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.
No, you miss my point. This is not about God needing something from man, you read too much into that 'to' of Man to God. This was just ambiguous grammar. I was referring to Peter of Abelard's Moral Influence theory throughout.
Peter Abelard was a Trinitarian, writing books in defence of trinitarianism in fact. The Moral Influence theory is far older than Peter Abelard and has in fact been held from the Church Fathers, most notably Augustine. Most versions of it and Peter Abelard's specific version requires the Trinity intact.And why would that have to be done by Jesus alone? Why can't more than one Manifestation have that kind of influence?
Peter Abelard was a Trinitarian, writing books in defence of trinitarianism in fact.
The idea is that man as a sinful creature must be remade in order to reach God, undergo Moral Change as it were, to be made Holy. This is done via the example of Jesus as Teacher, Leader and Martyr in His Crucifixion. It is however not Auto-Soteriological as humans are too fallen or sinful to achieve this change on our own. It requires the Holy Spirit to alter our thought pattern, our psychology, our very selves, to become like Jesus. In fact to enter into sonship of God, a replica of Jesus; who although afflicted by the very nature of man could overcome this nature and remain sinless, as He was God, thus allowing a supreme Example to exist. As the Holy Spirit is also a part of the Trinity, He supports the Christian in following Christ's example for He already did it before as Christ. We merely retrace Christ's steps via the activity of the Holy Spirit. Man himself cannot achieve this without divine grace.
To remove the full divinity of Jesus, to make Him subsidiary, it destroys the essential philosophical reasoning of the Moral Influence. Firstly it needs the Holy Spirit to be of one essence with Jesus, so we already need a composite being, but for an imperfect being to interact with a Perfect God is itself a problem.
(Peter Abelard has further reasons why it must be Trinitarianism as Arianism becomes absurd if the Example is not itself the Most High, but this is more difficult to explain)
Neither of these are compatible with Manifestations as you have described it, nor is Arianism with the avowed Monotheism of the Bahai Faith. If the Bahai Faith taught recurring full incarnations of God, with each Manifestation being the Second Person of the Trinity, that would be a different matter, but it does not.
(It would also be superfluous to have multiple incarnations)
Only the Summi Boni Theologia was declared heretical. While in a dispute with Bernard of Clairvaux, a few others were also so declared, this was stopped by Pope Innocent II and the excommunication lifted.LOL. Actually those books were declared heretical.
What I had written has nothing to do with Original sin, which I never mentioned. It has more to do with the Fall and depravity, so this observation on your part is irrelevant.Baha'is don't have a concept of original sin, but the Manifestations serve the same example who is regarded as sinless.
Peter Abelard didn't think in terms of more than one Example for that would be superfluous in Moral Influence theory. The Holy Spirit is required to be the same being in every way, shape or form as Jesus for Moral Influence to work as it is about following the path trod by Christ, not only in our earthly life, but in our Metaphysical reality or spiritual life. For Jesus to achieve a position of sinlessness while being a sinful human, requires Him to be a God. Fully God and Fully Man, for only God would be able to not sin as a Man. As only Jesus as man and God could overcome our fallen state, the helper needs to be of the same Essence as Christ, not just the 'mind of Christ'. This sounds like more liberal theology and has no place in a discussion of Peter Abelard. You require a fully divine Jesus interacting with God the Father throughout the process of Atonement, who is the same Essence as the Holy Spirit and therefore a Trinity for Moral Influence is required as seen by the majority of Christians. If it was just about an example of Virtue, than Socrates would have been the Messiah as someone said in another thread.What does the Holy Spirit have to do with whether or not Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father. Baha'is, by the way, don't deny Christ's divinity, we deny He is a deity. Also, my understanding is that Christians should have the 'mind of Christ' not become one with his essence. As for the role played by the Holy Spirit, I don't think we have posit a Trinity to talk about the role of the Holy Spirit. As for an imperfect being interacting with a perfect God, that again sounds more Anselmian. But I'm not arguing that Abelard thought in terms of more than one Example. I'm sure the idea didn't occur to him.
To ascribe divinity to someone, makes them a god in standard western thought. The Oxford Dictionary definition of Divinity is the 'state of being divine' or 'god, deity' and divine means 'of god'. The Bahai cannot use terms in this manner to acquire western theological concepts to themselves when they have defined the terms in a different manner. They do not bear the same meaning anymore.Baha'is, by the way, don't deny Christ's divinity, we deny He is a deity.
Yes, which is why Moral Influence doesn't work in Arianism either. I didn't explain why though, so I just short circuited it by showing that Arian conceptions are also incompatible with the Bahai Faith, but it seems you misunderstood what I had said.Arianism doesn't teach that Jesus is a full incarnation of God.
It would be superfluous as it is not an example in the normal sense. It is about following a path laid out for us. Because Jesus atoned for sin, the Holy Spirit can lead any to God. Its not about people knowing Christ in order to follow his example, although this has a role to play. Many Universalist Christians still hold to Moral Influence atonement as it is not just knowing the life or events of Christ, its following the metaphysical path he opened, whether you know of Him or not. Therefore they would say that Buddhist monks etc. are also saved by the Moral Influence path via the Holy Spirit working via their traditions(not that I ascribe to Universalism).Not if the Manifestation is serving as an Example. One has to be aware of the Example in order to follow it, and not everyone was aware of Jesus.
Only the Summi Boni Theologia was declared heretical. While in a dispute with Bernard of Clairvaux, a few others were also so declared, this was stopped by Pope Innocent II and the excommunication lifted.
What I had written has nothing to do with Original sin, which I never mentioned. It has more to do with the Fall and depravity, so this observation on your part is irrelevant.
The Holy Spirit is required to be the same being in every way, shape or form as Jesus for Moral Influence to work as it is about following the path trod by Christ, not only in our earthly life, but in our Metaphysical reality or spiritual life.
For Jesus to achieve a position of sinlessness while being a sinful human, requires Him to be a God.
Fully God and Fully Man, for only God would be able to not sin as a Man.
As only Jesus as man and God could overcome our fallen state
the helper needs to be of the same Essence as Christ, not just the 'mind of Christ'.
This sounds like more liberal theology and has no place in a discussion of Peter Abelard.
You require a fully divine Jesus interacting with God the Father throughout the process of Atonement, who is the same Essence as the Holy Spirit and therefore a Trinity for
Moral Influence is required as seen by the majority of Christians. If it was just about an example of Virtue, than Socrates would have been the Messiah as someone said in another thread.
(There are some Unitarians who ascribe to a much watered-down Moral Influence theory which makes Jesus more like a prophet, but this is not really philosophically sound by Christian doctrine and such Unitarians usually consider themselves post-Christian and are considered non-Christian by most Christians. I think this may be where you got your 'Mind of Christ' story).
To ascribe divinity to someone, makes them a god in standard western thought. The Oxford Dictionary definition of Divinity is the 'state of being divine' or 'god, deity' and divine means 'of god'. The Bahai cannot use terms in this manner to acquire western theological concepts to themselves when they have defined the terms in a different manner. They do not bear the same meaning anymore.
You are becoming confused as you are thinking in English. These theories were written in Latin, where Influentia meant 'flowing' or an 'influx', used for 'imperceptible action exerted to cause change' in Scholasticism from which English adopted the modern word. It has nothing to do with the modern idea of being influenced by someone, but more of being transformed indirectly.
You don't seem very knowledgeable on Scholasticism it seems, but I would assume this as you said in another thread that you have mostly been studying Indian religions.
LOL. Actually those books were declared heretical.
Baha'is don't have a concept of original sin, but the Manifestations serve the same example who is regarded as sinless.
What does the Holy Spirit have to do with whether or not Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father. Baha'is, by the way, don't deny Christ's divinity, we deny He is a deity. Also, my understanding is that Christians should have the 'mind of Christ' not become one with his essence. As for the role played by the Holy Spirit, I don't think we have posit a Trinity to talk about the role of the Holy Spirit. As for an imperfect being interacting with a perfect God, that again sounds more Anselmian. But I'm not arguing that Abelard thought in terms of more than one Example. I'm sure the idea didn't occur to him.
Perhaps because it doesn't make sense?
Arianism doesn't teach that Jesus is a full incarnation of God.
Not if the Manifestation is serving as an Example. One has to be aware of the Example in order to follow it, and not everyone was aware of Jesus.
This is factually inaccurate. Only Summi Boni Theologia was condemned. Some of his other works were condemned in 1121 and 1141, but withdrawn both times from condemnation. Hence we still have them today. If they were declared heretical, they would have been expunged completely like Cathar or Bogomil tracts and would not have been extent. Peter Abelard died in communion with the Church and his works continued to be taught and discussed.His views on the Trinity were declared heretical.
Isn't that what Original Sin is all about?
No. This is a red herring you keep throwing out. The Pelagians admitted the Fall and human depravity without original sin for instance. Also Orthodoxy never accepted the western idea of Original sin as proposed by Augustine.Then it does rest upon the notion of Original Sin.
So? Baha'is believe in the Holy Spirit. We just don't think it is God.
As I said, redefining a concept does not mean you can then adopt Christian theology predicated on a radically different conception of it. Your proving my point here in these two quotes.Baha'is believe the Manifestations are fully divine while being fully human and therefore do not sin. We just don't think being divine equates with being God.
Irrelevant. For the Christian Theology would not accept this. "They are sinless because we say they are" instead of explaining how this can be possible.That maybe the Christian position but Baha'is believe all of the Manifestations are sinless.
I do not have a quotation easily to hand, but shall look for one when I have time and post it in this forum. Unfortunately, I need to go through some of my books to get a nice concise one, so I'll have to get back to you.I think I misunderstood your earlier statement as a reference to believers needing the Holy Spirit to become one with God's essence, which sounded quite heretical to me. That's why I mentioned they could only be one with the Mind of Christ. I didn't realize you were referring to the Holy Spirit being one with God's Essence. Still, your logic makes no sense to me. Where exactly does Peter Aberlard say this? Quotation please
Abelard was Liberal for the Middle-Ages, but is in no way Liberal by Modern standards. You cannot retroactively transpose modern conceptions on to the Scholastics.Liberal theology owes a lot to Abelard.
Of course not, because you changed the definitions of the terms, moving the goalposts as it were. For a Christian however this applies and makes the position of a Bahai Moral Influence theory untenable.Sorry, I see no need for this at all for Moral Influence to operate.
Not saying it is a simple matter of virtue or example. The act has to be connected to a demonstration of God's love for us. But I see no reason it can't be demonstrated by God manifesting himself in this way rather than incarnating.
Yes, but Bahai Theology was framed in Farsi and Arabic and much is lost in translation, especially in this case it seems where English is being abused and meanings wrung from words or ignored in disregard of their meanings. To be fair, I assume that proper theologians would probably explain what they mean with a word at the start of a text which this discussion is obviously lacking.The word 'divine' has lots of meaning in English and that is the language I speak. Deal with it.
I do not need to persuade you for it to be true. This is the meaning of Influentia in mediaeval Scholastic Latin in which his works were written. If you have preconceived modern notions of what it means, I cannot change that.You've not persuaded me that this is what Abelard had in mind.
You have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of Scholasticism, the dominant intellectual paradigm of the Middle-Ages, equated Original sin and other Christian concepts which were major points of discussion in the Reformation and made incorrect statements on Christian views of Atonement. I know that this might have been a few years ago for you, but I would not think someone with a three year background would have such a basic idea thereof.I have a field in Church History as well having studied Late Medieval and Reformation thought with Heiko Oberman.
https://dlmrs.web.arizona.edu/node/541
I studied with him for three years.
I meant theology as in your understanding or study of God. Even if there are no schools, there is at least one unified school, being the Bahai Faith view.A brief note to Quid above...
There are no schools of theology among Baha'is hence no "Baha'i Theology" as such... but if you have questions about the Faith feel free to ask them here and I'll humbly do my best to respond to you.
Hoghead, Thanks for the post...
I'd rather not dwell that much on the history of Christian theology but my impression is that Arianism was defined as follows:
Arianism is a nontrinitarian belief that asserts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, created by God the Father, distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to the Father
Baha'is believe Jesus had a pre-existence as a Manifestation of God. In His Tablet to the Pope Baha'u'llah wrote the following:
"Ye call upon Me, and are heedless of My Revelation, notwithstanding that I came unto you from the heaven of pre-existence with surpassing glory."
~ Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 65
Also:
"In truth, God created that School ere He
created heaven and earth, and We entered it before the
letters B and E were joined and knit together."
~ Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 8
Abdul-Baha also had a definition of the "Trinity" as follows:
"The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality -- that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes -- became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied -- for the Sun is one -- but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, "The Father is in the Son," meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.
"The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.
"This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity."
~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113
A brief note to Quid above...
There are no schools of theology among Baha'is hence no "Baha'i Theology" as such... but if you have questions about the Faith feel free to ask them here and I'll humbly do my best to respond to you.
There are no schools of theology among Baha'is hence no "Baha'i Theology" as such... but if you have questions about the Faith feel free to ask them here and I'll humbly do my best to respond to you.
Thats a bit strong. I meant to say that you have not demonstrated to me much familiarity with the concepts we were discussing. But yes, I would say we are done.If you're calling me a liar there is absolutely no sense in discussing this further.
The Transfiguration provides further evidence that Moses is only one of the prophets in the OT.
As the Bahais seem to understand it, Moses is “the prophet” in the Old Testament. Other prophets in the OT are minor or dependent. As I pointed out in post #128 , Isaiah also saw God face to face and heard God's voice, so Moses isn't unique in this sense.
This is factually inaccurate. Only Summi Boni Theologia was condemned.
His Trinitarian stance wasn't condemned in this work. His opponents tried to pin Sabellianism on him, but this couldn't be made to stick at the Soissons provincial synod.There is no point in discussing this any further. I said his views on the trinity were considered heretical and you respond by insisting that only Summi Boni Theologia was condemned. Well, that is his treatise on the Trinity. And I'm the one who is supposed to be ignorant.
In Peter Abelard's own words: "He agreed to condemn my book without any further inquiry, to burn it forthwith in the sight of all, and to confine me for a year in another monastery. They could find no heresy within it. The argument they used was that it sufficed for the condemnation of my book that I had presumed to read it in public without approval either of the Roman Pontiff or of the Church, and that furthermore, I had given it to be transcribed."It was his nominalistic understanding of the Trinity that was condemned. But I'm not going to argue this point with you any further.
I think I misunderstood your earlier statement as a reference to believers needing the Holy Spirit to become one with God's essence, which sounded quite heretical to me. That's why I mentioned they could only be one with the Mind of Christ. I didn't realize you were referring to the Holy Spirit being one with God's Essence. Still, your logic makes no sense to me. Where exactly does Peter Aberlard say this? Quotation please.
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?