Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
None of these quotes is objectionable, they are fully Orthodox. The Orthodox position is that the Son is eternally, always begotten of the Father, his existence is contingent upon the Father's existence and produced by the Father's existence, but his existence always was and always is.Fair enough. I was being general with names, but I will endeavor to use quotes from recognized fathers. Keep in mind, that there are many Scriptures that point to the Father alone as God, and you'll be hard pressed to find any that refer to Jesus as God apart from the Father. Paul and Peter in virtually every greeting refer to God the Father, and Jesus as Son and Lord, but rarely referred to the Son as God. This doesn't mean He isn't God, but that they made a distinction.
Paul:
1 Corinthians 8:6 - yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Col 3:10 – Jesus is the image, created by God (see 2 Cor 4:4)
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus
Clement of Rome: "[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty...and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son..."
"Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son."
Doesn't say God is alone before creation, but is clear that he just made a distinction between unbegotten vs the begotten, a form of subordinationism.
Ignatius: "But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin."
Ignatius: He [Jesus] made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross
Justin: "For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God..."
All of the following from Irenaeus: "...assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father;"
"How then was the Son produced by the Father? "we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable...and while they (Gnostics) style Him unspeakable and unnameable, they nevertheless set forth the production and formation of His first generation, as if they themselves had assisted at His birth,"
"But that He (Son) had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him."
“as the first-born and eldest offspring of the thought of the Father, the Word, fulfilling all things, and Himself guiding and ruling upon earth.”
"but as truth declares concerning the Word who is ever existent within (endiatheton) the heart of God. For before anything was made He had Him to His Counselor, as being His own mind and understanding. But when He willed to make what He had counseled, He begat this Word into outwardness (prophorikon), as first-begotten of all creation: not being Himself emptied of the Word, but having begotten the Word, and for ever conversing with His Word."
These quotes can be verified on several sites. They are very hard to ignore, unless they are refused on the basis of disagreeing with theology based on later teachings.
The thing is, "Church Father" is a specific Orthodox term, it doesn't mean "any early Christian writer." It means an Orthodox saint who was who instrumental in defending doctrine. Tertullian and Origen are neither considered saints, nor defenders of doctrine (since they were both heretics). They are certainly, absolutely useful to study, but they are also completely ruled out as doctrinal authorities.
That's a nice theory, but there's not really any substance to it. For instance, according to Origen, the world always existed, souls always existed, but the physical universe is the "fall universe", and the idea to transcend the physical, not to partake of a physical resurrection (he got all this from pagan philosophy). He wasn't officially anathematized until hundreds of years later, though--do you think this is because doctrines like the physical resurrection, and creation not always existing, "evolved" later? No, it had nothing to do with that, it just had to with it being a pain to get the whole Church together to proclaim things, and also they actually needed a significant support for the motion to anathematize to get it rolling.Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from. I happen to believe many of the later church rulers/fathers anathematized the early writers for the very reason I am suggesting to you - that the theme of subordinationism didn't set well with them, and they needed to justify their stance.
The Orthodox position is that the Son is eternally, always begotten of the Father, his existence is contingent upon the Father's existence and produced by the Father's existence, but his existence always was and always is.
God isn't physical, what do you mean by "inside" and "outside"?If by the Son's existence, you mean within the Father first as His Word and Wisdom and then later birthed outwardly, I agree. He is eternal. If you believe that the Son has always existed outside of the Father, then you believe in more than one god. You can't have a begotten Son who was never really begotten, or else you have two Unbegottens.
For instance, according to Origen, the world always existed, souls always existed, but the physical universe is the "fall universe", and the idea to transcend the physical, not to partake of a physical resurrection (he got all this from pagan philosophy).
You can rest assured plenty of textual analysis (which is what you really mean, not textual criticism, which is the study of comparing various versions of a text) was used to investigate their teachings in the proceedings held to anathematize them.Origen was definitely out there at times - especially i there wasn't already a clear teaching on the issue at hand. But Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers relied heavily on his doctrine of the Trinity. I think we can use our rationale in textual criticism to determine whether others are in accord with their writings, versus tossing out everything a writer said because all of what they wrote wasn't orthodox.
God isn't physical, what do you mean by "inside" and "outside"?
Man is not made in the form of God (which is used to mean his essence), Man is made in the likeness and image of God (likeness/image vs. form/idol are four very distinct terms in both Hebrew and Greek). To make something which purports to have God's form, is the definition of idolatry.Even the incorporeal has a form of its own, albeit we are but an image and likeness of it.
My apologies. I didn't mean to detract from your original intent, which was to discuss the source(s) of the Spirit.
Man is not made in the form of God (which is used to mean his essence), Man is made in the likeness and image of God (likeness/image vs. form/idol are four very distinct terms in both Hebrew and Greek). To make something which purports to have God's form, is the definition of idolatry.
The thing is, "Church Father" is a specific Orthodox term, it doesn't mean "any early Christian writer." It means an Orthodox saint who was who instrumental in defending doctrine. Tertullian and Origen are neither considered saints, nor defenders of doctrine (since they were both heretics). They are certainly, absolutely useful to study, but they are also completely ruled out as doctrinal authorities.
That's a nice theory, but there's not really any substance to it. For instance, according to Origen, the world always existed, souls always existed, but the physical universe is the "fall universe", and the idea to transcend the physical, not to partake of a physical resurrection (he got all this from pagan philosophy). He wasn't officially anathematized until hundreds of years later, though--do you think this is because doctrines like the physical resurrection, and creation not always existing, "evolved" later? No, it had nothing to do with that, it just had to with it being a pain to get the whole Church together to proclaim things, and also they actually needed a significant support for the motion to anathematize to get it rolling.
The Son's being begotten of the Father, as a term, is used indicate something eternal and ongoing (like the Spirit's proceeding). Not, "prior to begotten" and "post begotten". This seems to be your misunderstanding, you see the begetting of the Son as event that is unaccomplished, then accomplished. It's not an event like that, it is an ongoing relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son is continuously begotten.
The Holy Spirit is SELF-EXISTENT being God the Holy Spirit.This thread is about who causes the Holy Spirit to exist. Eternally.
A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).
My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?
A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).
My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?