

Is Hans Küng off-mark in drawing this conclusion or is perhaps Kelly trying to harmonize the Apologists with the conclusions of the council of Nicea. Or is perhaps something else going on?

Anyone an idea?

Argument in Favour of the Incarnation

Unlike regular readers of this blog will expect, this post is concerned with an argument in favour of the Incarnation (the idea that Jesus was God).

I personally have more or less (ok probably completely) given up on the idea but nevertheless am able to see why people believe in it and while disagreeing with them on most counts, here is an argument I think is quite sustainable:

Church tradition

This I think is the strongest and surest appeal. The belief of the early mainstream church – which I admit is a strong description for what was probably less well defined back then – in the Incarnation is well attested and shows consensus among writers. Naturally I am not talking about the particulars here as we all know it took some centuries for these to be decided on. But the idea that Jesus was God was from quite early on part of the mainstream church and has in fact remained so until today.

Arguments can be brought forth against the idea of there having been a mainstream church but when surveying the spectrum of groups in existence, the most legitimate heirs of the [diverse] NT faith seem to be those led by the Church Fathers. Now admittedly I am not well read in Patristics and have only recently picked up a book about Church history but when contrasting these figures with say Gnostics or Ebionites they stand their ground way better.

Now I do think that the very negative attitude by Church Fathers against Judaism, the Torah and the ongoing validity of the Jewish people is highly problematic and in no wise [should] represent NT faith. But other than that they seem to have been the legitimate torch bearers. Hence it might be proper to trust them for the Incarnation in like manner as one trusts them for the NT canon and other issues.

What is the main argument that makes you believe in the Incarnation?