Virgin Birth - Original Sin (Christ)

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for your reply. You have no problem thinking of time infinately extending into the future, why not into the past? Perhaps time is a line that is actually a circle. And what of space, which is related to time. If we go one direction and travel an infinte distance, could we not reverse direction and go an infinite distance the other way? Or would we reach a sort of wall which is the limit of space? But then if we think of space way out there as where there is nothing, then when we reach the outer limit it would seem there would be no limit to the nothing beyond. Perhaps time is like space. (Circuit breker trips in head due to overload)

[Paidion]

If we go one direction and travel an infinite distance, could we not reverse direction and go an infinite distance the other way?

First of all, it is beyond any human experience to go ANY "distance" into the past. If we could, we would meet all sorts of inconsistencies. For example, suppose you went 1 hour into the past. Would there be another "you" that you would meet there? Or would you actually be yourself, but an hour younger? If the latter, then suppose you chose not to shoot the grouse you shot an hour ago and are presently frying. Would the grouse disappear from your frying pan when you arrived at the present? Would your frying of the grouse not really have happened?

As I see it, "time" is not some kind of entity that can move forward or backward like a movie reel. Time is but a measurement of events as they take place, and events, after they take place, are considered to be "past" events. For the eternalist, past, present, and future are but subjective concepts and have no objective reality. For them, someone who is "outside time" or "dwelling in eternity" knows nothing about what is happening NOW, because for them there is no NOW.

[Paidion]

Thanks for your reply. You have no problem thinking of time infinately extending into the future, why not into the past? Perhaps time is a line that is actually a circle. And what of space, which is related to time. If we go one direction and travel an infinte distance, could we not reverse direction and go an infinite distance the other way?

As I thought more about it, Homer, I don't think you had time travel in mind when you made this statement. I think you are simply asking that if time has no end, then why not conceive of it having no beginning as well. For me, the problem with that concept is that we have God existing for an infinite length of time in the past doing nothing. Millions, billions, trillions, jillions of years before He begets His Son or creates anything. Why did He decide to create the Universe at that particular time? Why not much earlier. Of course, no matter how much earlier He created it, there would be an infinite amount of time previous to that. So the problem still remains. When I held the view of time extending infinitely into both past and present (sempiternalism), I supposed that during that infinite past time, God was THINKING or PLANNING creation. But surely it wouldn't have taken Him an infinite period to plan a finine universe.

Just a few more words concerning my view of God and the beginning of time. I stated in a previous post, "I have no answer except to say that God's first act of begetting His Son, initiated the roll of time. But then, the question of course is, 'How was God able to act to initiate His first act, unless He were outside of time?' " I just want to say that the only thing certain here is God's first act, the begetting of the Son. Now sometimes when one act is performed another necessarily accompanies it, logically. For example, if I draw an equilateral triangle, I have also drawn a equi-angular triangle. So it seems that in begetting His Son, God also necessarily started the roll of time. But it all happened simultaneously. There was no time prior to that initial act of God. There was never a time at which God did not exist. There was never a time at which the Son did not exist. It is not the case that God "came into existence" since that implies there was a time when He didn't exist. Nor was there a time at which the Son did not exist.

I find the statement I quoted in a previous post really profound! "The Father preceded the Son causally, but not temporally." For me that comes as close to an explanation of my position as could be expressed.

[BrotherAlan]

Greetings,
The use of the word "before" in the phrase "before time began" makes sense if we consider that this phrase is not to be understood as implying that there was any time, in reality, before the first moment of time; but, rather, this phrase points to such a "time" as it exists in our imagination. For, when we say that time has being after non-being, we mean to imply that there was no part of time before the very first moment when creation began to exist. We also speak this way when we say that something is "above the heavens" (as in Heb. 7:26, where Christ is said to be exalted "above the heavens"). It is not that there is any place above the highest heavens in reality; but, rather, such a place is posited to/in our imagination.

As far as the early Church's belief in the Trinity....Again, many texts could be brought forward to show that the belief in the Trinity was present in the early Church. But, perhaps the clearest evidence is that of the early prayers in the liturgy of the Church. For example, there is the ancient doxology (from the 2nd century, but still prayed by many Christians today) of, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen." Belief in the Trinity is even more evident in the following prayer (also from the 2nd century Church and still prayed by many Christians today):
"Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth to men of good will. We praise You. We bless You. We adore You. We glorify You. We give You thanks for Your great glory. Lord God, heavenly king, God the Father Almighty. Lord Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father. You Who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. You Who take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. You Who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For You alone are the holy One. You alone are the Lord. You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ. With the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen."

Thus, in the Church's prayer -- which is expressive of the Church's Faith-- is affirmed the existence of one single God (Who is a real existing, subsisting Being; God is not a "universal essence"-- as, say, "humanity" is a "universal essence"-- lacking any real existence in itself; rather, He is one real, existing, subsisting Being); also affirmed is the belief that there are Three Persons-- each divine, each distinct-- existing in this One God. Not a contradiction opposed to our reason.....but a mystery transcending our reason (the mystery of the Trinity....which is, simply, the foundation of the Christian Faith).

Now, to address again that other fundamental Christian believe, the Incarnation of Christ (something appropriate to speak of just a few days after March 25-- that day, 9 months before Christmas, in which many Christians celebrate the Incarnation of Christ in the womb of Mary, that woman whom Scripture says was a humble virgin, and who trustingly consented to become mother of our Savior). Again, a key distinction that we need to keep in mind is that of the two distinct natures that truly do exist in the single Person of Christ (i.e., a human nature and a divine nature). Christ really is a Man (no Christian can deny that), and His human nature is a created, finite, limited nature (that human nature is not identical to His divine nature). But, this human nature of His is hypostatically united to His divine nature; that is, the two natures are joined to each other in one and the same Divine Person. If we say that Christ, as Man, has the same identity as the Son of God, then we also must affirm that there is only one Person involved here (as was even stated in one of the responses of Paidion), not two persons. Further, this means that there are not two "hypostases" (i.e., subjects of action) in Christ, but only one subject of action in Christ (so that, when Christ, as Man, acted, it was the Son of God acting through the human nature that He assumed). So, there is one hypostasis, one subject of action, one Person (the the divine Person of the Son of God, Who took to Himself a human nature). This, again, is a great mystery transcending all rational thought (but, again, nothing that contradicts our reasoning)...and, so, it requires the assent of faith.


The nature, meaning, and significance of this mystery of the Incarnation is well-summarized in the following excerpt from a letter from a 5th-century pastor of the Church:

"Lowliness is assured by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity. To pay the debt of our sinful state, a nature that is incapable of suffering was joined to one that could suffer. Thus, in keeping with the healing that we needed, one and the same mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, was able to die in one nature, and unable to die in the other.

He who is true God was therefore born in the complete and perfect nature of true man, whole in his own nature, whole in ours. By our nature we mean what the Creator had fashioned in us from the beginning, and took to himself in order to restore it.

For in the Savior there was no trace of what the deceiver introduced and man, being misled, allowed to enter. It does not follow that because he submitted to sharing in our human weakness he therefore shared in our sins.

He took the nature of a servant without stain of sin, enlarging our humanity without diminishing his divinity. He emptied himself; though invisible he made himself visible, though Creator and Lord of all things he chose to be one of us mortal men. Yet this was the condescension of compassion, not the loss of omnipotence. So he who in the nature of God had created man, became the nature of a servant, man himself.

Thus the Son of God enters this lowly world. He comes down from the throne of heaven, yet does not separate himself from the Father's glory. He is born in a new condition, by a new birth.

He was born in a new condition, for, invisible in his own nature, he became visible in ours. Beyond our grasp, he chose to come within our grasp. Existing before time began, he began to exist at a moment in time. Lord of the universe, he hid his infinite glory and took the nature of a servant. Incapable of suffering as God, he did not refuse to be a man, capable of suffering. Immortal, he chose to be subject to the laws of death.

He who is true God is also true man. There is no falsehood in this unity as long as the lowliness of man and the preeminence of God coexist in mutual relationship.

As God does not change by his condescension, so man is not swallowed up by being exalted. Each nature exercises its own activity, in communion with the other. The Word does what is proper to the Word, the flesh fulfills what is proper to the flesh.

One nature is resplendent with miracles, the other falls victim to injuries. As the Word does not lose equality with the Father's glory, so the flesh does not leave behind the nature of our race.

One and the same person-- this must be said over and over again-- is truly the Son of God and truly the son of man. He is God in virtue of the fact that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." He is man in virtue of the fact that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." (Letter from Pope Leo the Great, bishop of Rome (440-461) to Flavian)

In Christ the Incarnate Lord,
Brother Alan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)

[TK]

Paidion wrote:

Of course, no matter how much earlier He created it, there would be an infinite amount of time previous to that. So the problem still remains.

I have about this a lot in the past-- the idea that if God existed infinitely in the past that he could never get to the point in time when he created anything, because he would always have "more ground to cover" before getting to that point in time.

This is probably akin to Xeno's paradox, and there may be a solution to it; I am just not sure what it is.

TK

[Homer]

Hi TK,

You wrote:

I have about this a lot in the past-- the idea that if God existed infinitely in the past that he could never get to the point in time when he created anything, because he would always have "more ground to cover" before getting to that point in time.

If God did not exist infinitely in the past, then He, at some point, "began"? If He is, as has been said, "the first great cause", then nothing was before Him, and He came from nowhere, but rather always was, a timeless being. But He was never "alone", in that there was Father, Word, and Spirit and thus always both unity and diversity in the Godhead, as Francis Schaeffer wrote.

[Paidion]

If God did not exist infinitely in the past, then He, at some point, "began"?

Hi Homer,
Apparently you still feel that the statements:
(A) Time had a beginning and there was no "before" and
(B) God did not have a beginning

cannot both be true.

Let's first consider what it means to have a beginning. When we say "Homer had a beginning at time T", we are saying in essence that there was a time prior to T at which Homer did not exist. So it is with any person, object, or substance which had a beginning. Now let's assume that time had a beginning. Let's call that point in time "B". Clearly it is logically impossible for there to have been a time prior to B at which God did not exist simply because there was no time prior to B. Thus God did not have a beginning, and thus the two statements (A) and (B) are consistent. Similarly, because God begat His Son precisely at B, and there was no time prior to B, then the Son of God did not have a beginning either. Thus the Father and the Son have always existed ---- that is right from the beginning of time. There was no time prior to B in which They could exist!

Note: In saying "Time had a beginning", we are not using "having a beginning" in the sense we defined it for all other things which have a beginning. We are simply saying that there was a time B before which no time existed.

[Paidion]

there is the ancient doxology (from the 2nd century, but still prayed by many Christians today) of, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

Brother Allen, would you please give your source for this doxology. I have never encountered such a doxology in my study of second century documents.

On the other hand, we find a different understanding of the Holy Spirit in Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho". This work was clearly written in the second century (probably in the first half of the century since Justin was born in 110 and died in 165). Belief in a Trinity implies a belief in the Holy Spirit as a third Divine Individual. In their discussion both Justin and Trypho (a Jewish man), spoke frequently of the Holy Spirit. Clearly Trypho didn't think of the Holy Spirit as a third Divine Person. For, as a Jew, he believed there was a single Divine Individual and no Others.

Now Justin asked Trypho a question which relates very closely our current discussion of the Trinity. Here is his question:

"Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called Lord and God in the Scriptures, except the Maker of all, and Christ, who by so many Scriptures was proved to you to have become man?"

Trypho replied, "How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?" [Dialogue with Trypho ch. 68]

Now this would have been a prime moment for Justin to have brought up the matter of the Trinity, had he believed in the concept. But no. This is what Justin said next:

"I must ask you this also, that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinion from that which you admitted some time ago."

I have no firm proof, but I think the second century Christians believed the Holy Spirit was the extended personalities of the Father and of the Son. After all Jesus said that the Father and He would come to His disciples and dwell with them or in them.

[BrotherAlan]

Dear Paidion,
To answer your question about my source for the date of the doxology: my source is a book entitled "De Deo Trino et Creatore" by Garrigou-Lagrange (Marietti edition, 1943; Taurin, Italy; English translation, "The Trinity and God the Creator", published in 1952 by B. Herder Book Co.; St. Louis and London). The relevant page is page 39 (page 58, in the English) where the author states that both of the doxologies that I quoted above (the lower and the greater) date back to the 2nd century. The author references the Church historian, Louis Duchesne, in connection with the greater doxology (the reference to Duchesne is made in support of the claim that the greater doxology goes back to the pontificate of Pope Telesphorus (years: 128-139), for he states that this Pope ordered that this doxology be recited on the feast of Christmas).

Also, one other reference from a 2nd century document which indicates that the 2nd century Church believed in the Trinity is that from the "Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp". Now, Polycarp, an early Church Father and martyr, was a disciple of John the Apostle and a friend of Ignatius of Antioch. In the Acts of his martyrdom, Polycarp is recorded as exclaiming, "Lord God almighty, Father of Thy blessed and beloved Son, Jesus Christ, I bless Thee...I glorify Thee through the heavenly and eternal high priest, Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom there is to Thee with Him and the Holy Spirit glory now and in future ages. Amen." Again, I think this prayer makes it fairly clear that the 2nd century Church believed in the Trinity.

As far as Justin the Philosopher (and Martyr) goes, it his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew", it seems to me that his main focus is to make a persuasive argument for the claim that Christ is Messiah, and God (a difficult enough task when dialoguing with a Jew from the 2nd century....or today, for that matter). Thus, it is not in Justin's interest to spend much time discussing the Holy Spirit in this context (that would likely be taking on too much). Justin, however, does reference the Holy Spirit in others of his works (eg., in his "First Apology").

Also, a few thoughts as a follow-up to these lines from your last post:
"I have no firm proof, but I think the second century Christians believed the Holy Spirit was the extended personalities of the Father and of the Son. After all Jesus said that the Father and He would come to His disciples and dwell with them or in them."

I would agree that the Holy Spirit does come from both the Father and the Son (in various places, the Scriptures speak of the Spirit being of the Father (Matt. 10:20, et al.) and of the Son (Acts 16:7; Gal. 4:6; et al.); and of the Holy Spirit being sent by both the Father and the Son (eg., John 14:16, 26-- the Father sends the Spirit; John 16:7-- Christ sends the Spirit)). However, I would also add that the Holy Spirit is not only distinct in notion from the Father and the Son (as could be indicated by saying that the Spirit is a "personality", or an "extended personalities" of the Father and the Son); but the Holy Spirit is also really distinct from the Father and the Son (that is, He is a distinct Person, though not of a different nature). These same Scriptures, as well as others (particularly in the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letters), seem to indicate as much. For example, Christ says, "The Spirit will not speak on His own account but will say whatever He hears....He will glorify Me, for He will take from what is Mine and will declare it to you." (John 16:13,14). This seems to indicate strongly that the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from Christ.

In Christ,
Brother Alan

P.S.
I have made one modification to my previous post. In my previous post, I wrote that Christ's human nature is "substantially" united to His divine nature; that is not quite what I want to say. Rather, I have now changed that to read that Christ's human nature is "hypostatically" united to His divine nature (I do not want to appear to affirm that the union between God and man took place in the divine nature/essence-- as if there was a confusion of the two natures; rather, I want to affirm that the union took place in the Person/hypostasis of the Word).

[Singalphile]

I was looking for thoughts about the virgin birth. I got that and a whole lot more! Interesting stuff.