Bible writers teach monotheism and identify the Father as the one God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_Parker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As for what ECF’s teach, that is not a good criteria, and here is why. Your Church selects the ECF for what they taught and decides if they should be considered Fathers or not. Therefore you stack the deck with that challenge!
The ECF’s were part of the Church that Jesus Christ himself founded, as proved by Apostolic succession. It’s not like there were a bunch of denominations and Catholics just picked the Christians that agreed w/ their Theology…like Catholicism came later. That is not true as the Catholic Church in the world was established by Christ and the apostles. St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John himself. St. Ignatius was a contemporary of the former and St. Polycarp had Ignatius’ epistles forwarded on to other Churches or another Church. That is historical fact. All of these people, St. Justin, all the ante-Nicene (and all ECF’s) were part of the same organization-which happened to be the Catholic Church. This is before the “Great Schism”, as Catholics acknowledge the Apostolic succession of the Eastern and I believe other Orthodox Churches.
 
The ECF’s were part of the Church that Jesus Christ himself founded, as proved by Apostolic succession. It’s not like there were a bunch of denominations and Catholics just picked the Christians that agreed w/ their Theology…like Catholicism came later. That is not true as the Catholic Church in the world was established by Christ and the apostles. St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John himself. St. Ignatius was a contemporary of the former and St. Polycarp had Ignatius’ epistles forwarded on to other Churches or another Church. That is historical fact. All of these people, St. Justin, all the ante-Nicene (and all ECF’s) were part of the same organization-which happened to be the Catholic Church. This is before the “Great Schism”, as Catholics acknowledge the Apostolic succession of the Eastern and I believe other Orthodox Churches.
That is easy for you to say now, but during the earlier days there was considerable debate about doctrine such as the nature of God and Christ. For centuries the definition of who was orthodox and who was heretic changed back and forth. Athanasius prevailed, then was exiled. Athanasius came back and Arians were subdued… back and forth, forth and back… well you get the picture. At the time Origen lived he was highly respected. Now he is considered less than orthodox for some doctrines. This is all documented in the histories. I suggest you read up on them. Eusebius is a good place to start.
 
Dan,

One of the most vital questions in the Gospels is, “What think you of Christ? Whose son is he?” (Matthew 22:42). Christians have ever replied to that with the unhesitating proclamation of faith, “The Son of the Living God.” But not so with Jehovah’s witnesses.

Witnesses agree that Christ existed before He was born into this world, but say that He was himself only a creature - the first creature made by God and used as an instrument for the creation of all else. C.T. Russell tells us that he was “Michael the Archangel”! When, millenniums after his creation, this creature became man, his nature was completely changed from angelic and spiritual to material and human. “In obedience to God, he gave up his spiritual being and was born of Mary as a wholly human being.” Apparently that was the end of Michael the Archangel, a fact St. John unfortunately forgot when writing his Apocalypse, for he has Michael still existing side by side with the Christ into whom Russell declared him to have been transformed!

But, let us go on. When Christ died on the Cross, according to Witnesses, he was merely a man, and his death was the end of him; completely and absolutely the end. But a “spirit-being” emerged from the tomb, to be come “a” god, not “the” God; which apparently was better that being Michael the Archangel who had existed in the first place.

This doctrine that Christ was three consecutive and independent beings, Michael the Archangel, the man Jesus, and the semi-divine king of the new world, is certainly not Christian doctrine, whatever else it may be. Most intelligent people will rightly estimate it as fantastic nonsense.

And what becomes of the basic fact in the Christian religion - the resurrection of Christ? “If Christ be not risen,” says St. Paul, “then your faith is in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:17). The Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that he is risen. “The man Christ,” you say, “is dead forever.” “The Person who died,” Russell tells us, “remained dead, and he will never be seen again in his human nature.” What became of his body? Russell says no one knows. He suggests that possibly it was dissolved into gases, OR supernaturally removed by God to be preserved until He chooses to produced it as a grand memorial or trophy of Christ’s work. But it will be only a material corpse.

But we are told not to worry. If Christ is not risen in the long accepted Christian sense of the word, he was raised a “spirit being,” receiving immortality and divinity as a gift from God. It is all very baffling. If the “person who died remained dead,” who was the person receiving immortality and divinity? If God created a new being to enjoy those privileges, then that new being wasn’t Christ but somebody else! Yet Russel goes on to say that Christ, despite his remaining dead, returned to his disciples after the resurrection in separate “body-appearnces” specially created for each occasion!

At the ascension Russell tells us that Jesus, no longer human was exalted as a “sprit-being” to the divine nature; and that he remains an invisible spirit, having no longer any connection with our human nature. But if “the person who died remained dead,” Jesus is not merely no longer human - he is no longer in existence! Russell may have been able to think in such queer ways; but had no right to pretend that he was giving his followers anything like the genuine New Testament doctrine.
 
Dan,

One of the most vital questions in the Gospels is, “What think you of Christ? Whose son is he?” (Matthew 22:42). Christians have ever replied to that with the unhesitating proclamation of faith, “The Son of the Living God.” But not so with Jehovah’s witnesses.

Witnesses agree that Christ existed before He was born into this world, but say that He was himself only a creature - the first creature made by God and used as an instrument for the creation of all else. C.T. Russell tells us that he was “Michael the Archangel”! When, millenniums after his creation, this creature became man, his nature was completely changed from angelic and spiritual to material and human. “In obedience to God, he gave up his spiritual being and was born of Mary as a wholly human being.” Apparently that was the end of Michael the Archangel, a fact St. John unfortunately forgot when writing his Apocalypse, for he has Michael still existing side by side with the Christ into whom Russell declared him to have been transformed!

But, let us go on. When Christ died on the Cross, according to Witnesses, he was merely a man, and his death was the end of him; completely and absolutely the end. But a “spirit-being” emerged from the tomb, to be come “a” god, not “the” God; which apparently was better that being Michael the Archangel who had existed in the first place.

This doctrine that Christ was three consecutive and independent beings, Michael the Archangel, the man Jesus, and the semi-divine king of the new world, is certainly not Christian doctrine, whatever else it may be. Most intelligent people will rightly estimate it as fantastic nonsense.

And what becomes of the basic fact in the Christian religion - the resurrection of Christ? “If Christ be not risen,” says St. Paul, “then your faith is in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:17). The Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that he is risen. “The man Christ,” you say, “is dead forever.” “The Person who died,” Russell tells us, “remained dead, and he will never be seen again in his human nature.” What became of his body? Russell says no one knows. He suggests that possibly it was dissolved into gases, OR supernaturally removed by God to be preserved until He chooses to produced it as a grand memorial or trophy of Christ’s work. But it will be only a material corpse.

But we are told not to worry. If Christ is not risen in the long accepted Christian sense of the word, he was raised a “spirit being,” receiving immortality and divinity as a gift from God. It is all very baffling. If the “person who died remained dead,” who was the person receiving immortality and divinity? If God created a new being to enjoy those privileges, then that new being wasn’t Christ but somebody else! Yet Russel goes on to say that Christ, despite his remaining dead, returned to his disciples after the resurrection in separate “body-appearnces” specially created for each occasion!

At the ascension Russell tells us that Jesus, no longer human was exalted as a “sprit-being” to the divine nature; and that he remains an invisible spirit, having no longer any connection with our human nature. But if “the person who died remained dead,” Jesus is not merely no longer human - he is no longer in existence! Russell may have been able to think in such queer ways; but had no right to pretend that he was giving his followers anything like the genuine New Testament doctrine.
Apparently you have a problem understanding how Christ could be the same person before and after his resurrection without his body. Back up a moment and ask yourself what was Christ like before he became flesh? He asked to be glorified with the glory he had in the presence of the Father (John 17:5) before the world began. He did not have a human body then. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that he got what he prayed for.
 
Apparently you have a problem understanding how Christ could be the same person before and after his resurrection without his body. Back up a moment and ask yourself what was Christ like before he became flesh? He asked to be glorified with the glory he had in the presence of the Father (John 17:5) before the world began. He did not have a human body then. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that he got what he prayed for.
Please, Dan, back up a moment. Jesus could not have been, nor was He ever, Michael the Archangel.

I suggest you really re-read my previous post and think it through. It completely and succinctly refutes the JW position.
 
Please, Dan, back up a moment. Jesus could not have been, nor was He ever, Michael the Archangel.

I suggest you really re-read my previous post and think it through. It completely and succinctly refutes the JW position.
I have read it. This is not a JW position, see my list of scholars like John Calvin and the editors of the Geneva bible for examples.
 
Dan,

Did Calvin believe Christ was God? Yes, just the same as Saints Justin, Ignatius, John, etc.

regarding innovations:

"Vincent of Lerins…
Code:
Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned...(Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434])" [catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1051](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1051) ([re-]accessed 9/04/09.)
If anyone wants to see what the earliest ECF’s taught on the Divinity of Christ, there are a few references and explanations in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and scroll down until they reach “Witness of Tradition…(a) THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH…” Here one can find citations from St. Clement, St. Ignatius, The Letter of Barnabas, St. Justin Martyr, “Deutero-Clement”, and St. Clement of Alexandria.

Also relevant from this entry is the following:

“As the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are very scant, and not at all apologetic but rather devotional and exhortive, we should not look in them for that clear and plain defence of the Divinity of Christ which is evidenced in the writings of the apologists and later Fathers.” (accessed 9/ 04/ 09)

newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

Dan, I have read the first part of Eusebius’ History of the Church. It is a good read and influenced my decision to move away from Protestantism
 
Dan,

Did Calvin believe Christ was God? Yes, just the same as Saints Justin, Ignatius, John, etc.

regarding innovations:

"Vincent of Lerins…
Code:
Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned...(Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434])" [catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1051](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1051) ([re-]accessed 9/04/09.)
If anyone wants to see what the earliest ECF’s taught on the Divinity of Christ, there are a few references and explanations in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and scroll down until they reach “Witness of Tradition…(a) THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH…” Here one can find citations from St. Clement, St. Ignatius, The Letter of Barnabas, St. Justin Martyr, “Deutero-Clement”, and St. Clement of Alexandria.

Also relevant from this entry is the following:

“As the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are very scant, and not at all apologetic but rather devotional and exhortive, we should not look in them for that clear and plain defence of the Divinity of Christ which is evidenced in the writings of the apologists and later Fathers.” (accessed 9/ 04/ 09)

newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

Dan, I have read the first part of Eusebius’ History of the Church. It is a good read and influenced my decision to move away from Protestantism
I am not sure why you are addressing this to me. Are you responding to something I wrote?
 
Dan,

Did Calvin believe Christ was God? Yes, just the same as Saints Justin, Ignatius, John, etc.

regarding innovations:

"Vincent of Lerins…
Code:
Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned...(Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434])" [catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1051](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1051) ([re-]accessed 9/04/09.)
If anyone wants to see what the earliest ECF’s taught on the Divinity of Christ, there are a few references and explanations in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and scroll down until they reach “Witness of Tradition…(a) THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH…” Here one can find citations from St. Clement, St. Ignatius, The Letter of Barnabas, St. Justin Martyr, “Deutero-Clement”, and St. Clement of Alexandria.

Also relevant from this entry is the following:

“As the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are very scant, and not at all apologetic but rather devotional and exhortive, we should not look in them for that clear and plain defence of the Divinity of Christ which is evidenced in the writings of the apologists and later Fathers.” (accessed 9/ 04/ 09)

newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

Dan, I have read the first part of Eusebius’ History of the Church. It is a good read and influenced my decision to move away from Protestantism
You may be interested in Melito who is considered a Saint and who he identified as archangel 🙂
 
see my list of scholars like John Calvin and the editors of the Geneva bible for examples.
also, I was referring to the innovations of JW theology, how they can be refuted according to Vincent.
 
Dan,

Do you really believe that St. Melito shared your Christology?
 
Dan,

Do you really believe that St. Melito shared your Christology?
No, I have already stated that I don’t claim those who identify Christ as the Archangel believe he was a created angel and in fact am not dogmatic about it. However I was very excited to find this reference.

How about Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E.:
Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had and old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. II, p. 224.

Is Clement one of your guys too?
 
How about Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E.:
Code:
Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had and old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. II, p. 224.
Is Clement one of your guys too?
Why yes he is…you will see him in the list cited above by the Catholic Encyclopedia referenced as 1 of those who taught the Divinity of Christ (in the Catholic sense)
Do you really think St. Clement means that Christ was an angel in the sense that you do?

If JW’s twist the Scriptures, should Catholics be surprised if one day they attempt to twist the writings of the ECF’s?
 
Why yes he is…you will see him in the list cited above by the Catholic Encyclopedia referenced as 1 of those who taught the Divinity of Christ (in the Catholic sense)
Do you really think St. Clement means that Christ was an angel in the sense that you do?

If JW’s twist the Scriptures, should Catholics be surprised if one day they attempt to twist the writings of the ECF’s?
No, I am not saying that, but it seems that you WANT me to say that. But I don’t believe it. I do see that the closer one gets back to the first century, the more frequently the theologians admit to the Son being an angel, Archangel, not the Creator, etc. That is exactly what I would predict.
 
In regards to Melito, if you think he is saying that the Son of God is an archangel and just an archangel (i.e. if you think Melito denies that Christ is God), I don’t think that you are correct. We already know that ECF’s refer to Him as an Angel and as God.

here is the whole passage from your source:

“The Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged as the perfect Reason, the Word of God; who was begotten before the light; who was Creator with the Father; who was the Fashioner of man; who was all things in all; Patriarch among the patriarchs, Law in the law, Chief Priest among the priests, King among the kings, Prophet among the prophets, Archangel among the angels; He piloted Noah, conducted Abraham, was bound with Isaac, exiled with Jacob, was Captain with Moses; He foretold his own sufferings in David and the prophets; He was incarnate in the Virgin; worshipped by the Magi; He healed the lame, gave sight to the blind, was rejected by the people, condemned by Pilate, hanged upon the tree, buried in the earth, rose from the dead and appeared to the apostles, ascended to heaven; He is the Rest of the departed, the Recoverer of the lost, the Light of the blind, the Refuge of the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the Charioteer of the cherubim, the Captain of angels; God who is of God, the Son of the Father, the King for ever and ever.” (Emphasis mine.) (ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xix.html)
(accessed 9/ 05/ 09)

So let me try and make myself clear;

do I agree that some ECF’s refer to Christ as angel? Yes! Does that mean that they think He is also not God? No, for we have clear statements by those same writers (at least in the cases of St. Justin and St. Melito) that the do indeed confess him to be God. So when Melito uses language like “…Priest among the priests, King among the kings, Prophet among the prophets…”, it’s not all that shocking to see him say, “…Archangel among the angels…the Charioteer of the cherubim, the Captain of angels…” We also have in this same passage his confession that Christ is also, “…God who is of God, the Son of the Father, the King for ever and ever.” (That kind of has a Nicaean ring to it, “God who is of God”, is it “True God from True God”, I think?)
 
LionHeart:
In regards to Melito, if you think he is saying that the Son of God is an archangel and just an archangel (i.e. if you think Melito denies that Christ is God), I don’t think that you are correct. We already know that ECF’s refer to Him as an Angel and as God.

Dan:
Each time I think I am being crystal clear to you that I don’t equate the belief that Jesus is Michael or Archangel with the belief that he is not God or that he is created you surprise me! I don’t make that point, never have, never will. But remember the criticism I have gotten on this board is ONLY about our identification of Christ with Michael. I did not bring it up.

So if you just agree that it is plausible that Jesus is Michael but that this does not mean that he is not God or that he was created, perhaps we can put this thread to rest. After all I am not dogmatic on the subject, and in light of the fact that Saint Melito thought he was Archangel, how can you be dogmatic?
 
Dan,

I apologize I think I see what you are saying. yes I did bring up, and you are correct in saying criticize, JW belief about Michael and Jesus. I personally, wouldn’t say that nor do I believe that the CC teaches this (as I believe that you mentioned.) So I did learn something there, yes that Calvin and others though it possible.
No, I am not saying that, but it seems that you WANT me to say that. But I don’t believe it. I do see that the closer one gets back to the first century, the more frequently the theologians admit to the Son being an angel, Archangel, not the Creator, etc. That is exactly what I would predict.
Dan, forgive my defensiveness I wasn’t playing close attention and my emotions came in, I’m sorry. I see what you are saying and I would like to make a couple of points.
  1. I do see, at least those ECF’s, you and I discussed, referring to the Son as angel and/or Archangel, but, and I think you may agree, the same ECF’s we have been discussing confess that Christ is God.
  2. I think that if you haven’t studied Trinitarian Theology, you should look at it a little more as I believe that it accounts for some of the things we have been discussing in this thread. I definitely need to do some more studying on the Trinity. One example, I think I remember reading in either Waalvord/Zuck’s or Grudem’s (both Protestant) Systematic Theology is that the Trinity is involved in creation. For example, I believe I read that the Father is like the mind behind it so to speak, whereas the Son brings forth the Will of the Father. I’m not sure where the Holy Spirit fits in there, or whether this is orthodox, or even if it is a correct paraphrase of what I read from my source; it may or may not be orthodox and/or a correct paraphrase.
Anyway, w/ this in mind, I believe that such an idea would account for some of the things that we have been reading about who was the Creator. Think about it like this…God is One. God is a Trinity (I know you disagree.) Therefore in a sense, I believe that as each Person in the Godhead plays a role in creation…perhaps each can validly be said to have been the Creator. So, I think that maybe this is how to understand things like “…who was Creator with the Father…” ((ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xix.html)
(accessed 9/ 05/ 09)), that we read in Melito. Or, how I believe that we saw how Justin said that it was the Father who was the Creator. But the Bible, and other ECF’s say that it was the Son. Maybe I am wrong, if that is not Catholic teaching. but that brings me to point 3

--------regarding your quote above, i believe that there is Patristic and Biblical evidence that it was the Son of God who was the Creator, so I can’t totally agree w/ your above quote. I will search for some of this evidence. If you want to close that’s o.k., I don’t think that our debate here is bringing out the best in me.

If I have falsely accused you I apologize. If I have been unkind, I also apologize.

Nick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top