Trinitarianism vs. Modalism - pt 3: a good discussion cont’d (Logos)
For those of you who may have been following the discussion between Timothy Davis and myself, this is a response to his response to my response (huh?). His original post is here.
For me, it is easy if I just make one response and to do it in a pointedly fashion, so here it goes:
To ‘Polycarp’ God’s reason has a distinct subsistence from God Himself. God’s reason is with God. In fact, he goes on to say the Logos is both His reason AND the Good News of the Gospel. I respectfully ask, does this really make sense?
I’ll ask Mr. Davis to reread what I actually wrote, which is: The Logos here is the embodiment of the Divine, His very image. Not a separate person. Logos is the thought of God, the reason of God, the plan of God. At no point did I actually conclude that the Logos is a distinct ’subsistence’ from the Father. As a matter of recorded fact, I said that their was NO separation. Further, God’s reason, His plan, His message is Himself. It is the Gospel.
Conveniently when quoting Thayer’s meaning of “logos”, he leaves out the following (assuming my on-line source of Thayer’s is really Thayer!):
3. In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.
(There’s Heraclitus again! We have substantiation of Hippolytus’ claim that this pagan philosopher is probably the origin of Modalism. Oh, but let’s not go into the murky waters of Greek philosophy!)
Mr. Davis is correct that I did not mention the last line of Thayer, however, I was only posting fact, not Thayer’s opinion on how it was used. As far as Hippolytus, I thought that I had previous shown that he was the one who diverged from the doctrine of the tradition of the Church.
In pointing out Thayer’s declaration that ‘Jesus the Messiah‘ is ‘the second person in the Godhead‘, he fails to see that Thayer also praised Heraclitus’s use of logos and thought it ‘well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.’
Here is a quote from Justin Martyr:
“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).
Surely Mr. Davis recognizes Justin Martyr’s help in the creation of the Trinitarian Doctrine. Was this Greek philosopher who professed Christ so far removed from Hippolytus? I have posted excerpts from Hippolytus’ work, Refutation of All Heresies. Considering that Noetus is only known from Hippolytus’ work, we should pay close attention to what is said and the comparisons between Heraclitus and Noetus. A quick reading will reveal that Heraclitus’ ‘heresy’ is one where the ancient Greek philosopher has the logos, that all are one and the same. This pantheism is not modalism. Again, though, Justin Martyr thought highly enough of Heraclitus to make him a Christian before Christ!
Here, against Heraclitus, I find myself in strong agreement with Hippolytus. Amazing!
Logos, according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, has been used throughout the history of Greek philosophy, but then again, since the New Testament was written in Greek, it will not be uncommon to find shared terms.
Allow me to state here that during 2nd Temple Judaism logos was used in different contexts, and since John didn’t write in a vacuum for only himself, it is proper to explore which logos concept he used. Philo or another? What Mr. Davis should look at is the Septuagint use of the word Logos, which I tried to point him to in a previous post.
I believe that the closest conceptual parallels to John’s use of Logos can be found in the wisdom literature of the Jews. (Including Sirach and the Book of Wisdom - especially the Book of Wisdom) In these books we see Wisdom personified. We see this reflected in Paul’s writings when he calls Christ the Wisdom and power of God. What should be noticed is that John’s prologue is centered around the action of the Logos, not the being. Can we rightly place so much theology on John’s use of logos when John didn’t? As a matter of fact, this prologue is one of the very few instances in the New Testament were logos has any theological implications. It is used 331 times in the Greek NT, but only in Johannine Literature (Gospel, 1st John, and the Apocalypse) does it carry, or seem to carry, deep theological or at least metaphysical implications.
No where in the Johannine Literature will you ever find that the Logos is subordinate to God. I would venture to say, that John only uses logos as he does in the Prologue, only twice, and that in 1st John 1:1 (Word of Life) and Revelation 19:3 (Word of God).
Simply put, how can God’s wisdom, logos, plan, message, reason, etc… be separated from Him? When God issues the Word in creation, did that Word separate from God and co-exist with him? I think not. Logos is God’s way of disclosure. The logos is God in revelation. It is right to say, as Thomas did (and remember, this too is found in John’s Gospel), that the Logos is God. If we allow philosophy to play a part in our theology, then we err quickly.
Mr. Davis continues,
To get back to Scripture, the Word IS God and WITH God. It does not say, “The Word of God [i.e. the reason of God] was with God in the beginning.” John could have said that, but he didn’t. Why say that the Word WAS God? How does it make sense to say, “God’s reason was God”?
No need to translate logos as the Word of God, Mr. Davis. That throws a false light unto my argument. Reason is the mind, is wisdom. Logos=wisdom.
Following ‘Polycarp’s’ rationale, the logical conclusion is not that God himself became incarnate, but only His reason did. Is this what most Modalists believe? Do they not rather believe that the Father Himself actually indwelt Jesus Christ. That the Father suffered on the Cross?
God’s image, His logos, did become incarnate, therefore God himself became incarnate. John plainly says that Christ, who is God, tabernacles with humanity and again in another place it stands written that he emptied himself to put on the form of a servant. The logos is the Word of God, meaning that He is the very image of God (which does not imply a separation). He is God in action.
Perhaps we should speak about the prologue to the Book of Hebrews.
agapeton
I believe you’re operating under a false premise, which is that Trinitarians posit some sort of separation between the Persons of the Trinity. We don’t. We recognize a distinction, and that distinction is everywhere evident in the NT. When we read of the Father and Son we see a distinction between the two. When we read of God and the Word we see a distinction between the two. But everything that is distinct isn’t necessarily separate.
May I ask if you believe the Logos from John’s prologue to be personal? It seems from your post that you believe the Logos is impersonal, but I admit that I might be misunderstanding you.
Nick Norelli
14 Apr 08 at 2:07 pm
Distinction without separation? Really? There is indeed a distinction between the operations, or modes, of God, but no separation.
So that we can better understand each other, how do you define personal vs. impersonal?
The Logos is God in action. I am not sure how to make a thought or action impersonal.
Polycarp
14 Apr 08 at 3:06 pm
Yes, distinction without separation, as is classically expressed in Trinitarian theology; e.g. Augustine’s
Or the Athanasian Creed’s
This is the foundation of the doctrine of the perichoresis (co-inherence) of the three persons. They all occupy the same “divine space” (so to speak) without being the other.
And in asking about the Logos being “personal” I’m simply trying to understand your view on the Logos “as it relates” to God in John’s prologue. We have a very clear distinction between the Logos and God, and we are told that the Logos has always been with (προς) God (τον θεον). προς with the accusative indicates a close, intimate, personal relationship.
Hope that clears things up.
Nick Norelli
14 Apr 08 at 3:59 pm
But, Nick, Augustine rarely matters for modalists, since he was a trinitarian. If it is not in the Bible, then theological works, no matter their historical value or greatness, has no value for us. What does Peter and Paul say? What did John say? What did Christ say?
I do believe that the Logos was with God, but just as the latter part of that verse says, the Logos was God.
That is the same has saying that I think and my thought is with me and my thought is me. Can I separate myself from my thoughts? From my actions? Surely not.
Polycarp
14 Apr 08 at 4:07 pm
But the problem is that your idea of Trinitarianism is skewed. So what Trinitarians have had to say about the Trinity throughout history, should matter if you want to accurately represent the position you disagree with.
In all honesty, I don’t see this conversation really going anywhere, so I’ll withdraw myself now. Thanks for your time.
Nick Norelli
14 Apr 08 at 4:41 pm
Nick,
I appreciate your comments, but the question is not what Trinitarians have to say about themselves, but the Bible has to say about God.
Polycarp
14 Apr 08 at 4:59 pm
John 1:1-3,14 (cont.)
Joel,
You disagreed with my comment that you believed that “God’s reason has a distinct subsistence from God Himself.” In doing so, you protested that you deliberately said that the Logos was “not a separate person”.
I neither used the word ’separate’, nor did I say you thought that God’s Reason was a Person (otherwise you’d be Trinitarian ;). There is a difference between ‘distinct’ and ’separate’ (as defined in another post).
You say that the Logos is God’s Reason, but the passage states that the Logos was with God, i.e. to be with someone/ something you must be distinct in some sense from them.
Either “with” means absolutely nothing, or the logical conclusion is that God’s Reason does have a distinct subsistence from Himself.
Would you ever say, “Joel’s reason was with Joel”? What was John trying to communicate with saying that “the Word was with God”?
Timothy Davis
27 Apr 08 at 9:14 pm
John was defending the deity of Christ, when he said that the Logos was with God and trying to prevent the Jewish (Philo) misconception that the Logos was somehow subordinate and thus distinct from God.
‘With’ does not mean ‘distinct’ but simply with. My thoughts are with me; my words are with me; my actions are with me. Can any of these be thought to have distinctiveness applied to them?
Granted, in the modern American Judaical system, people tend to think that a criminal act is separate from the person who committed it, but is not a murderer a murderer because he committed murder? Can you separate the actions from the man or the Logos from the Speaker?
Polycarp
28 Apr 08 at 11:34 am
Philo can hardly be termed a normal Jew. Clearly he was heavily influenced by pagan Greek thought. Heretical Jews are hardly John’s concern. As you say, his concern is with promoting the deity of Christ. Christ was the visible Word, or Revelation of the invisible God (1 John :1-4). Yet, He was with God, andwas God.
You are still straining the normal use of words. Does it make sense to say, “Joel’s thoughts were with Joel, and Joel’s thoughts were Joel?”
This is a consequence of assuming that because God is one, that He cannot subsist in Three Persons. The idea of modes is utterly foreign to Scripture.
I warn you in love (however it may offend) that you are “twist[ing these words] to [your] own destruction, as [you] do also the rest of the Scriptures.” (1 Pet. 3:16)
Carefully consider the passages of Scripture that I have set before you. It is better to be rejected by those you know and love for Christ’s sake, and lose face, than to be rejected by Christ in the end because you reject His clear revelation of who He is.
Timothy Davis
28 Apr 08 at 8:44 pm
Again, the Scriptures say that the Word was God. How can God’s thoughts be God?
Also, it says that the Word became flesh. How did God’s thoughts become flesh? As I understand it, your type of Modalist believes that the unipersonal God (not His thoughts) became flesh as the Son (as opposed to the heavenly manifestation of the Father).
Timothy Davis
28 Apr 08 at 8:59 pm
Timothy, I appreciate your concern, but it is the same concern that I share for you, and indeed for a vast majority of my dear loved ones who are Trinitarian.
Polycarp
29 Apr 08 at 11:57 am
I will write a post on my ‘modalism’ for you. Briefly, tho, I believe that God was manifested in the flesh, sending His Logos and in His humanity became the son/sacrifice for our sins. It is not the classic ‘patripassian’ but we still recognize that Christ was God in the flesh and that the flesh was the Son of God.
I was hoping to wait until you had finished posting your views to post mine. If you would rather, I can post my doctrine by the end of the week.
Polycarp
29 Apr 08 at 12:00 pm