Nicea confession a heresy ???

[Mayflower]

The next articel is written by a someone who hold clearly to the doctrine of the Trinity but sees a serieus heresy in the Nicea confession of the Trinity.
Iam really wondering, what you think about it:
http://pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org/Christology/Biblical Trinity Views and the Ancient Nicenists.pdf

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So, are you asking if the Confessional standards of this board are heretical?

 

[JonathanHunt]

So, are you asking if the Confessional standards of this board are heretical?

No, he's asking you what you think of the article.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So, are you asking if the Confessional standards of this board are heretical?

No, he's asking you what you think of the article.

Yes.

The article states that the Eternal Generation of the Son and the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit are heretical beliefs.

These are central to the Trinitarian theology of the Reformed Confessions.

Thus, my question stands.

 

[satz]

Is discussion of this topic (eternal generation) allowed on the PB?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Is discussion of this topic (eternal generation) allowed on the PB?

Certainly, as long as a denial of EG is not being advocated. Questions about EG are permitted for those that desire to understand it.

 

[Hippo]

Just to label a doctrine as "biblical" does not make it so, the Church in its wisdom and under the guidance of the Spirit set forth the correct doctrine of the Trinity in the form of the Nicene Creed.

The definition of a heretic is someone who does not accept the historic teaching of the Church, we can seek to understand the meaning of the Creeds and what the Creeds mean but to dismiss the Creed as being in error is in itself heretical.

Just because historic documents do not state the truth in the way we find easiest to understand does not mean that they are in error and to treat them as such undermines the very basis of the Church and the correct understanding of Scripture.

Whoever wrote wrote this article should be the subject of Church discipline.

 

[Archlute]

The man who penned the article is confused on several issues, and does not understand the concepts and definitions with which he is attempting to engage. He is also reading a several false notions into the Creed, which the church catholic would never affirm the creed to have implied (take the paragraph in which he attempts to tag the creed with affirming "divine incest" as one example).

Without the teaching of eternal generation you are left with having to affirm some form of subordinationism (as did the Arians who the author believes were wrongly condemned). The funny thing is that he is attempting to accuse the creed of teaching a subordinationist veiw, without using that term for some reason, which is exactly what the creed was combating at that point.

I am unsure why he would want to affirm the eternal generation of Christ's human nature, instead of his divine. I think that is really weird.

As well, he has an odd section where he attempts to make assertions against the creed based on his distinction between divine nature and divine being, but in classical Trinitarian discussion there is no difference between nature and being, both are the same thing, the divine esse. If he had wanted to discuss the ontological vs. the economical (nature vs. role) then it would make more sense, but he would still be confused.

Basically, this article serves as a good example of why people should go to a decent seminary before attempting to teach on (or against) these things.

 

[JonathanHunt]

So, are you asking if the Confessional standards of this board are heretical?

No, he's asking you what you think of the article.

Yes.

The article states that the Eternal Generation of the Son and the Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit are heretical beliefs.

These are central to the Trinitarian theology of the Reformed Confessions.

Thus, my question stands.

Ralph's first language is not English. I know you are cutting to the chase and you're used to that in your line of work but it comes across as overly combative. I don't think that Ralph has past 'form' as a troublemaker here.

Ralph, what I think is that the author is wrong and that eternal generation is orthodox and biblical belief. Nicea is not heretical - the author is. He states that the three persons of the Godhead are entirely self-sufficient. In which case there are three 'gods'. In which case why ever did the Son pray to the Father? This sort of internet 'theology' is not worth your time.

 

[larryjf]

From article:

these three Divine Beings are One in the Divine Nature

Am i missing something or does "3 divine beings" sound too much like polytheistic?

I would be much more comfortable with "3 modes of divine being"...but as it's written it comes off wrong to me.

 

[toddpedlar]

From article:

these three Divine Beings are One in the Divine Nature

Am i missing something or does "3 divine beings" sound too much like polytheistic?

I would be much more comfortable with "3 modes of divine being"...but as it's written it comes off wrong to me.

Not just wrong... heresy; as is - check me if I'm wrong - the idea of some sort of eternal generation of Christ's HUMAN nature. He took on flesh at a point in time and space, as Scripture affirms. To make up some sort of "eternal" human nature is a wretched twisting of the trinity. Perhaps the man is totally confused, but if his words have reflected his true beliefs concerning Christ and the Godhead he's a heretic.

 

[Davidius]

From article:

these three Divine Beings are One in the Divine Nature

Am i missing something or does "3 divine beings" sound too much like polytheistic?

I would be much more comfortable with "3 modes of divine being"...but as it's written it comes off wrong to me.

From article:

these three Divine Beings are One in the Divine Nature

Am i missing something or does "3 divine beings" sound too much like polytheistic?

I would be much more comfortable with "3 modes of divine being"...but as it's written it comes off wrong to me.

Not just wrong... heresy; as is - check me if I'm wrong - the idea of some sort of eternal generation of Christ's HUMAN nature. He took on flesh at a point in time and space, as Scripture affirms. To make up some sort of "eternal" human nature is a wretched twisting of the trinity. Perhaps the man is totally confused, but if his words have reflected his true beliefs concerning Christ and the Godhead he's a heretic.

It may just be an imprecise use of terms. We say that the three persons are one substance. He says "being" instead of "person." Does anyone know what a "person" or a "substance" actually is? I wouldn't be too quick to judge without more context.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

This just goes to show that though it appears that theology is so easy that anyone can do it, it ain't.

Let's see, in this corner, the Nicene Creed, promulgated by an ecumenical council and used by the church since 325 as a summary of essential Christian truths and in the opposite corner, some schmuck with a computer and an internet connection. This is an argument that should, by definition not attract our attention.

Does this mean that the Nicene Creed is unassailable? No, but neither are we obligated to weigh carefully and measure every ignorant opinion of every self-appointed nut case in the world.

 

[Davidius]

Let's not forget about some German schmuck nailing some discussion points on the church door...

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I figured someone would make that point. Someone always does.

By the time Luther wrote his 95 theses (which he likely mailed to the Abp. There's doubt that he actually nailed them to the church door) he was a highly trained theologian. He was also a minister in the church. He wasn't just some amateur with a pen. He had lectured on the Sentences. He had lectured on Aristotle. He was a trained scholar and he knew enough not to confuse heresy with the Nicene Creed.

Luther is just a case in point. He was about restoring the catholic faith not demolishing it. He certainly doesn't provide license for the sort of modern religious individualism that makes every make his own pope or a heresiarch.

-----Added 12/23/2008 at 07:47:00 EST-----

it is heresy (contradiction of the catholic creeds) to say "three beings."

Line 4 of the Athanasian (Quincunque Vult) says:

"Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam seperantes" (neither confusing the persons nor separating the persons). Person and substance (being) are distinct categories.

In traditional Western theology, "person" is a rational substance of an individual nature (Boethius). Substance or being is that which makes a thing what it is, without which it is not.

Thus, line 16 says, "And yet they are not three Gods, but one God." Three cannot be predicated of God but it can and must be predicated of "persons." In distinction, lines 11-12 say: "And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible."

So, no, we may not say "three beings" any more than we may say that God is "one person."

Rather than "modes of divine being," which is an expression that has been used by some orthodox writers and some whose Trinitarian orthodoxy is suspect (e.g., Barth), we might do better to use the older language and say "three subsistences" or that the one God subsists in three persons.

From article:

these three Divine Beings are One in the Divine Nature

Am i missing something or does "3 divine beings" sound too much like polytheistic?

I would be much more comfortable with "3 modes of divine being"...but as it's written it comes off wrong to me.

From article:

Am i missing something or does "3 divine beings" sound too much like polytheistic?

I would be much more comfortable with "3 modes of divine being"...but as it's written it comes off wrong to me.

Not just wrong... heresy; as is - check me if I'm wrong - the idea of some sort of eternal generation of Christ's HUMAN nature. He took on flesh at a point in time and space, as Scripture affirms. To make up some sort of "eternal" human nature is a wretched twisting of the trinity. Perhaps the man is totally confused, but if his words have reflected his true beliefs concerning Christ and the Godhead he's a heretic.

It may just be an imprecise use of terms. We say that the three persons are one substance. He says "being" instead of "person." Does anyone know what a "person" or a "substance" actually is? I wouldn't be too quick to judge without more context.

 

[Dearly Bought]

So, no, we may not say "three beings" any more than we may say that God is "one person."

So what do you think of Van Til's "one person" language?

*Mods, feel free to start a new thread if this is too off topic.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

So, no, we may not say "three beings" any more than we may say that God is "one person."

So what do you think of Van Til's "one person" language?

*Mods, feel free to start a new thread if this is too off topic.

I've complained about it here and elsewhere (e.g., in class, when I was teaching the doctrine of God course). You can find the earlier threads on this but it's not consonant with the Athanasian. It's not true. God isn't "one person." There's no sense in which that is true. He is personal but not unipersonal. He is multi-personal, and he is tri-personal, but he is not mono-personal. Which person would he be? A fourth person? My view is that CVT was sticking a finger in the eye of the Clarkians and saying, in a highly cryptic way, "Comprehend this."

It was a mistake. We shouldn't repeat it and we certainly shouldn't be elaborating upon it and defending it.

 

[larryjf]

The Scripture clearly reveals the Godhead as three distinct persons, not one.

[bible]Mat 3:16-17[/bible]

[bible]Mat 28:19[/bible]

[bible]2 Cor 13:14[/bible]

Scripture also clearly reveals God as one being and not three.

[bible]DEU 6:4[/bible]

 

[ChristianTrader]

So, no, we may not say "three beings" any more than we may say that God is "one person."

So what do you think of Van Til's "one person" language?

*Mods, feel free to start a new thread if this is too off topic.

Letham makes a good defense of Van Til in his book on the Trinity. He explains that Van Til was not implying that the term person in "one person, and three persons" was used univocally in both instances. The problem is that "being" in one being, three persons, has impersonally connotations in the Western Tradition. So one basically runs into problems of some sort either way. If you go one person, three persons, then you have to spend you time explaining that you don't mean person the exact same way both times, and the complaint that a different word should be used. But there is no single word that means what you want it to mean.

If you go three persons, one being, then you have to explain that you do not mean an impersonal being and the need to use a different word pops up again.

CT

 

[Archlute]

I didn't find Letham's work to be very convincing on that point. Saying that "person" means one thing here and another thing there is confusing at best, and should not be defended as being competent workmanship within the highly technical discourse of Trinitarian theology. Equivocation in theology is generally less helpful than clarity, the FV writers being a case in point.

In my opinion, Letham gave up too much ground to Eastern pressures in the work, and I don't think that the great problems that he tries to avoid/resolve in Western theology are really all that great. The East certainly has some helpful insights, but I think that the problems that arise out of some Eastern formulations are more problematic than those with which they charge the West.

 

[JDKetterman]

So, no, we may not say "three beings" any more than we may say that God is "one person."

So what do you think of Van Til's "one person" language?

*Mods, feel free to start a new thread if this is too off topic.

Letham makes a good defense of Van Til in his book on the Trinity. He explains that Van Til was not implying that the term person in "one person, and three persons" was used univocally in both instances. The problem is that "being" in one being, three persons, has impersonally connotations in the Western Tradition. So one basically runs into problems of some sort either way. If you go one person, three persons, then you have to spend you time explaining that you don't mean person the exact same way both times, and the complaint that a different word should be used. But there is no single word that means what you want it to mean.

If you go three persons, one being, then you have to explain that you do not mean an impersonal being and the need to use a different word pops up again.

CT

My church a couple of years ago did a conference on the Trinity with Robert Letham, and I actually asked him about Van Til's doctrine of the Trinity. What he pretty much told me was that he disagreed with Van Til's formulation of the Trinity. He told me that while he values Van Til's work on apologetics, but he found his treatment of the Trinity to be rather sophomoric and not very helpful. When reading Van Til's Defense of the Faith, I thought the same thing when he came to the doctrine of the Trinity. I have heard some tell me that Van Til had the same view as Bavinck when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity.

When it comes to the being of God, I believe God is tripersonal rather than unipersonal. God reveals Himself as one God in three persons, and not one person and three persons. While I know Van Til is definitely no modalist, but I believe his usage of person when describing the unity of God is not very helpful.

 

[ChristianTrader]

So what do you think of Van Til's "one person" language?

*Mods, feel free to start a new thread if this is too off topic.

Letham makes a good defense of Van Til in his book on the Trinity. He explains that Van Til was not implying that the term person in "one person, and three persons" was used univocally in both instances. The problem is that "being" in one being, three persons, has impersonally connotations in the Western Tradition. So one basically runs into problems of some sort either way. If you go one person, three persons, then you have to spend you time explaining that you don't mean person the exact same way both times, and the complaint that a different word should be used. But there is no single word that means what you want it to mean.

If you go three persons, one being, then you have to explain that you do not mean an impersonal being and the need to use a different word pops up again.

CT

My church a couple of years ago did a conference on the Trinity with Robert Letham, and I actually asked him about Van Til's doctrine of the Trinity. What he pretty much told me was that he disagreed with Van Til's formulation of the Trinity. He told me that while he values Van Til's work on apologetics, but he found his treatment of the Trinity to be rather sophomoric and not very helpful. When reading Van Til's Defense of the Faith, I thought the same thing when he came to the doctrine of the Trinity. I have heard some tell me that Van Til had the same view as Bavinck when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity.

When it comes to the being of God, I believe God is tripersonal rather than unipersonal. God reveals Himself as one God in three persons, and not one person and three persons. While I know Van Til is definitely no modalist, but I believe his usage of person when describing the unity of God is not very helpful.

In his book, he did come down as disagreeing with the formulation; he disagreed mainly on a pedagogical point of view.

CT

 

[toddpedlar]

Not just wrong... heresy; as is - check me if I'm wrong - the idea of some sort of eternal generation of Christ's HUMAN nature. He took on flesh at a point in time and space, as Scripture affirms. To make up some sort of "eternal" human nature is a wretched twisting of the trinity. Perhaps the man is totally confused, but if his words have reflected his true beliefs concerning Christ and the Godhead he's a heretic.

It may just be an imprecise use of terms. We say that the three persons are one substance. He says "being" instead of "person." Does anyone know what a "person" or a "substance" actually is? I wouldn't be too quick to judge without more context.

Well, the problem is, David, that the author uses the word "being" in a rather consistent way within the paper, and a consistent way with the usage we would have of "being" as opposed to "person". "Being" is a term that serves to distinguish in an ontological sense - it is akin to the word "entity" (which I hope NOBODY would use to distinguish the Father from the Son from the Spirit). "Person" is not quite so constraining in an ontological sense.

"Being"-hood implies self-existence and a separation of existence in a way that "person" does not in any necessary fashion. The author even uses this word "self-existent" to apply to these three divine "beings". A "being" has a separate "is-ness" to coin an awkward word... this doesn't apply to God the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. Herein lies the problem, then... and it's not small.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

To be honest, I'm kind of uncomfortable with using the word "modes".

 

[JDKetterman]

To be honest, I'm kind of uncomfortable with using the word "modes".

 

[jd.morrison]

To be honest, I'm kind of uncomfortable with using the word "modes".

There was a guy who was up for examination in the P.C.(U.S.A.) and in his statement of faith he talked about the trinity in the form of "Functions" and "Modes" He is a Modelist, which is a heretical doctrine of God. I am not comfortable with the word "Modes" either.

-----Added 12/24/2008 at 02:04:55 EST-----

Not saying your a Modelist Larry... LOL!

 

[Mayflower]

Ralph's first language is not English. I know you are cutting to the chase and you're used to that in your line of work but it comes across as overly combative. I don't think that Ralph has past 'form' as a troublemaker here.
.

Thanks Jonthan for your understanding, it was only a question and i was curious how someone could be a Triniterian and see the Nicea confession as a heresy, i have never heard about this before.

 

[toddpedlar]

Ralph's first language is not English. I know you are cutting to the chase and you're used to that in your line of work but it comes across as overly combative. I don't think that Ralph has past 'form' as a troublemaker here.
.

Thanks Jonthan for your understanding, it was only a question and i was curious how someone could be a Triniterian and see the Nicea confession as a heresy, i have never heard about this before.

Part of the problem, upon reading the article more closely, is that he doesn't seem to understand the orthodox, Nicene doctrine of the Trinity at all. His solution isn't any better than his misunderstanding is, and as has been pointed out already by several, contains some heretical elements. It almost seems as though he sees the doctrines of eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Spirit as not truly being eternal (as is orthodox) but actually commencing at some point - as though the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Son and Spirit were, at one time, not in existence, but where somewhere before the foundation of the world brought forth. I don't know where he gets that, but it seems to be part of his whole package of misunderstandings.

 

[FenderPriest]

Let's see, in this corner, the Nicene Creed, promulgated by an ecumenical council and used by the church since 325 as a summary of essential Christian truths and in the opposite corner, some schmuck with a computer and an internet connection. This is an argument that should, by definition not attract our attention.

Not that it matters, but this is one of my favorite one liners I've read in a while and sums up my feelings about a lot of the content I find on the internet.

 

[larryjf]

To be honest, I'm kind of uncomfortable with using the word "modes".

Modes of manifestation is most certainly a heresy.
Modes of being is orthodox in my opinion.