Summary of the Development of Trinitarian Dogma
Silva Redigonda Part One
Providing an outline this particular way was due to my review of classnotes, readingings and some of the tape recording in class to date. It fulfills instructions 1a in helping me pull it all together so that I can fulfill the task of the second portion. This may be considered a blend of your request for my way of helping me pull it together and your request of the latter portion of a chart from scripture to Dogma.
Outline
Who is God? Not, what is God?
Three in one and one in three = Trinity
Tasks - Understanding and notion of Doctrines (gradually developing)
Research – data – interpretation – some canons; some rules – meaning
Dialectics – differences are contradictory
Conversion or not
Problem of relating to Trinity - Thinking modern thoughts - therefore, do not think modern
1st century Judaism – God > therefore, if not God, created by God- eschatology –monotheism/ Not God
Two dogmas – 1. Mystery 2. God acts on behalf of God’s people.
Shift
- over time Israel provides a shift - spirit and word. Spirit only given to Kings and prophets. King mediates to the nation. Prophets guide and announce something new.
-Duality - Wright (more than one divine). Hebrew accepts other religion but it is not God.
Easter – Resurrection – we see Jesus who was dead and is now alive (reason) - Spirit poured out onto us. Jesus is God – recognition and reconciliation of Jesus – scriptures open to us – mission.
Easter changes everything - Jesus is God and God is Jesus – The Holy Spirit acts and God is one and one in three. God as Father, God as Son and God as Holy Spirit.
Scripture -John to the Philippians – proposes a shift. High Christianity vs. low Christianity
John – will not find human Jesus Christ. (word about, work of :Cross; word of:Ministry, word of human origins, the word. Revelation – starts giving names of the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit has personal name. God is on trial at a certain point. God makes a judgement. Communion of God. Father giving to son and the son giving to the father and Holy Spirit receives everything from the father and the son and the spirit bears witness and gives back. Obedience of Jesus, the Father and Son work together because one is obedient to the other (two can do the work of one).
Mark – (behavior) only human Jesus. The word of Jesus: Ministry – how Jesus got to the cross; Jesus performs that belong to God alone. (claim authority over law, forgives sins and drives out demons). Jesus speaks own authority. Messianic secret. Depicts Jesus before Easter. Who Jesus is and who God is. All things lead to Son of God. Development – mutual neutrality of Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit.
Paul - Jesus is raised.
Luke – goes further: human origins. Stops at Adam. One humanity in Christ. Interested in overshadowing Mary. Spirit at conception.
Mathew – interested in origins of Jesus. Focus on Israel. Jesus is Israel and reveals God. Spirit at conception. Obedience of Jesus, the Father and Son work together because one is obedient to the other (two can do the work of one).
Early Christians – story of Jesus as story of God’s own obedience. There was no issue that Jesus was human. The pivot is the revelation of who God is.
1st movement – a WAY
2nd movement – ascribing agency (spirit becomes the subject – a verb)
3rd movement – Luke – exploring depths of this agency. Mutuality between Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Things need to be clarified so – Dogma
Pray text, Pray 3 in one and one and three
MOVEMENT FROM SCRIPTURE TO DOGMA
GK philosophy and culture cannot accept a suffering God. God is abstract. Proclamation of Christ as God is a scandal. How to proclaim the gospel through new meaning?
Church Theologians 2nd century
Martyr Justin (executed in Romo circa 165) and Irenaeus of Lyons, bishop of Gk speaking Gaul (180-190)
^ -traces of all four gospels and other NT writings.
Tatian Pupil 170 created harmony of the gospels – Diatessaron
|
Gospel of Ebionites - on the day of his bapism Jesus is begotten as Son of God, by the Spirit entering him (adoptionism). Accepted by Byzantium, Theodotus the Younger and Artemon (end of the 2nd century).
-^ rejected by mainstream church and considered heretical.
Later second and third centuries
Monarchian school at the beginning of third century. He himself made himself a son to himself. A Father makes a son and a son makes a father thus reciprocally related out of each other to each other cannot in any way by themselves simply become so related to themselves, that the Father can make himself a Son to Himself, and the Son render Himself a Father to Himself.
^(argument) with God anything is possible.
Tertullian (IN THE WEST) - Father and Son – two different entities are needed. I cannot be my own father or my own son. Trinitarian counter position – God the Father implements the salvation of human beings with the help of the son and the Holy Spirit. The Father is distinct from the son, being greater than the son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another
Demonstrates in Praxis 11, that Monarchians have no scriptural proof
Origen (IN THE EAST) [died 253/4} (most educated in his time [probably]) Put forward Logos theology grounded in both the Bible and philosophy – decisive attacks on Monarchians. Like other Logos theologians, more concerned about distinction rather than unity in God. Origen described Father, Son and Spirit as three distinct hypostasis. Therefore, three entities with their own existence and real presence, and their distinction is expressed. He designated these three as being one. No other beings are good in themselves. God is first and only. All that is spiritual is eternal and only the material is transitory. God is the creator of all.
Arius – born circa 260 – theology from the Alexandrian milieu strongly shaped by theology of Origen before him. Dispute over Arius occurred circa 318. If the pre existent son of God had a beginning, then he did not exist before he was begotten, created and set up. God is therefore, true God. The Son of God is not true God, he only bears the title God. The Son belongs more on the side of the creatures, who also came into being from nothing. The son is so radically subordinate to the Father that in Arius’s view he cannot know the nature of the Father. Therefore, Christology no longer a threat to monotheism. Excommunicated circa 318. Bishops of Nicomedia and Caesarea supported teachings
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria warned fellow bishops against intrigues of Arius and followers. Also counters Arian doctrine that the Son has a beginning.
Council of Nicaea (325) deliberations began and held in Gk. Eusebius was offered the opportunity to justify himself with a creed. It had become customary in the dispute over Arius for opposing parties to sum up their theological views in creed. Council fathers to work out a creed chose the theology from earlier creeds which were undisputed, namely pre-existenacne of the Arian dispute. The term homoousios belongs in the anti-Arian repertoire of the Council of Nicaea. Council Fathers also condemned the core thesis of Arius including that Son of God had once not existed. Fathers also used the terms hypostasis and substance (ousia) as synonyms and did not distinguish them (poses a problem in the future).
Question : Are Father, Son and Spirit three distinct entities or only one was not answered at Nicaea.
Banished dignitaries such as Arius and Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia were rehabilitated and had to adhere formally to the official church.
Years after Nicaea, in the east of the empire, a witch hunt against Nicene Bishops began.
Marcellus – like the Monarchians at the beginning of the third century central concern was the unity of God. Creator God of the OT and the savior are not two Gods but one and the same God. Moves further in the field of pre-existence Christology and confirms (against Arian thesis) that the Son really is God’s own and true Logos. Emphasizes that the divinity of the Father and of the Son is indivisible.
Athanasius and Marcellus were banished to the west of the empire so that peace could come to the east. In 337 Constantine dies there and empire is divided between his three sons. Son Constantine allowed banished bishops to return but in due to unrest in 339 they leave.
341 – a synod took place in Rome without Eastern participation. Verdict – rehabilitated Marcellus and Athanasius and at the same time accused the theologians of the East of being Arians. 4 different formule are associated with the Synod of Antioch.
East and West divided in church politics and theology and incapable of union on their own. For this reason political support was seeked from Ermperor Constans, ruler of the western half of the empire.
Circa 342 council met – none of the disputants reached the theological stage which would be the binding tradition of the church decades later. However, problems not discussed at Nicaea were now openly on the table.
351 a synod in Sirmium
350’s revival of Arianism. This new version is also called Neo-Arianism. Used concept of begetting to express the difference in substance between the unbegotten Father and the begotten Son. The son is like or similar to the Father in substance.
In reaction there was a counter-movement in the East. Emperor Constantius also anxious of Neo-Arianism rise.
357 Constantius organized a small synod in Sirmium to give discussion on a new direction. Result: Rivals agreed on a joint text, fourth formula of Sirmium, dated 22 May 359.
New Years Eve 359/360 all present bishops in Constantinople finally signed a creed (synods 30.2-10)
362 – negotiations in Alexandria – the orthodox content of the different theologies was established.
381 – second ecumenical council – a Synod of the bishops of the East (orientated on Neo – Nicene theology). Pope not invited. Only one Western participant Bishop Acholius of Thessalonica. Canon 1 which the council passed proves the bishops still recognized the Nicene Creed. With the council of Constantinople the crises that the theology of Arius had sparked was overcome, in the East of the empire. Canon laws.
Part 2
This paper will examine the dogmatic development from the end of Nicea to Constantinople II pastoral application of reflection reaching out to the spirituality within each person.
The Council of Nicaea deliberations began in 325 and were held in the Greek language. Council Fathers condemned the core thesis of Arius including that the Son of God had once not existed. Fathers also used the terms hypostasis and substance (ousia) as synonyms and did not distinguish them which would become a problem in the future. Subsequently, what was not answered is the question, are Father, Son and Spirit three distinct entities or one?[1] We may examine the differences of two Creeds, the Creed of Jerusalem indicates the Son of God as the only “begotten Son of God”, while the Nicene Creed” … from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made”[2] The difference being created and not made. What is basic at Nicaea is what you can say about the father you can say about the son.[3] The statement that“ ‘true God from true God is also anti-Arian’ ”(Dunzl, p 56).
Circa 342 Serdica council met and problems not discussed at Nicaea were now being dealt with. This could have been an ecumenical council as intended but the Bishops of the East refused to take part in joint sessions with Marcellus of Ancyra and Athanasius of Alexandria were present (Dunzl, p 79). The Eastern bishops also once again condemned,
doctrine of there being three Gods or that Christ is not God; that neither Christ nor
the Son of God existed before the ages or that one and the same is Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, that the Son; that the son is unbegotten or that one and
the same is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; that the Son is unbegotten or that
the Father did not beget the Son by decision and will”
(Dunzl, p80)
The Western assembly continued to meet in Serdica. It had two tasks, to safeguard the rehabilitation of Athanasius (had been banished to the West of the empire so that peace could come to the East) and other deposed bishops legally (Canon 3 of Serdica). The Bishops of the West wanted to give binding expression to their faith and to publish it in an encyclical (Dunzl, p 80) . Questions raised are: Is there only one divine hypostasis as the West taught or are there three as the East taught? Neither the West nor East could provide a convincing answer.
In the 350’s an unexpectant revival of Arianism also called Neo-Arianism, occurred which did not meet with undivided approval among the Bishops (Dunzl, p 89). In reaction there was a theological counter-movement in the East which maintained the Eastern doctrine of the three divine hypostases but at the same time wanted to separate itself clearly from Arianism. Neo-Arianism believed that “the Son is like or similar to the Father in substance (Gk. homios Kat’ousian) One can also express the relation of the Son to the Father with the adjective homoiousiso, so in history of dogma the representatives of this doctrine are designated Homoeousians. The two Greek adjectives homos and homoios have the same meaning and express likeness but with different nuances. Homos can mean “like” as indentical; homoios “like” as similar. Since two things that are like each are not identical, this is the problem. The traditional East taught that God, the Father and God the son cannot be identical with each other, since that would be modalistic thinking, they are therefore two distinct hypostasis, each with his own ousia, individual substance. A breakthrough to a conception of the Trinity which would pave the way to the future and ultimately overcome the dispute over Arianism is the pioneer work by Basil the Great. Both supporters and opponents of the Nicene Creed had used the terms hypostasis and substance (ousia) as corresponding to each other. The West and the Old Nicenes around Ahanasius of Alexandria had always started from one divine substance and at the same ti8me one divine hypostasis to safeguard monotheism. The East spoke of three divine hypostases (three existing realities). The two terms “substance and hypostasis” was also customary for Basil. However, Basil learned to keep the two concepts apart due to the controversy with Arian (Dunzl, p 106). The key basic insight that Basil has is that the Spirit has his own divine operation. The Spirit is God. God works the difference.[4]
A great moment in Church history is the negotiations in Alexandria in 362. Here there was an understanding of opposing parties and a clarification of terminological differences. The orthodox content of the different theologies was established (Dunzl, 106.
Here in pastoral terms one might be able to recognize and respect the language, difference of opinion
[1] Dunzl, Franz. A Brief History of the Doctrine Of the Trinity in the Early Church. Trans. John Bowden. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Page 61. Further reference to the text will be indicated by author’s name followed by page number.
[2] Handout, Class B. Prof Mongeau, Gilles, Regis College.
[3] Prof Mongeau, Gilles, Classroom B, Regis College, 2 Nov 10 (class instruction)
[4] St Basil the Great, De Spiritu Sancto, Chapt 16 – 26. Hand out (all info unknown). Chapt 16. Further reference will be indicated by St Basil and Chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment