It is very clear from the quotes I cited from Gregory and Augustine that yes, these authorities were using person in the sense we do today. Now, if you want to argue they aren't, then take the examples I gave and show specifically why that is. Your statement that not all humans were credited with "having a personhood" also needs clarification here. Are you trying to argue that when Augustine and Gregory spoke of men, in their explication of the Trinity, they did not mean persons? If so, what did they mean there? You are not making any apparent sense here. I would appreciate it if you would explain further.
If you aren't familiar with the Roman conception of personhood, you really need to brush up on your knowledge of classical and Byzantine history.
"If you rejects Scripture and commits various errors of logic and semantics?" Evidence please.
I have already enumerated the semantic errors you made; regarding logic, it is my contention that you are relying on a strawman of Trinitarian theology, and that your interpretation of process theology requires special pleading, in a manner not characteristic of Palamism.
"It isn't for other reason those that you cite"? You mean from reasons other than those which I cite. Examples and evidence please.
It is not, for among other reasons, those which you cited.
The Cappadocians do not have a social theory of the Trinity? I just showed you a prime example where they did.
What they had one might describe in a modern sense as among other things not unlike the "social theory," but it was not the modern social theory per se; akin to it , but it is misleading in the sense that referring to Cicero as a conservative might be misleading (in that Optimatism is not quite the same as the political approach of Burke).
I brought up Calvin as a prime example where contradictory thinking on the part of the church father is what led to paradoxes that we then were told we had to accept because they were rationalized as pointing to the fact the Lord works in mysterious ways.
Calvin is not a church father; he is furthermore according to the Orthodox an anathematized heresiarch; if you want to debate his logic you might well seek out a Calvinist who actually has some regard for the man.
Of curse, Gregory and Athanasius found mattes here difficult to contemplate.
No, they simply drew an epistemological line in the sand based on the obvious problems of comprehending an infinite being, a position which is, by the way, Biblically based. By the way, it would help of you clarified which St. Gregory you are talking about, given there are six major Orthodox saints by that name, and several others; at least four of the Gregories might be relevant to this discussion, and we have this far dealt with Nazianus and Palamas specifically.
The question is: Why? My argument is that tis is because they were making muddled assumptions about God. The fault is in their thinking, not God. Who says their assumptions abut God are correct or even biblical?
The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Assyrians, and most traditional Protestant divines of any erudition, in the case of St. Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzus, at least.
As I explained before, the biblical model of God credits God with change, emotion, and generally views God analogous to a Father striving to get control over children who are disobedient and often disappointing.
Only if one eisegetically reads various historical-allegorical passages in the Old Testament not only literally, but anthropomorphologically, while ignoring altogether various theological passages in both testaments, the word "almighty," and so on.
That's a long way from an omnipotent God, and so are the passage in Scripture I pointed out where God does not know definitely the future.
More eisegesis, here resting on one verse, flying in the face of, for example, the veritable torrent of verses Calvinists will employ in defense of predestination.
I'd suggest you pay a bit more attention to what the Bible does say. Furthermore, the classical theism of the church fathers argued God is wholly static, passionless, unmoved by the world, immaterial, etc.
There are only a few minor points of Orthodox praxis where I find it neccessary to lean on sacred tradition, and we are so far from them now. The premise of this thread was that non-Trinitarianism was unscriptural; a point I and other members did make; now, not only are you apparently embracing that discredited perspective, but also concurrently attempting to argue the various unscriptural points of doctrinaire process theology in a manner that not only is devoid of nuance, but which flies in the face of scripture. A process theologian could hypothetically make a case which I would not reject out of hand, but the hardline approach you take to it simply does not work in relation to the Christian scriptures.
I also have a nagging suspicion that you, like some of my other interlocutors on this thread, are ignoring the distinction between the humanity and divinity of our Lord, and thus embracing a Eutychian or semi-Apollinarian perspective.
Who says this is an accurate definition of God?
Most Christians, past and present.
I sure don't. That is one of the reasons process appeals to me.
We should not adhere to a theological scheme solely because it appeals to us. I would like to believe in universalism, except this doctrine is obviously contrary to revealed truth. Origen used his great intellect to argue it with some force, and ultimately wound up being largely discredited and anathematized.
Also, as I have shown, process gives a solid account of why the classical model does not work.
Only if by "solid" you mean "anthropomorphological, logically fallacious, unscriptural and unscientific." Process theology has basically devolved from an interesting attempt at something not unlike Palamism by a western scholar who in all probability never heard of St. Gregory Palamas, into a loose framework that supports various liberal theological schemes, which amounts, at the risk of sounding intemperate, to wishful thinking. Most of these parallel approaches which often attach themselves to Process do not even attempt scriptural reconciliation, for example, Womanist Theology.
I do not believe that Whitehead intended his system to lead to an belief in a quasi-demiurge that could be contoured to provide theological support for various secular political doctrines, but this is what has happened. The deity of process theology is not only mutable, but positively malleable, almost, if you will forgive me, a lump of clay one might mould to suit whatever argument about ethics or society one wishes to make, from a religious perspective.
Process uses unscientific premises? That's odd. I find Whitehead stressed the relativity of reality, which is a fundamental scientific concept last time I looked. Anyhow, are the classical theists "scientific"? Are discussions of God to be purely scientific, in the first place?
No. but where they openly fly in the face of science, for example, young Earth creationism, or various theologocal systems that rely on a flat Earth (one sunnah of Mohammed, apparently), rhis is usually a red flag.
Process is arbitrary, unscientific, and breaks down at the Big Bang? Evidence please. The Big Bang could not be the result of a temporal process of change, movement etc.? Explain please. I see no problem in process affirming the Big Band. In fact, it fits nicely with my hypothesis that creation is God's own self-evolution from simplicity into complexity.
There was no time before the Big Bang; time began at that moment. Ergo, we have to say that the Big Bang could not have resulted from any temporal process, change or movement; it was a singular event, which from a theological perspective requires us to reject the idea of inate divine mutability, where mutability amounts to a change in state, which requires time.
Process is atheistic? That's funny. Hartshorne is generally credited with being one of the most "God intoxicated" philosophers of all time. Indeed, his reasoning starts from the position that there is a God ands works from there. If you haven't read him, I think you definitely should. Whitehead worked differently. He started by establishing metaphysical principles and then exploring how they all point to God.
Process is closer to various non-Theistic or pantheist religions of the East. It however can be regarded as atheistic, strictly speaking, in that the entity it refers to as God cannot be regarded as God, ontologically or functionally. At best, Process posits an uncreated demiurge living in what amounts to a symbiotic relationship with creation, not entirely unlike the separate animals that comprise the colony we refer to as a Portuguese Man of War.
Process theology belongs in some other religion, not Christianity? That's funny. How do you explain the fact that process theologians are in fact Christian, along with the fact that many are ordained clergy?
Process theology provides a framework to accpmodate various unscriptural modernist and postmodern theological schemes; by saying God is mutable, one can redefine God or doctrine according to the idea that God changes, shich makes process rather useful for the sort of James Pike liberal voices that sadly dominate the mainline Chriatian denominations. One no longer needs to attempt to argue the scriptural merits of basically unscriptural views on female clergy, human sexuality and other issues, when one can simply point to a changing god and the changing relationship between that god and society.
So they are all wrong and you now much better and therefore you have the right to determine what is Christian and what is not? C'mon. Frankly, you are a newbie to process, rally don't know the territory, and ought to less judgmental and ask questions, instead of pointing the finger.
I do not presume to be able to pass judgement on the sincerity of the Christian faith or the moral integrity of process theologians, however, it is entirely legitimate to show how it is basically contrary to Christian scripture. The entire premise of this thread is that non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural; you did not have to invoke Process Theology against the Trinity, and indeed we discussed it in another thread in a more general way. If however, you intend to invoke Process in support non-Trinitarianism, which frankly, most of the Process clerics you cited avoid (as they work for historically Trinitarian mainline churches), in this thread, I will criticize it on the basis of scriptural compatibility.
Which interestingly is actually easier than attacking Arianism, per se; those members arguing an Arian Christology ultimately defeated their own arguments by variously rejecting John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19 or other texts they found inconvenient. Whereas process theology, of argued on the doctrinaire manner you favour, as opposed to more nuanced, less overtly non-Trinitarian approaches, tends to run aground on the contents of virtually the entire Bible; every time a statement referring to divine foreknowledge, omnipotence, or unknowability pccurs, which is fairly frequent.
The process case centers on the fact that classical theism did not provide a truly loving, sensitive God, that it enshrined the immune and the immutable. The classical image of God as void of all emotion and unmoved by the world certainly does not present a loving, sensitive God. There is no doubt about that.
Once again, you resort to a strawman caricature of "classical theism" that ignores the classical ideal pf love, conflates love with empathy, ignores the patristic Greek theological conceptions of "divine eros" and other explorations of the nature of divine love, and runs roughshod over the doctrines of the Incarnation and the essence/energies distinction. You aren't even interacting with the various classical works on God's essential love; you simply (mis)characterize the classical position as a whole.
Process does not square with the revealed percepts of the Christian religion that God is almighty, unseen, unsearchable, etc.? Who says God in the Bible is revealed as omnipotent?
Most Christians, past and present. Also, strictly soeaking, your repeated use of "who says?" implies a fallacious appeal to authority. If we are to go down the road of saying appeals to authority are broadly legitimate in this conversation, then I might put forward an argument along the lines of the Christian faith having functioned for nineteen centuries without requiring process theology to clarify its supposedly "muddled" understanding of God, is a fairly compelling reason to reject Process outright as an unwarranted, unhelpful and unscriptural innovation, not unlike the Sophianism of Bulgakov and Florensky.
I have already given solid reasons why I don't. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that omnipotence is a totally nonsensical notion, to begin with. The church fathers themselves could use it only if killed with a million qualifiers, for example.
Actually, if you would revise your readings of Patristics, you would note that the Fathers, for example, the Cappadocians, described God as omnipotent without qualification.
And I have pointed out a number of other difficulties. If you have forgotten, I would be happy to go over this again. Process denies that God is unsearchable? This depends upon what you mean by "unsearchable." The process position is that if God has revealed himself or herself to us, then God is knowable to us.
LOL.
It makes no sense to say we just believe in an undefined X.
Various deists manage to do just that.
At the same time, process honors the fact that God is transcendent and therefore can be difficult for us to fully grasp.
It pays lip service to the idea of transcendence, but by regarding God as "difficult" rather than "impossible" to "grasp" according to the divine nature, process in fact makes God entirely immanent, to some extent, a victim of His own creation.
If God is the ultimately sensitive o ne, enjoying a direct and immediate empathic response to all creaturely feeling, then who among us can ever really imagine what the is like? It is a sensitivity to far off the scale for us to en begin to imagine. God is unseen? What do you mean here? Process aesthetics centers on the notion that conscious, sensory experience is just the tip of the ice berg, that God is encountered on a deeper, purely affective level.
Process is based on philosophy. Yes, true. So is all theology, especially classical theism.
I don't object to theology relying on philosophy, but I do object to shoehorning theology to fit a philosophical scheme in a manner contrary to scripture. For example, it would be difficult to reconcile orthodox Christian theology with, for example deconstructionism, and in the grand scheme of things there is little point to such an approach. It is worth noting that the word "heresy" originally meant something like "philosophical school;" the proliferation of oddball Gnostic sects caused the word to acquire its present unsavoury connotations.
I'm arguing from Unitarianism? Well, I am a card-carrying member of four churches, PCUSA, Methodist, Salvation Army, and Unitarian.
Strictly speaking, thats against the rules of the UMC, and probably, all three of the Trinitarian bodies in question.
Right now, I am working with the local Unitarians to set up an adult RE program early next year. I have some sympathy with Unitarianism, especially with Channing, who argued the two natures of Christ fails to offer any real sense of the atonement.
Which is the most monstrous exaggeration of the distorted medieval chivalry-based schme of Anselm of Canterbury one might possibly imagine.
However, many non-Unitarians have agreed with that. However, there is much more to my basic value system than Unitarianism. What appeals to me is that process is dipolar. Hence, key aspects of classical theism are honored and definitely in the picture. As I explained before,there is a real sense in which God is seen as immutable, outside time, independent of the universe, the primordial nature. Classical theism does definitely touch on the truth of God. However, more needs to be brought into the picture. I argue classical theism is lopsided in its value system. It is as if the fathers set up a list of seemingly contradictory,. such as static-dynamic, cause-effect, independent-dependent, etc., and then went down through the list, assigning only one side to God, the side which squared the most with their Hellenic philosophy that time, change, materiality were all inferior and would degrade God. However, I believe both sides represent virtues and so both sides should be attributed to God. If it is a virtue to say full speed hand and damn the torpedoes, I don't care what others think or do, it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others. Hence, I value process as a way of keeping Christianity from becoming lopsided in its value system.
The eastern churches managed to, with the exception of some problems in the Russian church, avoid the kind of moral calamity that befell the west, for nineteen centuries, without recourse to Process Theology. As it happens, Process is contributing to the relativist, secularist moral bankruptcy of the mainline Protestant churches that tolerate it.
