Theological Confirmation of the Early Church Godhead The theologians understand that the doctrines of the early Church were subordinationist Unitarian. They assume, quite incorrectly, that this was an inferior understanding to that reached in the fourth century at Nicaea and Constantinople. As we see from the following comments, the views both acknowledge the early doctrines and seek to assert a superiority from the later Councils. As was noted in the paper The Soul (No. 92), Anders Nygren (Agape and Eros, Tr. by Philip S. Watson, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1969) mentions the sharp distinction made by Justin Martyr between God and the manifestation of the Logos: The Logos is in a way divine but not in the strictest sense of the word... The Father alone is unbegotten and incorruptible and therefore God. He is the Maker and Father of all things. (Dial. lvi. 1.) He did not come to us; He remains always above the heavens and never reveals Himself to anyone and has dealings with no one. (Dial. v. 4.) In relation to Him, Christ is of lower rank, a *,bJ,D@H 2,`H, [deuteros theos] another God than He who created all things. (Dial. lvi. 1.) Nygren says of this: This subordinationist trait in the Christology of the Apologists is undoubtedly to be attributed to the Greek idea of God. (p. 280) Nygren is wrong in this matter as can be seen from an examination of the Old and New Testament schema outlined above. Justin Martyr is closer than he; however, the distinction and acts of creation are relative to the Logos, and this position is not understood by either. Nygren judges Loofs to be correct when he says of the Apologists: Their Logos doctrine is not a higher Christology than usual, but is rather on a lower level than the genuinely Christian estimate of Christ. It is not God who reveals Himself in Christ, but the Logos the reduced (depotenzierte) God, a God who as God is subordinate to the highest God. (Loofs Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeshichte, 4 Aufl., 1906, p. 129, ibid.) Nygren and Loofs were both wrong in their estimate of what was genuinely Christian. They were trying to reinterpret the Ante-Nicene Christology, which more closely follows the biblical, within the modern concepts which are non-scriptural. The theologians assume that the early Church had it wrong. They even try to assert that the early Christian view was derived from the Greek concept of God when that position was common to antiquity – not only being evident in the Hebrew cosmology, but everywhere. The reality is that the Greek philosophical concepts as developed from Platonism were the driving force behind Trinitarianism and the ancient Soul doctrine found in Gnosticism, and also from Mystery cults (see below and the paper The Soul (No. 92)).
Posted on: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 23:04:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015