Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Griesbach, Germany 

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Preface

Slight reformat on 20251107.

Photo not mine, as noted.

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Professor van der Ven finds Moltmann’s discussion on the ancient view, that God is apathetic towards his creation, useful.[1]  Moltmann notes the related Greek term ‘apatheia’ which is the idea of an irresistible force that cannot be influenced by outside forces.[2]  Historically in early Greek times from Aristotle onwards, God was viewed as being without emotions.[3]  Brian Davies (1999) notes that the term ‘impassibility’ corresponds to ‘apatheia’[4] and defines impassibility as the traditional understanding that God, the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering.[5]  Davies believes it is incorrect to assume God’s impassibility should mean that the creator is indifferent or unconcerned about his creation.[6]  For Erickson, the idea of God’s divine nature as impassible is based upon the influence of ancient Greek thought rather than Scripture.[7]  Erickson points out that with the incarnation of Christ, God the Son did experience human suffering.[8]  He possessed a human nature that did suffer in life and in death, even though his divine nature coexisted with his human one.[9]  Kenneth Surin (1982) writes that God is considered by some within orthodox Christian theology to be unable to experience pain or sorrow.[10]  However, others concede that concluding God is impassible is a questionable view within traditional thought.[11]  Surin thinks that perhaps God limits his omnipotence by identifying with human suffering.[12]  Paul Helm (2006), Professor Emeritus of the University of London,[13] reasons impassibility has lost intellectual support,[14] even though throughout the ages many within the Church have accepted the doctrine.[15]  Helm suggests that the doctrine needs to be reconsidered as God is not indifferent to human suffering,[16] nor does God express emotions of anger and passion as humans do.[17] 

The concept of impassibility opens up a complex discussion beyond this thesis, but it seems reasonable God can be both all-powerful and feel negative emotions.  It should be concluded suffering does not alter his divine attributes. Thiessen describes the immutability of God as meaning his divine nature, attributes, consciousness, and will cannot change.[18]  Erickson explains that God does not grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at different points within his existence.[19]  R.C. Sproul and Robert Wolgemuth (2000) deduce that as God is eternal he has no beginning or no end.[20]  As God is understood to be eternal and beyond time without a progression in nature, his infinite being would make a change in nature and character impossible.[21]  My modest proposal reasons since God is infinite and considered immutable,[22] it is impossible for him to suffer in the exact way that human beings do.  David A Pailin (1999) explains that within some process theology[23] approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging.[24]  However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation.[25]  Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures.[26]  In my view, the divine nature does not have a physical body that can be altered, changed or die, as in John 4:24 where Jesus stated that God is spirit.[27]  Christ could suffer because he was both true God and true man,[28] but God as spirit[29] cannot suffer in human terms.  Since God is immutable,[30] any type or amount of suffering cannot alter his essential nature or being, or divine character.[31]  In contrast, suffering can definitely change the essential nature of human beings as, for example, in the case of an amputated limb or death.  Suffering can also change the mental and spiritual well being of a person, but God would not be altered in the same way.[32]

Erickson explains that it does seem a rational possibility, however, to conclude God does have emotions, although they are controlled.[33]  He indicates anger is involved in the idea of God’s wrath in the Biblical example Romans 1:18.[34]  God also has ‘agape’ love for his creatures, which is a steadfast, unselfish concern for them.[35]  It is reasonable to deduce that God’s love for humanity is not only a decision to care for them, but also includes intense concern for his creation.[36]  An understanding, infinite God could comprehend the sufferings of his finite creatures,[37] but God’s essential nature and being would not be altered by the experience of these feelings.[38]  There is no need to conclude that the sufferings of finite creatures alter the nature of an infinite God who can comprehend and feel those sufferings.[39]  Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, impassibility is a correct deduction concerning God’s nature,[40] Christ possessing the full nature of God[41] and a full human nature[42] enabled him to experience suffering and evil.[43]  God the Son can therefore relate to human suffering on a personal level.  I reason God’s immutable nature does not necessarily make him impassible.

---

---

[1] van der Ven (1993: 173).

[2] Moltmann (1993: 267).

[3] Moltmann (1993: 268).

[4] Davies (1999: 288).

[5] Davies (1999: 288).

[6] Davies (1999: 288).

[7] Erickson (1994: 737).

[8] Erickson (1994: 737).

[9] Erickson (1994: 737).

[10] Surin (1982: 97).

[11] Surin (1982: 97).

[12] Surin (1982: 97).

[13] Helm (2006: 1).

[14] Helm (2006: 1).

[15] Helm (2006: 1).

[16] Helm (2006: 1).

[17] Helm (2006: 1).

[18] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[19] Erickson (1994: 274).

[20] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).

[21] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).

[22] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).  Thiessen (1956: 127).  Erickson (1994: 274).

[23] Process theology as discussed previously is a twentieth century approach based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead that presents a God that is involved in the continual process of world through two natures.  God has a transcendent nature which contains God’s perfect character and the consequent immanent nature by which God is part of the changing cosmic process.

[24] Pailin (1999: 469).

[25] Pailin (1999: 469).

[26] Pailin (1999: 469).

[27] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).

[28] Schreck (1984:  16). 

[29] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).

[30] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).  Thiessen (1956: 127).  Erickson (1994: 274).

[31] Pailin (1999: 469).

[32] God has an infinite nature that cannot be changed, but finite human nature can be altered.

[33] Erickson (1994: 605).

[34] Erickson (1994: 605).

[35] Erickson (1994: 180).

[36] Erickson (1994: 180).

[37] Pailin (1999: 469).

[38] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[39] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[40] Surin (1982: 97). 

[41] Barth (1932-1968: 371). Williams (2007: 130).  Franke (2005: 72). 

[42] Williams (2007: 129).  Schreck (1984:  16).  Franke (2005: 72). 

[43] Bloesch (1987: 16).  He suffered as the reconciler between God and the world.  Williams (2007: 130).

---

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics,  The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1, Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3.  Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1996) ‘Sin, The Biblical Understanding of Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?  Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids,  Zondervan Publishing House.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005)  The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

HELM, PAUL (2006) ‘Divine Impassibility: Why Is It Suffering?’ in Reformation 21, Philadelphia, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc.

http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/2006_Issues_1_16_/2006_Issues_1_16_Articles/Divine_Impassibility/94/

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.

SPROUL, R.C., AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH (2000) What’s In the Bible, Word Publishing, Nashville.

SURIN, KENNETH (1986) Theology and the Problem of Evil, Oxford,  Basil Blackwell Ltd.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology, Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos Publishing House.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?, Leiden, Brill.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2000) On Christian Theology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 

20251107

'In contrast, suffering can definitely change the essential nature of human beings as, for example, in the case of an amputated limb or death. Suffering can also change the mental and spiritual well being of a person, but God would not be altered in the same way.[32] 

[32] God has an infinite nature that cannot be changed, but finite human nature can be altered.' 

As God has an infinite, eternal, nature, that nature is not mutable by divine knowledge of, or divine experience with finite pain or suffering. Instead of viewing God as traditionally impassible, the view that the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering; I would reason that God instead has infinite knowledge of such things, and has infinite knowledge of the finite. I do not embrace, at least, this traditional definition of impassible. 

God's infinite nature cannot be altered or changed by anything finite. By anything internal or external. Therefore, God is immutable.

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead (PhD edit)

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead (PhD edit)

Photo is Lampeter, Wales, Pinterest, 2020

Preface

Slight revisions with additions 20240804.

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead

Process theism refers to a general group of theological concepts attributed to Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)[1] and Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000).[2] Whitehead is the more preeminent exemplar and within Process and Reality (1927-1929)(1957) explains he desired to complete an account of humanity and its experience in relation to philosophical problems.[3] In Religion In The Making (1926) Whitehead explains it is legitimate to attempt with a more definite knowledge of metaphysics, to interpret human experience, but these general principles must be amplified and adapted into one general system of truth.[4] Whitehead disagreed with a traditional view of a ‘transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys.’[5] The nature of God needed to be philosophically constructed anew.[6] A balance is sought between God’s immanence[7] and transcendence,[8] and a concept of static transcendence is rejected as instead God is understood to have a evolutionary transcendence.[9] God and the physical realm are immanent with each other and God’s transcendence means their realities are not identical and not always determined by each other.[10] God is fully reasoned to be involved and influenced by temporal events and processes.[11] These processes unfold as sequences of events over time.[12] God, contrary to classic and traditional Christian theism is finite, temporal, changeable[13] and experiences intense emotion, pain and sadness.[14] Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’[15] Process theology is a philosophical approach that does not rely on any kind of divine revelation.[16] Instead it relies on a process of change over time as a theory of metaphysics.[17] God’s actual concrete nature is responsive and influenced by the processes that take in the world, and therefore God is limited.[18] Some things are unknowable for God, that he only can realize as they happen,[19] and as these new things develop God’s knowledge processes over time.[20] Divine sovereignty is questionable and certainly no longer absolute within this system.[21]

Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher,[22] established a speculative philosophy of metaphysics within a scientific non-metaphysical reality.[23] This system is an attempt to adequately explain all individual beings in existence, including God.[24] Basically a system of metaphysics needed to be developed that would work with modern scientific theories and reality, and therefore God was not a ‘static essence’ but a process.[25] The ‘actual entities’[26] that make up this process are non-permanent and transient and each action and activity is dipolar having a physical pole of the past and a mental pole which is a possibility that can be achieved.[27] The physical pole feels the physical reality of actual entity, while the mental pole feels or prehends as Whitehead calls it, the eternal objects by which actual entities have conceptual definiteness.[28] These physical and mental poles are an aspect of every real being/actual entities although they are not real things themselves.[29] Prehends is the feeling of grasping the physical and conceptual information concerning actual entities.[30] This will occur within a stream and series of occasions.[31] All occurrences take place within the process of these actual entities.[32] Each event is partially self-created and partially influenced by other occasions and entities.[33] God is also dipolar[34] and his nontemporal pole is where God conceives the infinite variety of external objects and sees the possibilities and provides the opportunity for the process of becoming.[35] God is an actual entity and being.[36] God has a primordial nature and consequent nature, with the primordial being conceptual, while the consequent nature is God as conscious.[37] Whitehead explains that the ‘consequent nature is the weaving of God’s physical feelings upon his primordial concepts.’[38] God’s primordial conceptual nature is infinite and does not have negative prehension/feelings, and is eternal and unconscious.[39] This nature is permanent as God works out endless possibilities.[40] God in his vision can determine every possibility and adjust details where needed.[41] The consequent nature of God originates with physical experience with the material temporal world and it is integrated with the primordial conceptual nature.[42] The consequent nature as conscious is determined, finite and incomplete.[43] These two aspects of God’s deity can be distinguished but are inseparable.[44] This consequent conscious nature had God constantly acquiring new experiences.[45] A problem arises that if God’s primordial nature is eternal and unconscious[46] it precedes the consequent nature that is temporal[47] and has consciousness. I question whether an unconscious deity would in any way proceed to a conscious temporal reality. Where did God’s consciousness come from? I reason consciousness would have to exist eternally to lead to a finite reality of consciousness.[48]

[1] Viney (2008: 1).

[2] Viney (2008: 1).

[3] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: vi).

[4] Whitehead (1926: 149).

[5] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 404).

[6] Whitehead (1926: 150).

[7] God is actively present within reality and creation. Erickson (1994: 302).

[8] God by nature is beyond and separate from his material creation. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 115).

[9] A balance needed to be sought as there were extreme views concerning God as impersonal force behind the universe as in deism and also the view that God has absolute sovereignty as the sole creator of matter. Whitehead (1926: 150).

[10] Viney (2008: 10).

[11] Viney (2008: 1). Diehl (1996: 880).

[12] Blackburn (1996: 305). The process is not according to a motion of changeless matter. Diehl (1996: 881).

[13] God is not immutable as is classically defined.

[14] God is not impassible according to this view.

[15] Whitehead (1926: 153). Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.

[16] Viney (2008: 1). Diehl (1996: 881).

[17] Viney (2008: 1).

[18] Erickson (1994: 280).

[19] Erickson (1994: 280).

[20] Erickson (1994: 280).

[21] Erickson (1994: 280).

[22] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135). Diehl (1996: 881).

[23] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[24] Diehl (1996: 881).

[25] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[26] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135). Diehl (1996: 881).

[27] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136). Diehl (1996: 881).

[28] Diehl (1996: 881). Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[29] Viney (2008: 8).

[30] Diehl (1996: 881). Viney (2008: 9).

[31] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).

[32] Diehl (1996: 881).

[33] Diehl (1996: 881).

[34] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407). Viney (2008: 8).

[35] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 137).

[36] Viney (2008: 9).

[37] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[38] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[39] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[40] Viney (2008: 9).

[41] Whitehead (1926: 153-154).

[42] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[43] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[44] Viney (2008: 9).

[45] Viney (2008: 9).

[46] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[47] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[48] An eternal reality of unconsciousness should lead to a finite reality of unconsciousness.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

DIEHL, DAVID W. (1996) ‘Process Theology’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

VINEY, DAVID (2008) ‘Process Theism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957) Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc.

Referencing my PhD and website work

John Frame explains that God cannot perform logically contradictory actions, Frame (2002: 518). Erickson (1994: 277). Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359-360 Volume 1). God cannot make a square circle, Frame (2002: 518). Thiessen (1956: 126). God cannot commit that which is immoral and sinful, Frame (2002: 518). Thiessen (1956: 126). Weber (1955)(1981: 440). Interestingly, God cannot commit actions ‘appropriate only to finite creatures.’ Frame (2002: 520). God cannot logically have finite attributes. All of God's attributes and nature are infinite.

In the incarnation, God the Son takes a finite human nature, as Jesus Christ, while remaining the eternal, infinite God. But the infinite and finite natures do not mix. God the Son, as infinite, within the Trinity, did (does) take a finite, human nature in the incarnation. Correctly, and classically, the natures do not mix. Jesus Christ is both finite man and infinite God. There is an aspect of mystery in the incarnation, but the Triune nature of God which is infinite and eternal is not altered by Christ taking on additional finite human nature. According to the Pocket Dictionary, the hypostatic union is the theological term which describes the bringing together of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ is one person. (62). God the Son, Jesus Christ, being both fully human and fully divine. (62). Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) from the Greek in this context, is the essential nature and essence of a person/entity.

Bible Hub 

Cited 

'Strong's Concordance hupostasis: a support, substance, steadiness, hence assurance Original 

Word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine 

Transliteration: hupostasis 

Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-os'-tas-is) 

Definition: a support, substance, steadiness, assurance 

Usage: (lit: an underlying), (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality.' 

Cited

'Englishman's Concordance'

'Hebrews 1:3 N-GFS (Nominative, Genitive, Feminine, Singular my add)

GRK: χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ φέρων 

NAS: and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds 

KJV: of his person, and INT: [the] exact expression of the substance of him upholding' 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium. 

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

My Church Lecture On The Nicene Creed (Notes)

Bosphorus Bridge that bridges Europe and Asia, Istanbul, Turkey (trek earth)

Introduction

Overall I think the lecture went quite well. Pastor Mark's only suggestion after was that an outline would have been helpful as those in the course (sitting in a small circle) were not following along reading from any source and so I could have provided a written or verbal outline. Very reasonable. Next time I shall do so if I am asked to lecture again.

My last church lecture was several years ago for small group leadership and since then my sleep apnea became worse but now with recent (2 years) treatment with pills my condition is better and should stay that way for good. This can be seen empirically with my leaner appearance as well. I did complete two lecturing internships, one with each of the first two Christian degrees and I think my more recent blog audio posts were of assistance to me as well as were, of course, the many lecture rehearsals. But the more lecturing I do the better they shall become.

I am reasonably pleased with the result and it was a stressful week with my Mom returning to the downstairs part of the condo from Ridge Meadows Hospital after five months on Friday and the demands being placed upon me with this move back home and the supplies needed to be picked up via the Red Cross and RMH while trying to get this technical lecture down. Also during the week MS Word 2002 went 'bonkers' while I was working on the lecture leaving some kind of marks that looked a little like musical notations at the end of not only my lecture paragraphs but within all my MS Word 2002 documents, including my Doctorate, my CV, all documents. To Microsoft's credit when I purchased MS Word 2010 from London Drugs it translated all the MS Word 2002 programs to MS Word 2010 with no problem. And I thank God for that as well.

My Church Lecture On The Nicene Creed (Notes)

Greetings, Welcome to week three of Who is God? Featuring the Nicene Creed.

(Not the entire creed is being taught by me this week)

My bio last week in the bulletin was correct my Doctorate was at the University of Wales. It was the University of Wales, Lampeter but through two mergers it is now the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David at Lampeter. It is still one of the largest Universities in the UK. It was earned in that department in the disciplines of both Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion as both disciplines deal with the problem of evil and theodicy.

Now my section of the creed…

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

The term ‘Lord’ is used in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament in the context of Moses as leader Numbers (32: 25) for example. Browning Page 231.

Also of Jesus as the Son of the Man (Mark 2: 28). Browning Page 231.

Jesus was a person with special authority as Lord. (Matt. 7: 21). Browning Page 231.

In the Old Testament, the term Lord was used to translate names for God. Browning Page 231.

In the New Testament, the terms ‘Lord’ and Christ are almost synonymous (I Cor. 8, I Thess. 4: 17. 5: 12). Browning Page 231.

The term ‘Adonai’ meant ‘lord and father’. McComiskey. ‘Adonai’ was substituted for the name of God. As is Lord in our English Bibles. Erickson Page 691

κύριος and related κυρίου, ὁ according to Greek scholar Walter Bauer on Page 459, has Lord as a designated title for God as its roots in the Orient.

Christ is referred to as Lord in the New Testament Gospels and Epistles.

By referring to Jesus as Lord, Erickson the Apostles and disciples meant to give Jesus Christ the highest possible title (Page 691) meaning an obvious reference to his deity although he was still fully human. For the Jewish observers of Christianity of the New Testament era, the term Lord for Christ was given in part so that they could observe that Christ was equal with the Father. Erickson Page 691.

The name Jesus Christ is a combination of ‘Jesus’ of Nazareth and the title ‘Christ’ (Greek) which is Messiah in Hebrew. R.H. Stein, Page 582. The term Christ means ‘anointed’. Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Joshua/Jehoshua and means ‘salvation is ‘Yahweh’. Browning, Page 199.

Arius and Arians reasoned as God the Father from the Old Testament was immutable/unchangeable the substance of God could not be shared with another being in any way. Therefore Arius and Arians contended that Jesus Christ had to be a created being. Walter. Page 75.

The Word of God, Logos was viewed as a creation to Arius and it was deduced there was a time when he was not. Walter. Page 75.

There was a time where Jesus Christ assuming he was finite, did not exist. Walter. Page 75.

He was a finite being and not the infinite God as was the Father.

The assertion of the Lordship of Christ within the creed definitively states the opposite.

Arius and the Arians made the mistake of placing far too much emphasis on Greek philosophy as they interpreted Scripture.

With my background with secular MPhil and PhD degrees having to study and earn degrees in philosophy of religion and theology simultaneously I should state that the type error in philosophical approach in broad terms is still rampant today.

I reason philosophy and philosophy of religion are important academic disciplines for understanding truth but God’s word was given by God to persons to be understood historically in context.

Similarly, when I started at the University of Wales Lampeter for my Doctorate, even after passing MPhil theses as part one of the program at Wales, I was heavily criticized by one of the students at a meeting because I favoured the historical-grammatical critical method of analyzing Scripture over what the entire class appeared to prefer which was to concentrate almost entirely on the methodology of a Biblical author as in trying to deduce what the author’s motives were in writing a Biblical book. As opposed to actually reviewing his or her writing for theological content primarily. I did eventually learn the importance of more methodology writing my Doctoral thesis in the end, but still reason historical, grammatical with emphasis on understanding the theology and philosophy of a writer in Scripture is key.

A danger I see with their over-emphasis on methodology is that similar to the Arians and their approach to Scripture is that they may very well not let the Biblical author speak his/her mind in context and we need to remember the historical understanding all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3: 16).

This is a very serious spiritual error. And an intellectual one as well.

One should not want to read a philosophy into a text and also one should not want to dismiss a philosophy that is in the Biblical text.

In my opinion, a major error of the Arians was to bring too much Greek philosophical thought into a review of Scripture and in a sense not let Scripture and God speak.

I am not claiming complete objectivity in my own personal way of evaluating Scripture and philosophy and philosophy of religion are valid academic disciplines but they should not be allowed to tarnish what the Scriptures states either by negation or addition.

the only-begotten Son of God,

The New Testament Greek word ‘monogenes’ ‘only-begotten’ (μονογενὴς υἱός) occurs nine times in the New Testament. Harrison. Page 799. Monogenes could reasonably be rendered as and is interpreted by some as meaning ‘one of a kind’ as in an adjective form (describes a noun) derived from ‘genos’ ‘origin’ ‘race’ ‘stock’ etc. page 799. The adjective only begotten provides the idea of uniqueness and not of a subordinate being. Harrison. Page 799.

Therefore, the deity of Christ within the Trinity would stand.

Greek scholar Bauer states that in Johannine literature this term is used only of Christ. Page. 527. Unique may be quite adequate as a description.

Monogenes describes the absolute uniqueness of God the Son to God the Father in his divine nature. So, Christ is the unique Son of God with a specific intimate relationship with God the Father. James Orr, International Standard Bible Encylopedia.

There is a slightly different perspective than the one I quoted from some scholars, stating that Christ as God the Son is not ‘one of a kind’ but is the ‘second of a kind’. But it still agrees with the perspective from that Christ shares the genus of God the Father and therefore has the same divine nature as the Father.

The Son is of the same essence, substance and nature of the Father states Michael Marlowe.

The term ‘Son of God’ is a title Christ accepted for himself which meant that he had a very specific unique personhood and relationship with God the Father. He was not like any other human being. Erickson Page 687-688.

In Christian theology, the Son of God has the concept of the pre-existent divine being entering human life in the person of Jesus Christ. Browning Page 349.

Arius was incorrect that Christ was not God the Son, or that it was just a title of honour. Walter Page 75. The Scriptural context dictates the Son of God has a divine pre-existence which would equal that of God the Father, although yes in the incarnation as can be seen in the Gospels Christ does take on human form as in the resurrection.

It should be noted that Jesus Christ’s human nature is no way is an addition to his divine nature. He is no more or less God.

Granted there is an aspect of mystery in the incarnation but the Triune nature of God which is infinite and eternal is not altered by Christ taking on additional finite human nature. Hypostatic union.

From Erickson a Reformed Baptist Theologian: Biblical Christianity holds that Jesus had a human soul and divine one, yet he was not two persons. In my mind, this is a correct, yet difficult concept. Jesus on the cross gave his spirit to the Father (John 19:30), so he possessed a human spirit and was fully human. My take is that in a sense there is one spirit as in person that is a unity of both human and divine nature. It is one spirit that is a unity of two spirits, which do not mix yet work together as one place of personality. In the Incarnation, the divine nature of Christ was unified with a human spirit/nature. To say that Christ has two spirits or souls will perhaps lead some to the idea that Christ is two persons rather than one person with two natures. The human soul of Christ is unified with the divine soul of Christ, in such a way that the two natures do not mix, yet they work together as one spirit as in one person. Therefore when Christ died he did not give his spirits, but spirit. This one soul/spirit would allow Christ to be fully human but without an active sinful nature.

begotten of his Father before all worlds,

Christ and this unique nature existed before the Creation of any worlds and in fact, Christ as God was co-Creator…

Hebrews 1: 2 NASB

in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

God the Son is the only Son of God and therefore is the heir of the Father. The sole heir of all things. Christ had a ‘dynamic agency’ in the creation’ of all things. This naturally implies Christ, God Son’s pre-existence and also co-existence with the Father. Hughes Pages 38-40.

Christ is the author of creation. He is also the efficient cause of their creation as in all things. Gerald F. Hawthorne Page 1506

Colossians 1:15-17 NASB

15 [a]He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For [b] by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He [c] is before all things, and in Him all things [d]hold together.

It can be seen that Christ is not part of the created world but is the co-creator. Wright Page 71. Christ alone was the Father’s agent is what is indicated.

The world and universe are sustained by God and that would include Christ as God the Son. Wright Page 71.

A scholar by the name of E.G. Ashby points out the mistake made by the Arians that Christ is the first-born of creation was therefore created, instead of being co-eternal with God the Father. But the context does not allow that interpretation. Page 1454. First-born can be defined as having to do with priority and superiority of God the Son in pre-existence as God. This being a reference to his deity, not his humanity. Page 1454.

Firstborn has to do the priority and superiority of Christ over creation as he was the creator and not a mere creation. There is no sense of a literal son being born of a literal father.

However, Bauer from the Greek states the term is used in a figurative sense as in Christ is the first-born of a new humanity. Page 726. Christ would be the first-born of resurrected humanity
within the culminated KOG.

Romans 8: 29 firstborn of many brethren. Πρωτοτοκος, the root word is prototokos, defined as firstborn prwtotokon in Romans 8:29.

God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,

Reaffirming the equality as deity of God the Son with God the Father.

Both are God, both are light, Jesus states he is the light of the world in John 8: 12.

NASB

12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.”

Also, the light is mentioned in John 1.

The Father is the source of light in Genesis 1.1.

Both the Father and Son are Light.

The Son is no less God than is the Father.

There is no secondary God concept in Scripture. Isaiah 43, 44 and 45 point out there is only one God and no other shall be no God formed after.

Back in the late 1980s before starting my long four-degree marathon, I had a friend that basically held to Arian belief. He was excommunicated from the Jehovah’s Witnesses the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. But interestingly although he would keep stating that he as a genius and smart enough to join a high IQ organization even when I would keep quoting him the Scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments that clearly explains there is no secondary true God concept in Scripture, he appealed to reason and philosophy. By reason and philosophy, like Arius, he reasoned there can only be one Almighty God and one person that is God and therefore Jesus Christ even though accepted as the atoner of his sins. My friend even accepted the physical resurrection, unlike those in the Watchtower, but Jesus Christ is his mind must have somehow been a secondary 'god' and saviour.

Again the danger of not letting Scripture speak in context.

begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

The Son is of the same essence, substance and nature of the Father.

The Nicene council came up with the word as noted previously in the class that God the Son is of the same ‘homoousia’ with the Father. Blaising Page 775. The concept is that they are of the exact same, substance and nature. A similar idea can be found in Hebrews 1:3.

Bauer defines it from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. page 847.
Hupostasis Original Word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡ

The divine substance is the same. Hughes Page 44. Therefore Jesus can rightly state without risking modalism or Sabellianism, ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father’ John 14: 9 even though they are different persons in Trinity because Almighty God, including the Holy Spirit, is of only one divine substance.

Turner explains sabellianism was an alternative example of modalism. Turner Page 514. These were three different modes revealing the same divine person. Blaising Page 727.

Today there are also Oneness Pentecostals. Theologian Gregory A. Boyd wrote a good book dealing with the subject entitled:

Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (1992).

He was a former member. Often tend to Baptize in Jesus’ name only, not in name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Page 139. Some reason that speaking in tongues was a required sign of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, to not speak in tongues was to not have the Holy Spirit at all. Page 197.

This group can be known for mistaking descriptive history in ACTS for prescriptive doctrine in every case, now tongues are a sign, not the sign, but of course not all will speak in tongues as Paul implies in 1 Corinthians 13: 30.

There is only one divine substance of God, but this is represented in three persons within the Trinity and God the Son has taken upon himself a human nature in order to be the King of the Kingdom of God.

In closing

The Creeds of 325 and 381 appeal to Scripture in proper and reasonable context and the resulting Theology adequately serves as a counter to the Arian heresies on a point by point basis.

My deduction would be that Creeds such as this helped immensely to maintain Christian theology, however, the Roman Catholic Church and to a lesser extent Orthodox Churches over time did add practices to Christian faith leading to the need for a Christian Reformation in the 16th C. In the modern era there are pseudo-Christian movements such as the Latter-Day Saints and the Jehovah’s Witnesses that attempt to rewrite Christian history as if they are the true Christian church and that the Creeds are wrong.

Perhaps the Creeds need to be further emphasized within orthodox, Biblical Churches even as a type of evangelism tool.

Bibliography

AQUINAS, SAINT THOMAS (1225-1274) Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, translated by Fabian R. Larcher, Html-formated Joseph Kenny, Dominican House.

ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

BAUER, WALTER (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Constantinople (381)’ Council of, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Monarchianism' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Nicea, Council of (325)’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

BROM, ROBERT H. (1983) The Eternal Sonship of Christ, San Diego, CIC 827.

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BUCHSEL, HERMANN, MARTIN FRIEDRICH (1967) ‘BUCHSEL on μονογενης’ reproduced from Volume 4. of Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.

BOYD, GREGORY A. (1992) Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1549) ‘Hebrews’ in Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume 44, Translated by John King (1847-1850), Santa Cruz, Sacred texts.com.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HARRISON, E.F. (1996) ‘Only-Begotten’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

HAWTHORNE, GERALD F. (1986) 'Hebrews' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HUGHES, PHILIP. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

KNIGHT, KEVIN (2009) First Council of Constantinople, New York, New Advent.

MARLOWE, MICHAEL (2006) The Only Begotten Son, New Philadelphia, Ohio, Bible Researcher Website.

MCCOMISKEY, T. E. (1996) ‘God, Names of’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ORR, JAMES (1915) ‘Only-Begotten’, General Editor, Grand Rapids, International Standard Bible Encylopedia.

PACKER, J.I. (1993) ‘Incarnation God Sent His Son, To Save Us’ from Concise Theology: A Guide To Historic Christian Beliefs, New York, Tyndale House Publishers Inc.

STEIN, R.H. (1996) ‘Jesus Christ’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

TURNER, H. E. W. (1999) 'Sabellianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

WALTER, V.L. WALTER (1996) ‘Arianism’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

WRIGHT, N.T. (1989) Colossians and Philemon, Grand Rapids, IVP.


Golcuk, Turkey (trekearth)

There will be more lecturing to follow in another post. Something is in the works at Grace Vancouver.


Maple Ridge, BC (June 1, 2012)