Is God The Father Fons Deitatis?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Is God The Father Fons Deitatis?

This phrase refers to God the Father as the “origin and cause” of the Son’s Being within the Godhead, as God. It represents the “Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ”, of the Nicene Creed of AD 325. Literally it reads, “God out of God”, which makes the Father as the “source” from Who the “essential character” of the Son is derived. The Father alone is seen as “unoriginated”, and the Son as “originated” from the Father.

In His book, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, Dr T Herbert Bindley, deals with the language used in the formation of the Nicene Creed, on the phrase, “Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, these words, as we have seen, were taken from the Creed of Caesarea. The preposition (ἐκ) denotes origin and derivation from the Father as Fons Deitatis. The absolute possession of life from another is the essential character of Sonship; John v.26; comp. viii.42, xvi.28” (page 30)

The Creed of Caesarea was drawn up by the Church historian, Eusebius, who was infulenced by the heretic, Origen (F J Foakes Jackson; The History of the Christian Church, p. 168). Amongst the heresies of Origen, he taught that God the Father “eternally generated” the substance of the Son. Eusebius himself was pro Arius, another heretic, and also infulenced by the theology of Origen, as we can see in another phrase in his “Creed”, “πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον (begotten out of God the Father before all ages)”. “γεγεννημένον”, is from “γεννάω”, which is also used for “generation”. “The eternal generation of the Son from the will of the Father was, with Origen, the communication of a divine but secondary substance” (Schaff's History of the Church). This heresy was also taken up by some of the Orthodox Church fathers, “Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, made earnest of the Origenistic doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (which was afterwards taught by Athanasius and the Nicene creed, but in a deeper sense, as denoting the generation of a person of the same substance from the substance of the Father, and not of a person of different substance from the will of the Father), and deduced from it the homo-ousia or consubstantiality of the Son with the Father” (Schaff). The Nicene Creed adopted some of the heretical language of the Creed of Caesarea. “γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ. τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρος. Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ” (begotten out of the Father, only-begotten, that is, out of the substance of the Father, God out of God)” etc.

It is clear, that the Christology of Origen is “Subordinationism”, which teaches that the Father alone is God absolute, and the Son and Holy Spirit are “Secondaries”, and can be called, “god”, or “divine”. Of which we are told;

“But on the other hand he distinguishes the essence of the Son from that of the Father; speaks of a difference of substance (ἑτερότης τῆς οὐσίας,or τοῦ ὑποκειμενου which the advocates of his orthodoxy, probably without reason, take as merely opposing the Patripassian conception of the ὁμουσία); and makes the Son decidedly inferior to the Father, calling him, with reference to Joh 1:1 merely θεός without the article, that is God in a relative sense (Deus de Deo), also δεύτερος θεός, but the Father God in the absolute sense, ὁ θεός (Deus per se), or αὐτόθεος, also the fountain and root of the divinity (πηγή, ῥίζα τῆς θεότητος)” (James Strong and John McClintock; The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature)

Origen is wrong on the Greek grammar of John 1:1, which has more to do with his theology, than his knowledge of the Greek language.

When John writes, “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”, he does not mean that “ὁ λόγος”, is a “secondary god”, as suggested by Origen, and the Jehovah's Witnesses do. We have seen that the use and non use of the Greek article, does not denote a different meaning for “θεος”. What we have is a simple sentence structure. “Every sentence must contain two parts, a subject and a predicate. The subject is that of which something is stated. The predicate is that which is stated of the subject…A predicate noun or adjective seldom has the article” (William Goodwin, Greek Grammar, sec. 890, 956, pp.196, 208)

“General rule, The subject has the article, while the predicate is without it” (William Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language, sec. 460, p.120). In John 1:1, the “subject” is no doubt, “The Word”, as it is about Him. The “predicate” in this last sentence, is “θεος”, which is a statement about the “subject”. John is here stating, that “The Word”, is “God”, as much as “The God”, besides (πρὸς) Whom He is. In John 8:54, Jesus says to the Jews, “εστιν ο πατηρ μου ο δοξαζων με ον υμεις λεγετε οτι θεος υμων εστιν”, which is literally, “it is My Father Who Glorifies Me, Who you say that God your He is”. Here, “ο πατηρ μου (My Father)” is the subject, and “θεος”, is the predicate. It is never translated as “god”, or “a god”. So why different in John 1:1, where the grammatical construction is the same?

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that John should have written, “καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”. Had John written this, then he would have meant that “ὁ λόγος”, was identical to “τὸν θεόν”, in the previous sentence. Grammatically, however, he had just written, “καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν”, where the use of the preposition, “πρὸς”, is clear that two distinct Persons are meant. It becomes a contradiction, and confusing, if he wrote, “καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”.

One of the verses used to “prove” that God the Father is “Fons Deitatis”, as we have seen, is John 5:26, which is spoken by Jesus Christ, about Himself.

“ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ”

“For just as the Father has Life in Himself, in this way even to the Son He gave Life to have in Himself” (literal translation)

Jesus says that the Father, “ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ”, “possesses life in Himself”; and then goes on to say, that He also, “ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ”, “possesses life in Himself”. “ὥσπερ” says that this is in exactly the same way. The Amplified Bible says what the Greek does, “is self-existent…Son to have life in Himself and be self-existent”. The Greek grammarian, Dr Samuel Green, says on the use of “ζωὴν”, here, “a title of Christ, as the source of life, John v.26” (Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, p. 444). Jesus is very clear in what He is saying. EXACTLY AS the Father possesses life in Himself, and is self-existent, and the source of life; so too I possess life in Myself, and am self-existent, and the source of life. There is no distinction between the Father and Himself, as Almighty God.

In both places, “ἔχει” and “ἔχειν”, are in the “present continuance tense”, used for the “Eternal Life” that is in the Father and in Jesus Christ. In 1 John 1:1, Jesus Christ is called, “τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς (the Word of the Life)”, and in verse 2, “καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη (and the Life was Manifested). John goes on to say of Jesus, “τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα”, that is, “the Life the Eternal Who was with the Father”. It does not say, “ἥτις ἦν ἐξ τὸν πατέρα”, “Who was out of the Father”, where the Greek preposition, “ἐξ” would have been used. By using “πρὸς”, it is clear that Jesus Christ, Who is here “The Eternal Life”, is “from the side of, near”, which shows a clear distinction, and not dependence. In John 1:1, John says of Jesus Christ, Who is “the Word (ὁ λόγος)”, Who is, “πρὸς τὸν θεόν (with the God)”, same Greek preposition as in 1 John 1:2, showing distinction. John then goes on to say, “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”, which according to the Greek grammar of this passage, in its context, can only read, “and the Word was God”, in exactly the same sense the Father is God. This is clear from verse 18 in the oldest and best textual evidence, “θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς (God no one has seen at any time the Unique God)”, where both uses of “θεὸς”, do not have the Greek article (τὸν, ὁ), with the same meaning, Two distinct Persons, Who are equally GOD. In verse 4, it says of Jesus, that, “ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν (in Him was Life)”, where the Greek preposition “ἐν” means “in His Person”, as the “source of life”.

In Acts 3:15, Peter says of Jesus Christ, “τὸν δὲ Ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἀπεκτείνατε”, literally, “but the Source of life you killed”. The noun “ἀρχηγός”, has the meanings, “a first cause, originator, founder”. In Hebrews 2:10, Jesus is called “the author of their salvation (ASV); and “the source of their salvation (CSB). In Hebrews 12:2, “Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, (NAS); “Jesus, the source and perfecter of our faith (CSB).

In John 11:25, Jesus says of Himself, “Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή”, “I AM The Resurrection and The Life”. In 14:6, “Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή (I AM The Way and The Truth and The Life”. Again, in Revelation chapter one, were we read of Jesus Christ Appearing to the Apostle John, and says to him, “ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, καὶ ὁ ζῶν (present active indicative)” (verses 17, 18), which is literally, “I Am The First and The Last, and The Ever-Living One”. Dr Joseph Thayer, the Unitarian Greek scholar, has this to say, “ὁ πρῶτος καί ὁ ἔσχατος, i. e. the eternal One, Rev 1:17; Rev 2:8; Rev 22:13” (Greek Lexicon on πρῶτος). In the Book of Isaiah, we read of Yahweh, Who says, “´ánî ri´šôn wa´ánî ´ahárôn ûmibbal`äday ´ên ´élöhîm (I The First and I The Last, and beside Me no god)”. The Greek Old Testament (LXX) reads, “ἐγὼ πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα”, literally, “I am the first, and I am hereafter”. In Exodus 3:14, where the Speaker is “Mal'ak Yehovah” (verse 2), “The Messenger of Yahweh”, or “The One sent by Yahweh”, Who says to Moses when asked about His Name, “Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν”, “I AM The Eternal One”, which is what Jesus says in Revelation 1:18, “ὁ ζῶν”, “The Ever-Living One”.
 

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
cont...

John 5:26, cannot be taken on its own, as it connects with verse 27, where Jesus goes on to say, “καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν”, which is, “and Authority He appointed Him, to execute Judgement, because the Son of Man He is”. The same verb, “ἔδωκεν”, which is in verse 26, is also in verse 27. In verse 22 Jesus says, “For the Father judges no one, but has appointed all judgment to the Son” (NKJV). Where the word “committed” is the Greek word, “δέδωκεν”, which is from “δίδωμι”.

“δίδωμι”, does not only have the meaning, “to give something to someone, which they never had before”. In Mark 4:25, Jesus says, “For whoever has, to him more shall be given (δοθησεται, from δίδωμι)”. In John 17:24, Jesus says, “Then they may see My glory, which You have given (δέδωκάς, from δίδωμι) Me”. In verse 5 we read, “Now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with that glory I had (εἶχον, imperfect, “I have always had”) with (παρὰ, “together with You”) You before the world existed”. The verb also has the meanings, “to appoint, to grant, to allow, to assign, to hand over, deliver up”, etc.

If Jesus’ “Life” is “derived” from the Father, which would indeed make Him “δεύτερος-θεός”, then it would have been impossible for Jesus to have said what He does, in verse 23, “that all may Honor the Son, just as they Honor the Father. Whoever does not Honor the Son does not Honor the Father who sent Him”. Can someone Who is “inferior” to God the Father, make such a claim? If we do not “Honor” Jesus Christ, we do not “Honor”, the Father, Who sent Him. The use of the conjunction, “οτι (because)”, gives the reason for what is said in verses 26-27, “He is the Son of Man”. Jesus Christ, The Son of Man, while on earth, Acted in complete agreement with the Father in everything that He did, which is what Jesus Himself says in John 5:19, “So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise”. These words are in response to what Jesus had told the Jews, that, “My Father is working until now, and I am working” (ver 17), which enraged the Jews, who then even more wanted to murder Jesus, “because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God (ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ)” (18). The Jews clearly understood Jesus as saying that He was GOD, and equal to GOD The Father.

As the Father “appointed” Jesus Christ as “Heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:2); and had “appointed” Jesus Christ as The Judge of all. Likewise, He has “appointed” the Son as “the giver of life”. This is all true of the Incarnate Son, and has nothing to do with the eternal relationship between the Father and Jesus Christ, as is clear in passages like John 1:18, which is seen in the words, “ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς”, literally, “Who is eternally in the Bosom of the Father”. This verse shows the absolute equality and distinction of Persons, of the Father and Jesus Christ.

The other two verses mentioned by Bindley, John 8:42, and 16:28, have no bearing on language of the Nicene Creed.

“Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, because I came from God and I am here. For I didn't come on My own, but He sent Me” (John 8:42)

“For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father” (John 16:27-28)

In the first passage, we have, “ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον (for I out of God came forth)”, which is actually reference to Jesus’ Deity, as, “ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ” here refers to the “Godhead”. Jesus does not say, “ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός ἐξῆλθον”. Though “ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ” is in the language of the Creeds, yet their application is different, as they sought to show from this the “eternal generation”, which is not what it says.

In the passage in chapter 16, the word “from”, is in the Greek, “παρα”, which denotes “nearness”, and not “origin”. In verse 28, the words, “and going to the Father”, are in the Greek, “καὶ πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (and going to be with the Father)”. Interesting, that some textual evidence, including the Codex Vacatinus, reads, “ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς (came out of the Father). No doubt this change was made to reflect the teaching of “eternal generation”.

Another verse that has been referred to, that is supposed to teach that the Father is the “source” of the Son’s Life, is John 6:57

“Just as (ὥσπερ, as in 5:26) the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me”

Here Jesus uses, “ὁ ζῶν Πατὴρ” (the Living Father), as He said of Himself in Revelation 1:18, “ὁ ζῶν (the Living One), in both places we have the use of the continued, present. Jesus says that He Lives, “διὰ τὸν Πατέρα”, that is with the accusative in the Greek, “the ground” (ratio), i.e, “because the Father Lives”; and not with the genitive, as “the means of”, Jesus’ Life. His Life is essentially one with the Father. He also says in John 14:10, 11, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?... Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me”. And, as we have seen, “The Father and I We are one thing” (10:30). As both the Father and Jesus Christ are equally essentially GOD, it is impossible for their “Lives” to be independent of one another, as their Lives are One and the same.

Psalm 2:7 is also used by some, for this teaching of the Father “eternally begetting” the Son, in the Godhead.

“I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”

The words, “ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε (today I have begotten you)”, has nothing to do with “eternal generation” of Jesus Christ from the Father. But, rather is a Prophecy of the Conception of Jesus Christ in the womb of the Virgin Mary (Matthew 1:16, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη, “out of you [fiminine singular] is conceived”). We have in this Prophecy in the 2nd Pslam, a definite time, “TODAY”, which is fulfilled in the Birth of Jesus Christ, as is very clear in Acts 13:33.

“God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has Raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'”

This “raised up” (αναστησας), is not as in the KJV, which reads, “raised up Jesus again”, where there is no Greek word for “again”, and does not refer to the Resurrection, which is seen in verse 34, “Since He raised Him from the dead, never to return to decay, He has spoken in this way, I will grant you the faithful covenant blessings made to David”. Rather, as in another Prophecy of the Coming Messiah, in Deuteronomy 18:15, “The LORD your God will Raise up (ἀναστήσει) for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear”, Acts 13:33, speaks of the First Coming of Jesus Christ. Which is also seen in Acts 3:22, “For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The LORD your God will Raise up (ἀναστήσει) for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you”. And also in Acts 7:33, “This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will Raise up (ἀναστήσει) for you a prophet like me from your brothers”. Hebrews 1:5-6 is conclusive that this Psalm is speaking of the First Coming of Jesus Christ.

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him”

“γεγέννηκά” (Begotten) refers to the First Coming”, and “πρωτότοκον” (First-Born), to the Second Coming, “πάλιν”, “again, once more”.

The fact that the Bible speaks of Jesus Christ as “Yahweh”, as it does of the Father and Holy Spirit. Which, according to the Hebrew, means;

“he one bringing into being, life-giver, giver of existence, creator, he who brings to pass, he one who is: i.e. the absolute and unchangeable one, the existing, ever living, as self-consistent and unchangeable” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon). And, “The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives"” (The Jewish Encyclopaedia)

It is impossible that any Person in the Trinity/Godhead, can be the “source” of the Other, as they are equally “the existing, ever living”, and “uncreated”.
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,795
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Great OP. But I beg to differ with the conclusion....which is being forced into a Trinitarian outlook.

One has to approach these things with an open mind. I find that the only real option we have from the whole counsel of God is one that reflects "Subordinationism". It was good enough for scholars such as Origen and Eusebius. (and as you have stated various early creeds--- Caesarean and Nicene)

What I find gets lost in these appraisals is the greatness of the Father. Jesus Christ is a life source...given to be that way by the will of the Father. That makes the Son co-equal in nature and character. But one does not have to be of the same rank to do so.

In military parlance a captain is seen as one who commands. His subordinate co-leader is a lieutenant. This word comes from the French meaning..."place holder." The lieutenant holds the place of a captain in the absence of the captain or else serving as a helper to him. The Head of Christ is God. And the Head of every man is Christ. So then Jesus is the Captain of our souls....and WE become His lieutenants by abiding in Him. But the Captain over Jesus is the Father.

The problem we have in seeing Jesus as our Captain is that we can't imagine another higher authority. (A captain of a captain???) Jesus was sent to do the will of the Father...as in..."not MY will by YOUR will be done." Jesus Christ came into the world by the will of the Father. The Son serves the Father. The Father does not serve the Son...although He confirms Him, the way a captain confirms his lieutenant.

And as to the Spirit of God...of course God's Spirit is subject to the Father. God is not schizoid. God's Spirit is an extension of Him.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: faithfulness

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,623
2,337
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Is God The Father Fons Deitatis?

This phrase refers to God the Father as the “origin and cause” of the Son’s Being within the Godhead, as God. It represents the “Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ”, of the Nicene Creed of AD 325. Literally it reads, “God out of God”, which makes the Father as the “source” from Who the “essential character” of the Son is derived. The Father alone is seen as “unoriginated”, and the Son as “originated” from the Father.

Yes, this is why some of the Church Fathers spoke of the "eternal generation" of the Son. It is the generation of the revelation of God from an unoriginated Source. A finite revelation of something that is infinite is simply a limited picture of something that remains infinite. The Son is a limited, human picture of God, whose Being originated a picture of Himself as a man. Since God is obviously uncreated and infinite, He is obviously more than just a generated picture of Himself as a man. And yet the man He originated to reflect His own personality is truly His unoriginated Being in limited, human form.

This may seem like a contradiction. But even in mathematics we would acknowledge that a segment of a line is a real part of an infinite line. The distinction between the line segment and the infinite line does not force them to be separate or unaligned.

The Creed of Caesarea was drawn up by the Church historian, Eusebius, who was infulenced by the heretic, Origen

I do not identify Origen as a "heretic." His views may be flawed or simply his way of describing something difficult to say. He did speculate about subjects, which itself is not heretical--it is simply speculative.

However, I think Origen's subordinationism is way overblown, when his focus was predicated on proving the Deity of the Son. If his arguments predate the actual controversy, he cannot be accused of participating in it.

CLICK
According to Badcock virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent [3] This also applies to Irenaeus and Tertullian and to Origen.[4][5][5] The doctrine was also taught by Hippolytus, Justin Martyr and Novatian.

It is clear, that the Christology of Origen is “Subordinationism”, which teaches that the Father alone is God absolute, and the Son and Holy Spirit are “Secondaries”, and can be called, “god”, or “divine”. Of which we are told;

There is Subordinationism of the Orthodox kind, and Subordinationsim of the heretical kind. We should not confuse them. Jesus told us that the Father was greater than he was. In what way? That is the question.

Jesus was not saying he was not God. He was just saying that God, his Father, was prior to his coming into existence as a human being. The original source is greater than the limited revelation. Heretics saw this as a contradiction. But those who believe the revelation that Jesus is God do not.
 

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2020
15,223
6,248
113
Netanya or Pensacola
Faith
Christian
Country
Israel
One has to approach these things with an open mind.

What you said is exactly wrong.
The reality is, you have to approach these things with "spiritual discernment", as when you try to figure out the bible with your carnal "open" mind, you end up exactly as you have, Episkopos.
Deceived.
 

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Yes, this is why some of the Church Fathers spoke of the "eternal generation" of the Son. It is the generation of the revelation of God from an unoriginated Source. A finite revelation of something that is infinite is simply a limited picture of something that remains infinite. The Son is a limited, human picture of God, whose Being originated a picture of Himself as a man. Since God is obviously uncreated and infinite, He is obviously more than just a generated picture of Himself as a man. And yet the man He originated to reflect His own personality is truly His unoriginated Being in limited, human form.

This may seem like a contradiction. But even in mathematics we would acknowledge that a segment of a line is a real part of an infinite line. The distinction between the line segment and the infinite line does not force them to be separate or unaligned.



I do not identify Origen as a "heretic." His views may be flawed or simply his way of describing something difficult to say. He did speculate about subjects, which itself is not heretical--it is simply speculative.

However, I think Origen's subordinationism is way overblown, when his focus was predicated on proving the Deity of the Son. If his arguments predate the actual controversy, he cannot be accused of participating in it.

CLICK
According to Badcock virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent [3] This also applies to Irenaeus and Tertullian and to Origen.[4][5][5] The doctrine was also taught by Hippolytus, Justin Martyr and Novatian.



There is Subordinationism of the Orthodox kind, and Subordinationsim of the heretical kind. We should not confuse them. Jesus told us that the Father was greater than he was. In what way? That is the question.

Jesus was not saying he was not God. He was just saying that God, his Father, was prior to his coming into existence as a human being. The original source is greater than the limited revelation. Heretics saw this as a contradiction. But those who believe the revelation that Jesus is God do not.

There is no such thing as "Subordinationism of the Orthodox kind", within the Godhead, it is heretical. Jesus being "subordinate" to the Father is functional, and relates only to His Post Incarnate Life, which fully ends at His Second Coming

Origen was no doubt a heretic, and his theology paved the way for Arianism, and the other anti Trinitarian teachers. Sadly there were some "Orthodox" who also were deceived by the theology of Origen.

Jesus says that the Father is "greater" than Himself, in John 14:28; and yet in 5:23, says that "all should HONOUR Him as they HONOUR the Father", which shows that there cannot be any "Subordinationism", between the Persons in the Godhead as GOD
 

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Great OP. But I beg to differ with the conclusion....which is being forced into a Trinitarian outlook.

One has to approach these things with an open mind. I find that the only real option we have from the whole counsel of God is one that reflects "Subordinationism". It was good enough for scholars such as Origen and Eusebius. (and as you have stated various early creeds--- Caesarean and Nicene)

What I find gets lost in these appraisals is the greatness of the Father. Jesus Christ is a life source...given to be that way by the will of the Father. That makes the Son co-equal in nature and character. But one does not have to be of the same rank to do so.

In military parlance a captain is seen as one who commands. His subordinate co-leader is a lieutenant. This word comes from the French meaning..."place holder." The lieutenant holds the place of a captain in the absence of the captain or else serving as a helper to him. The Head of Christ is God. And the Head of every man is Christ. So then Jesus is the Captain of our souls....and WE become His lieutenants by abiding in Him. But the Captain over Jesus is the Father.

The problem we have in seeing Jesus as our Captain is that we can't imagine another higher authority. (A captain of a captain???) Jesus was sent to do the will of the Father...as in..."not MY will by YOUR will be done." Jesus Christ came into the world by the will of the Father. The Son serves the Father. The Father does not serve the Son...although He confirms Him, the way a captain confirms his lieutenant.

And as to the Spirit of God...of course God's Spirit is subject to the Father. God is not schizoid. God's Spirit is an extension of Him.

Simply put, the Father is YAHWEH; Jesus Christ is YAHWEH, the Holy Spirit is YAHWEH. In the Godhead the Three distinct Persons are COEQUAL
 

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2020
15,223
6,248
113
Netanya or Pensacola
Faith
Christian
Country
Israel
Origen was no doubt a heretic,

Origen was a mental case.
He read "some make themselves Eunuch's , and he took a knife and castrated himself, thinking that was the verse.
This is the same fool who created the idea of "soul sleep" that is probably where the "Cult of Mary" got the idea of Purgatory, also.
They of course ran with it, and expanded it, and made it into one more of their "Doctrine's of Devils"....to the outmost limit.
They, for many centuries. castrate all their Priest's, they "Eunuch" them..... by not allowing them a Wife and Conjugal relationship.
This is insanity pretending to be "of God", which is par for the course, regarding the "cult of Mary".
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Origen was a mental case.
He read "some make themselves Eunuch's , and he took a knife and castrated himself, thinking that was the verse.
This is the same fool who created the idea of "soul sleep" that is probably where the "Cult of Mary" got the idea of Purgatory, also.
They of course ran with it, and expanded it, and made it into one more of their "Doctrine's of Devils"....to the outmost limit.
They, for many centuries. castrate all their Priest's, they "Eunuch" them..... by not allowing them a Wife and Conjugal relationship.
This is insanity pretending to be "of God", which is par for the course, regarding the "cult of Mary".

indeed, and much worse, like the Holy Spirit being a created being, and Jesus Christ and the Father are not essentially one!
 

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2020
15,223
6,248
113
Netanya or Pensacola
Faith
Christian
Country
Israel
indeed, and much worse, like the Holy Spirit being a created being, and Jesus Christ and the Father are not essentially one!

There are a few really bad "theologians", other then John Calvin and Origen.
A more recent rat added to that nest, would be EW Bullinger.
This one has trapped many.
This guy teaches that there were 4 Crosses and that the Born again do not have the Spirit of God in them.

The Pentecostals and Charismatics on the forum who are related to K. Hagan, K. Copeland, Oral Roberts, and similar, dont realize that EW Kenyon birthed their Theology.
HE was a British preacher.
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,795
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Simply put, the Father is YAHWEH; Jesus Christ is YAHWEH, the Holy Spirit is YAHWEH. In the Godhead the Three distinct Persons are COEQUAL


Jesus said....i have come in My Father's name. Have you ever heard of a commercial enterprise that has something like...Smith and Son?
If you ask for Mr. Smith, they ask you, the father or the son? Although they have the same name they are separate persons.

They get equal billing but the Father is first. The son takes the father's name and not the other way round. The father is greater than the son as the son comes out of the father. From there things go by merit.

Co-equal in this case is in nature and character. "Of one substance" goes the creed.

All we have to go on is the scriptures...and they point to a hierarchy with the GodHead. Taking in all the verses leads one to a nuanced view that shows a balance between being equal in nature but the Father being greater.

What is underestimated is the greatness of the Father. A smaller view of God allows for Jesus to be equal to the Most High. A greater view of God allows for both the Lordship of God the Son...AND the greater stature of the Most High.
 
  • Love
Reactions: faithfulness

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,795
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
indeed, and much worse, like the Holy Spirit being a created being, and Jesus Christ and the Father are not essentially one!

The Spirit of God is the extension of God Himself. God is Spirit. Nobody believes the Holy Spirit to be a created being. A part of God is not a separate person. A man's spirit is not another person within them.

Paul compares a man's spirit to God's Spirit. If Paul wanted to show the Holy Spirit as a separate person, he would not have used that comparison.

God IS Spirit. A Spirit doesn't need another person to be Spirit for Him. He is Spirit.

God's Spirit Is the Holy Spirit.

Trying to fit the Bible into a pre-arranged logic invented by men takes away the openness to the mystery that is required for a proper understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: faithfulness

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,623
2,337
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is no such thing as "Subordinationism of the Orthodox kind", within the Godhead, it is heretical. Jesus being "subordinate" to the Father is functional, and relates only to His Post Incarnate Life, which fully ends at His Second Coming

Origen was no doubt a heretic, and his theology paved the way for Arianism, and the other anti Trinitarian teachers. Sadly there were some "Orthodox" who also were deceived by the theology of Origen.

Jesus says that the Father is "greater" than Himself, in John 14:28; and yet in 5:23, says that "all should HONOUR Him as they HONOUR the Father", which shows that there cannot be any "Subordinationism", between the Persons in the Godhead as GOD

I don't think you can win that argument. When Jesus said that the Father was greater than himself, that is Subordinationism of the orthodox kind. Orthodoxy recognizes the deity of both the Father and the Son. Nevertheless, Jesus, the Son, said that the Father was greater than himself, and that he was subject to the Father, doing only what he saw the Father doing. That is Subordinationism of the orthodox kind.

The Greek philosophers had a problem viewing infinite realities through a finite lens. But that is no problem in Christian revelation. We see in Christ the infinite Father. Jesus said that those who saw him also saw the Father. We see his deity when we see Jesus by faith. By faith we receive that revelation from God the Father.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Episkopos

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I don't think you can win that argument. When Jesus said that the Father was greater than himself, that is Subordinationism of the orthodox kind. Orthodoxy recognizes the deity of both the Father and the Son. Nevertheless, Jesus, the Son, said that the Father was greater than himself, and that he was subject to the Father, doing only what he saw the Father doing. That is Subordinationism of the orthodox kind.

The Greek philosophers had a problem viewing infinite realities through a finite lens. But that is no problem in Christian revelation. We see in Christ the infinite Father. Jesus said that those who saw him also saw the Father. We see his deity when we see Jesus by faith. By faith we receive that revelation from God the Father.

If the Father is "greater" than Jesus Christ in the Eternal Godhead, then there is no way that Jesus can be called in the Bible by "Yahweh", and "Elohim", and "Theos", etc, which are all in the SAME EQUAL sense as the Father is.

Your reasoning is theological and not founded on what the Bible says.

The Father says in Hebrews 1:6, to WORSHIP Jesus, which is ONLY meant for Almighty God. In verse 8, again the Father, in direct address to Jesus, says, "Your throne O God (ὁ Θεὸς)", is for ever". In verses 10-12, the Father continues to address Jesus, where He says that Jesus Christ is THE CREATOR of the entire universe. In fact, the Father here is quoting from Psalm 102:25-27, where it is spoken of Elohim, and applies the words to Jesus Christ!

John 17:5; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:9, are very clear, that Jesus' "subordination" to the Father, is ONLY post Incarnation, because as Jesus says of Himself, that He came as "The Servant".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johann

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,623
2,337
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If the Father is "greater" than Jesus Christ in the Eternal Godhead, then there is no way that Jesus can be called in the Bible by "Yahweh", and "Elohim", and "Theos", etc, which are all in the SAME EQUAL sense as the Father is.

You just exhibited your own problem, which is your adding the words "in the Eternal Godhead." Nobody is saying that Deity itself is greater than or less than! It is the *revelation* of that Deity that is less than God's infinite existence. God exists above and beyond any revelation that we can perceive of Him!

And yet the revelation of Himself that He gave to us in Jesus Christ is of a man. It is a revelation of God in human form, which is necessarily less than God's revelation as a Being who fills the universe!

So adding the words "in the Eternal Godhead" is not what I was describing at all. God is the Being who fills the universe whether He reveals Himself as the Father or as the human Son. But confining His revelation to the Son requires imposing limitations on the *revelation.*
 

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
And here I fully concur, Jesus Christ YHVH, the Father, YHVH, the Holy Spirit, YHVH, echad, not yachid.
J.

’e·ḥāḏ does not always have the meaing of "compound unity", and can denote "singleness". This is clear from Ecclesiastes 4:8, "yëš ´eHäd wü´ên šënî", which is literally, "there is one and no second", where it means "alone".
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,869
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
’e·ḥāḏ does not always have the meaing of "compound unity", and can denote "singleness". This is clear from Ecclesiastes 4:8, "yëš ´eHäd wü´ên šënî", which is literally, "there is one and no second", where it means "alone".
yesh 'e·Chad ve·'Ein she·N gam ben va·'Ach 'ein lo .....

There is one alone, and there is not a second,.... According to Aben Ezra, either no friend or companion, or no servant, or no wife, which last sense he prefers; no friend or companion he chooses, because friendship and fellowship lead to expenses; and no servant who would be chargeable to him; and no wife, which would be more expensive, and bring on a family of children; wherefore, to save charges, he chooses to have neither of these; for this is a covetous man who is here desert bed;
Does echad mean numerical one? What then of yachid?
In the scripture posted does it say man is all alone? If so, the yachid would be the proper preposition.
J.
 

ByGraceThroughFaith

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2021
2,870
852
113
Dudley
trinitystudies.org
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
yesh 'e·Chad ve·'Ein she·N gam ben va·'Ach 'ein lo .....

There is one alone, and there is not a second,.... According to Aben Ezra, either no friend or companion, or no servant, or no wife, which last sense he prefers; no friend or companion he chooses, because friendship and fellowship lead to expenses; and no servant who would be chargeable to him; and no wife, which would be more expensive, and bring on a family of children; wherefore, to save charges, he chooses to have neither of these; for this is a covetous man who is here desert bed;
Does echad mean numerical one? What then of yachid?
In the scripture posted does it say man is all alone? If so, the yachid would be the proper preposition.
J.

In Joshua 12, we have ’e·ḥāḏ used when it means "one and no more"

Jos 12:9 the king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one;
Jos 12:10 the king of Jerusalem, one; the king of Hebron, one;
Jos 12:11 the king of Jarmuth, one; the king of Lachish, one;
Jos 12:12 the king of Eglon, one; the king of Gezer, one;
Jos 12:13 the king of Debir, one; the king of Geder, one;
Jos 12:14 the king of Hormah, one; the king of Arad, one;
Jos 12:15 the king of Libnah, one; the king of Adullam, one;
Jos 12:16 the king of Makkedah, one; the king of Bethel, one;
Jos 12:17 the king of Tappuah, one; the king of Hepher, one;
Jos 12:18 the king of Aphek, one; the king of Lasharon, one;
Jos 12:19 the king of Madon, one; the king of Hazor, one;
Jos 12:20 the king of Shimron-meron, one; the king of Achshaph, one;
Jos 12:21 the king of Taanach, one; the king of Megiddo, one;
Jos 12:22 the king of Kedesh, one; the king of Jokneam in Carmel, one;
Jos 12:23 the king of Dor in Naphath-dor, one; the king of Goiim in Galilee, one;
Jos 12:24 the king of Tirzah, one: in all, thirty-one kings.

Hebrew is not as precise as Greek is, which is why the Lord chose Greek for the New Testament. Take, for example John 10:30, "ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν", which is literally, "I and the Father We two are one thing". Had Jesus said, "ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ εἷς ἐσμεν", He would mean, "I and the Father we two are one Person". The precise language is against those who deny the Deity of Jesus Christ, and those who deny the distinction of Persons.

How would this read in Hebrew, as there is no neuter for "one"?
 

Johann

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2022
8,588
4,869
113
63
Durban South Africa
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
In Joshua 12, we have ’e·ḥāḏ used when it means "one and no more"

Jos 12:9 the king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one;
Jos 12:10 the king of Jerusalem, one; the king of Hebron, one;
Jos 12:11 the king of Jarmuth, one; the king of Lachish, one;
Jos 12:12 the king of Eglon, one; the king of Gezer, one;
Jos 12:13 the king of Debir, one; the king of Geder, one;
Jos 12:14 the king of Hormah, one; the king of Arad, one;
Jos 12:15 the king of Libnah, one; the king of Adullam, one;
Jos 12:16 the king of Makkedah, one; the king of Bethel, one;
Jos 12:17 the king of Tappuah, one; the king of Hepher, one;
Jos 12:18 the king of Aphek, one; the king of Lasharon, one;
Jos 12:19 the king of Madon, one; the king of Hazor, one;
Jos 12:20 the king of Shimron-meron, one; the king of Achshaph, one;
Jos 12:21 the king of Taanach, one; the king of Megiddo, one;
Jos 12:22 the king of Kedesh, one; the king of Jokneam in Carmel, one;
Jos 12:23 the king of Dor in Naphath-dor, one; the king of Goiim in Galilee, one;
Jos 12:24 the king of Tirzah, one: in all, thirty-one kings.

Hebrew is not as precise as Greek is, which is why the Lord chose Greek for the New Testament. Take, for example John 10:30, "ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν", which is literally, "I and the Father We two are one thing". Had Jesus said, "ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ εἷς ἐσμεν", He would mean, "I and the Father we two are one Person". The precise language is against those who deny the Deity of Jesus Christ, and those who deny the distinction of Persons.

How would this read in Hebrew, as there is no neuter for "one"?
Joh 10:30 I and HaAv (WE ARE) are echad. [DEVARIM 6:4; TEHILLIM 33:6; BERESHIS 2:24]
OJB


One (ἕν)
The neuter, not the masculine εἶς, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power.
Vincent
Check this out for yourself...

εσμεν

Part of Speech: Verb
Tense: Present
Voice: Active
Mood: Indicative
Person: first [we]
Number: Plural
Thanks for your contribution, I really appreciate it.

Which reminds me, in John 1:1 we have...


Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]
Joh 1:2 Bereshis (in the Beginning) this Dvar Hashem was with Hashem [Prov 8:30].
OJB

Joh 1:1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

Very small proposition, packed with meaning
J.