Stephen said
How can you be exalted if you’re already coequal to God the Father? And how come none of the ante-Nicene Fathers got the word, subordinationists all?Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology. (R.P.C Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989, p. 153.)
Every theologian east and west postulated some form of subordinationism after Athanasius as well. All understand that the son is begotten of the father and obeys the father.
Iskander Robertson said
“How can you be exalted if you’re already coequal to God the Father? “raise to a higher rank or position.
absolutely no idea how a god who has an inherent quality in him and has to have that quality as a necessary thing gets de-exalted, de-ranked and de-positioned.
Genesis 3:22 “Then the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden”
The difference between God and man is eternal life. If one-of-them should give up immortality they would become like one of us.
Robert said
You think the definite article in Greek has no meaning in Greek and Paul just randomly uses it occasionally, or do you think this is some kind of systematic alternating use by Paul? Nonsense.
I think it means the absence of a definite article does not imply a lower case god
Sure, but since Jesus is only the instrument or efficient cause through whom God creates, Jesus is subordinate to God, from whom are all things and for whom they exist. In ancient Greek parlance, one would say that God (not Jesus) is the primary and final clause, hence clearly superior.
Superior in the sense of a father being superior to a son. But not subordinate in the sense of Jesus being a lesser god.
There’s no sense here that God has made an arbitrary decision to create all through Jesus. For Paul Jesus is the one Lord without whom creation couldn’t occur.
For Paul all existence requires the Father and the Lord Jesus. If all existence requires Jesus all existence is subordinate to him.
Precisely. But in ante-Nicene thought you have the divine triad of Father-Son-Holy Spirit but the relationship is monarchical. The Son and the HS are subordinate to the Father.
Every theologian east and west postulated some form of subordinationism after Athanasius as well. All understand that the son is begotten of the father and obeys the father.
Correct. It was centuries before Nicaean Trinitarianism won the day. It could have easily gone the other way.
The truth is, as sophisticated a theologian as Arius was, he was holding onto the older more traditional view that went back to the New Testament. It was the Trinitarians who were the innovators, the ones with the new-fangled ideas.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** “Then the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden”
The difference between God and man is eternal life. If one-of-them should give up immortality they would become like one of us.
so i guess you think god is not inherently a necessary being, but a contingent one like men?
Robert said
Again, it depends on the context. The definite article can mean different things in different contexts. But it is indeed important, and you still have not given any grammatical explanation for its absence here.
I don’t think a grammatical explanation is necessary. The definite article may be used where the context is ambiguous but its not always necessary to imply God with capital G.
Stephen said
The truth is, as sophisticated a theologian as Arius was, he was holding onto the older more traditional view that went back to the New Testament. It was the Trinitarians who were the innovators, the ones with the new-fangled ideas.
Arius believed Jesus was the Son of God and Lord before all ages. So in that sense his view did go back to the New Testament. However he seems to have some lower view of Christ which prevented him from confessing the Nicene creed, unlike Eusebius of Caesarea who shared many of his views. What the difference was between Arius and Eusebius is unclear.
Origen said it is inconceivable that God ever existed without his Word so the idea of an eternal Word of God is pre-Nicene.
Iskander Robertson said
so i guess you think god is not inherently a necessary being, but a contingent one like men?
I don’t put much weight in the concepts of necessary or contingent beings. Nothing is in and of itself necessary. However it may be the case that given the universe a god is necessary.
The point of the chapter is that it doesn’t matter if you eat food sacrificed to idols because there is only one god, despite there being many so called gods and lords.
Yet not everyone has this knowledge so you should avoid eating food sacrificed to idols where it might give those ignorant of this knowledge the wrong impression.
For Paul, both before and after his conversion there was only one God and only one Lord, and the Lord was God.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert