Prayer in the Church Fathers - A request for help from Catholic/Orthodox brothers and sisters.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037057#Comment_1037057

To those requesting the podcast, it was a couple of passing comments in a recent edition of the Mortification of Spin (http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/podcast/45227). I wouldn't hold your breath. ;-)

---

Interestingly, for those wishing to do there own reading, none of the historic [reformed] protestant creeds addresses the question about prayer to particular persons of the Trinity as far as I can see. Closest Westminster comes to is saying that we pray in Jesus name, by the Spirit's help, but nothing on whether one should only pray to the father (see. WCF 21.3). Whereas Heidelberg says that we pray to God as our father in the Lord's prayer because we have become God's children through Christ (See HC Q121).

---

Thanks for the heads up about Hermas and the difficulties in searching. I check it out whilst I wait for other responses.

Liam, thank you for asking!

Off the top of my head, I'm not quite sure how to direct you on finding what you're looking for, but I'll think about it.

However, I recently heard a podcast that challenged this view by claiming that the Church Fathers (presumably centuries two through five) did not hold this theological position and that creeds/writers of the time thought that all persons could be prayed for equally.

From a contemporary Catholic perspective, at least, the age of the ECFs ended with the death of the St. Bede the Venerable in the West (d.735) and in the East with the death of St. John Damascene ('of Damascus') in 750. Late Medieval and Renaissance Catholic documents included even St. Bernard of Clairvaux (d.1135) and Pope Innocent III (d.1216) among the Fathers, but that doesn't really seem to work these days. (See the Patrology of the late Fr. Johannes Quasten.) In all cases, the Apostolic Fathers are considered Early Church Fathers.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037062#Comment_1037062

Liam, thank you for asking!

Off the top of my head, I'm not quite sure how to direct you on finding what you're looking for, but I'll think about it.

From a contemporary Catholic perspective, at least, the age of the ECFs ended with the death of the St. Bede the Venerable in the West (d.735) and in the East with the death of St. John Damascene ('of Damascus') in 750. Late Medieval and Renaissance Catholic documents included even St. Bernard of Clairvaux (d.1135) and Pope Innocent III (d.1216) among the Fathers, but that doesn't really seem to work these days. (See the Patrology of the late Fr. Johannes Quasten.) In all cases, the Apostolic Fathers are considered Early Church Fathers.

Thank you, I'd appreciate any thoughts/wisdom you might have.

Thanks so much for the dates too, that is really helpful. I wasn't necessarily suggesting 2 thru 5 as gospel. More likely its my own ignorance! haha [:#]

As to collection/bundle I mentioned as "Early Church Fathers" in the OP, I was referring to this: https://www.logos.com/product/5771/early-church-fathers-protestant-edition

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037064#Comment_1037064

I am Lutheran, but have spent a fair amount of time with some of the Fathers...

I would start off with what the Ecumenical Councils said. The first two are largely about the doctrine of God, and Constantinople 1 has given us the "Nicene" creed we still use today, granted in various translations and debate about the filioque added in the West... The Creed hammers in "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father" to clearly express the full deity of the Son - at least in regards to his divinity.

Interestingly, it does not make these types of Metaphysical statements about the Spirit. But it does say "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son). With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified." This, to me suggests that according to the text of the creed is is legitimate to worship all three "persons" and I can't understand separating worship and prayer. As RPC Hanson observed in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, the theology here seems to intentionally be that of St. Basil, (who had just passed away) whose work On the Holy Spirit famously spoke of the Holy Spirit having the attributes used to describe God, but refrains from directly saying that the Holy Spirit IS God.

At the beginning of the 2nd century we have Pliny the younger incredulously stating that Christians "meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god." (10.96.7) (The Latin is in Logos in the free Perseus Library) and many would suggest that this singing to Christ as to a god would suggest prayer to him as well...

That said, I see roots of the distinction of to the Father through the Son in the Spirit when I read Origen's work on Prayer, available for Logos at https://www.logos.com/product/31324/on-the-lords-prayer or https://www.logos.com/product/125671/origen-an-exhortation-to-martyrdom-prayer-and-selected-works or https://www.logos.com/product/157150/origen-prayer-exhortation-to-martyrdom . I would particularly recommend the first collection since it has a variety of early works on prayer from a bit of a variety of perspectives, namely Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen.

I would also recommend reading Basil's On the Holy Spirit, especially since he develops his theology in response to formulas of prayer much like those you started with - and argues that they should not be taken too narrowly... "Lately when I pray with the people, some of those present observed that I render the glory due to God in both ways, namely, to the Father, with the Son together with the Holy Spirit, and to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit." St Basil the Great. (2011). On the Holy Spirit 1.3. (J. Behr, Ed., S. Hildebrand, Trans.) (Vol. 42, p. 29). Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

For better or worse, most of this theology was first hammered out in the Greek East. We in the West have received it from figures like Ambrose and Augustine. Among other things, Augustine taught that the works of the Trinity "ad extra" are one. As I summarized this to an Adult class, this means that when we in the world see the works of God, all three persons are there somehow.... He has been accused of expanding the Greek teaching of perichoresis to speak of complete mutuality between all three persons - into something with no clear starting point, while the Eastern fathers generally kept things clear that it all starts with the Father and leads back to the Father. I need to read Augustine De Trinitate in detail to see if this is really an accurate accusation...

While I hope that someone else chips who knows the territory better, I also hope that my limited comments above are enough to at least give you a start.

SDG

Ken McGuire

Deacon Steve

In addition to my reply and edit above, you may find this resource helpful. Part Three starting at question 35 speaks to you original comment, I believe.

https://verbum.com/products/163941/101-questions-and-answers-on-prayer

I’ll do some more research as time permits.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037064#Comment_1037064

I don't know that you have any of the following, but I include them anyway so that they might somehow be helpful to someone.

In Step 28, On Prayer, of the Ladder of Divine Ascent, St. John Climacus (579-649) clearly speaks about prayers addressed to the Son.

The Rule of St. Benedict (480-547) in chapter 10 speaks of the Gloria Patri, which is addressed to each of the Three Persons.

Chapter XVII of The Wisdom of the Desert, which collects ancient anecdotes and prayers from the Desert Fathers, contains a story of a monk praying to Christ.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037061#Comment_1037061

I just listened to the podcast you mentioned.

First thing I must say is that it the whole podcast shows how vastly differently different communities express their faith in Christ, and the different challenges they are facing. These differences make me hesitate to speak - and yet I already have. There is a lack of shared language and history that makes misunderstandings way too easy. In some ways I am reminded of a discussion I had with a Charismatic at work who said that Catholics never talk about the Holy Spirit. I immediately gave an example of an Epiclisis said at every Mass. He just had never even thought to think of things that way - although he had to admit that there certainly was talk about the Holy Spirit there.

The second thing I must say is that it is utterly foreign to my understanding of the faith delivered to us by the saints who have gone before us and are at rest to question the legitimacy of praying like the faithful man crucified with Jesus, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." It is instead my understanding - like those delivering the podcast - that these things to many respects were settled by the Great Ecumenical councils, especially if you look at the theologians and arguments BEHIND the council statements. That said, as the podcast alluded, those very theologians were clear that the mystery which the were called to confess was beyond the words they were using to do so, even while insisting that the words that they used were also needed confessions of what needed to be said. I can be quite sympathetic with attempts to try to confess this faith in today's words - but those words should not contradict some of the clear things they did say.

With regards to the submission/equality discussions, I am reminded of the way these things are lovingly expressed (prayed?) in the Athanasian Creed:

And in this Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another;
But the whole three persons are coeternal with each other and coequal, so that in all things, as has been stated above, the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity is to be worshiped....

Therefore, it is the right faith that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is at the same time both God and man.
He is God, begotten from the substance of the Father before all ages;
And He is man, born from the substance of His mother in this age:
Perfect God and perfect man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father with respect to His divinity, less than the Father with respect to His humanity.
Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ:
One, however, not by the conversion of the divinity into flesh, but by the assumption of the humanity into God;
one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ,

Athanasian Creed - Lutheran Service Book. (2006)

I think you would find it enlightening to read some of the Fathers involved in the Trinitarian debates to see the horrors they see for the faith if the Logos is clearly stated to be a Creature instead of God. We are living in an age when many have picked up the fourth century fathers to hear what Nicene Christianity is - and also when there are fascinating studies of how this came to be - eg. RPC Hanson, John Behr, Lewis Ayres, Khaled Anatolios, etc. I do encourage you to follow up on some of these.

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037118#Comment_1037118

I'm glad the OP brought up the question. This has been a helpful discussion about a topic I hadn't really explored before. Thanks to all!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037121#Comment_1037121

I'd actually start by a review of the early liturgies paying special attention to the conclusions of the prayers ... I'll look for some specifics in a minute. But this article on Prayer and the Trinity starts with Biblical examples and has some useful references to early fathers.

Searchs (Prayer NEAR "to the Father") etc, against the collection of Church Fathers finds:

S. Gregory. The Divine ΕΥΧΟΛΟΓΙΟΝ, and the Divine Liturgy of S. Gregory the Theologian. Translated by S. C. Malan. Vol. VI. Original Documents of the Coptic Church. London: D. Nutt, 1875. which finds 3 prayers to the Father and 3 prayers to the Son
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters. Vol. 10. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1896. In De fide there is mention of prayer to the Son
Origen. Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer; First Principles: Book IV; Prologue to the Commentary on the Song of Songs; Homily XXVII on Numbers. Edited by Richard J. Payne. Translated by Rowan A. Greer. The Classics of Western Spirituality. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1979. Origen in Prayer rejects prayer to the Son

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037129#Comment_1037129

Dear MJ and SineNomine, Thank you so much for pointing me in the direction of some works/authors to read. That is exactly what I was hoping would happen.

Dear Ken, I really enjoyed reading your comments and advice to start off with the Ecumenical councils to help guide my thinking and reflecting. It was also astonishing that I had not considered the 'Theif on the Cross' in Luke 23:42 to be a prayer of sorts, or by extension other request made of Jesus during his incarnation.

On that, for those interested, here are some other Bible passages that have been helpful to my thinking since my OP... Acts 1:24; 7:59–60; 2 Cor. 12:8; 1 Cor 1:2, 16:22; Rom 10:12; 2 Cor 12:8; 1 Thess 3:11–13; 2 Thess 2:16.

Thanks so much, everyone, this is why I love this forum! :-D

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037129#Comment_1037129

To expand on why I'd look at liturgical documents, although this reference is contemporary:

[quote]In concluding these introductory Notes this remains yet to be said:—If the Collect is addressed to the Father, the conclusion is: “Through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, etc.,” if addressed to the Son: “Who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, etc.,” if the Son is named in the body of the Collect: “Through the same, Thy Son, etc.,” but if the Son is not named until at the end: “O Thou Who livest, etc.” If the Collect is addressed to the Holy Ghost, or if His name is mentioned in the body of the Collect, the proper conclusion is: “Through Jesus Christ, Who liveth and reigneth in unity with Thee and the Father, ever one God, world without end.” But this is scarcely ever the case.

William Loehe, Liturgy for Christian Congregations of the Lutheran Faith, ed. J. Deinzer, trans. F. C. Longaker, Third Edition (Newport, KY: n.p., 1902), 64.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037154#Comment_1037154

Hi MJ. Thank you that is a really helpful clarification. I'll have a nose around some liturgy and see what I can unearth.

Roy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037316#Comment_1037316

I'm no expert on LOGOS searches but I would think that doing a Passage Guide Search/Study on John 16:23 just might return hits on some of the resources you do have by the church fathers (assuming that they had anything to say on the matter/topic.

for example...

4. Hitherto in this section of the Gospel, whereon we are discoursing to-day, the tenor of everything has been, I may say, of easy understanding: a much closer attention is needful in connection with the words that follow. For what does He mean by the words, “And in that day ye shall ask me nothing”? The verb to ask, used here, means not only to beg of, but also to question; and the Greek Gospel, of which this is a translation, has a word that may also be understood in both senses, so that by it the ambiguity is not removed; and even though it were so, every difficulty would not thereby disappear.

For we read that the Lord Christ, after He rose again, was both questioned and petitioned. He was asked by the disciples, on the eve of His ascension into heaven, when He would be manifested, and when the kingdom of Israel would come; and even when already in heaven, He was petitioned [asked] by St. Stephen to receive his spirit. And who dare either think or say that Christ ought not to be asked, sitting as He does in heaven, and yet was asked while He abode on earth? or that He ought not to be asked in His state of immortality, although it was men’s duty to ask Him while still in His state of subjection to death? Nay, beloved, let us ask Him to untie with His own hands the knot of our present inquiry, by so shining into our hearts that we may perceive what He saith.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1.7: St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies

and again...

Ver. 22, 23. “And ye now therefore have sorrow—[but I will see you again, and your sorrow shall be turned into joy].” Then, to show that He shall die no more, He saith, “And no man taketh it from you. And in that day ye shall ask Me nothing.”

Again He proveth nothing else by these words, but that He is from God. “For then ye shall for the time to come know all things.” But what is, “Ye shall not ask Me”? “Ye shall need no intercessor, but it is sufficient that ye call on My Name, and so gain all things.”

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask My Father in My Name.”

He showeth the power of His Name, if at least being neither seen nor called upon, but only named, He even maketh us approved by the Father. But where hath this taken place? Where they say, “Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto Thy servants that with boldness they may speak Thy word” (Acts 4:29, 31), “and work miracles in Thy Name.” “And the place was shaken where they were.”

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1.14: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews

I used this verse because it was the first thing that popped into my mind for not asking Jesus himself but asking God in Jesus' name.

I would hazard a guess that if I were to create a collection of writings by Early Church Fathers found in my library and searched those resources, I would find many more relevant hits. I understand that there are most likely MANY writing covering the topic of prayer and whom to pray to that are not connected to that verse. As I said, this was just off the top of my head. [*-)]

Roy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1037330#Comment_1037330

I wanted to take a moment to thank everyone for their wonderful and helpful replies. I've found it very helpful and profitable to read through the responses and do some digging of my own.

Whilst I still have much to wade through, bigger topic than I first thought (story of my theological life!!), I have become freer in my prayer life. And have of late found myself either praying more trinitarian prayers (praise and petitions address to each person), even simply starting of by address "Lord God" or "Almighty God" and seeing where I go from there.

So thank you to all who replied and I hope others will profit too.

Blessings, Liam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1038589#Comment_1038589

Hi Liam:

Since you invited anyone to the conversation, I will share a very different angle for your consideration.

At some point in time quasi theologians noticed that is wrong to refer to God in an anthropomorphism way. They needed to find a term that expressed our perceived independent Beings that were related to God.

Hypostasis was the greek work used to express the fact that although some perceived Beings related to God seemed human like to us, they are actually not.

Who is Jesus the logos made flesh? the Bible says that is a hypostasis (Divine substantive reality) that was allowed to have life in Himself, and that is the image of the invisible God. John 5:26

To put it in perspective: When you look at yourself in a mirror, there is a substantive reality image of you in that mirror that has effect on your senses (you can see it, but is not alive, as a matter of fact has no life).

Well, God is so awesome, that He allowed a Substantive reality of Himself have life intrinsically, so that image of Him could come and die for us (i.e. a Hypostasis of God allowed to have life in Himself can die for us, God Himself cannot die for us, because He does not die).

Once Jesus was perfected by death in the cross, His glorification included that the fullness of Deity dwells bodily in that resurrected Body (Jesus is the New Temple of God, where God as Spirit (His natural essence) dwells).

So basically when God shows up near us (in natural Spirit essence), all begins to melt, organic and inorganic, so God decides to veil Himself with a glorified Tabernacle (resurrected Jesus), to be able to relate to us without melting us.

Isaiah knew it:

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Zechariah saw it:

⁹And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; on that day Yahweh will be one and his name one.

Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Bible (Zec 14:8–9). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Note that Yahweh is not a name, so the name above all name must be Jesus Christ.

And that insight was confirmed first hand to John the beloved disciple:

In Revelation 1: 12 - 18, John saw one Being that seems to be a combination of Jesus and the Ancient of Days.

So the conjecture that seems to me appropriate given the evidence is that in accordance with one of the old trinity definitions, there may be 3 hypostasis operating at the historical order, that will culminate as One at the end as Isaiah knew, Zechariah knew, and John saw.

Ireneaus said it brilliantly: "Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the Hands of God that He uses to bring believers close to His heart"[very rough paraphrase]. Note that arms, hands, etc. are intrinsic parts of One Being, not different persons.

So my allegiance is to one old trinity definition: Love relation between Divine Substantive Realities (Hypostasis).

When the term Hypostasis needed to be translated to Latin, someone proposed Personae (that in Latin means the mask an actor wears in a play).

Tertullian was not convinced, but since the Bible says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, went with it.

So what puzzles me is how the Latin word Personae (meaning mask worn by an actor), turned into the modern term person (a whole different concept)?

I reject the use of the modern term person in the trinity definition.

Some persons studying the subject, even have said that the use of the term "person" with respect to the definition of God is disrespectful because God is way beyond our human concept of person (the reason why He was better termed hypostasis, since we have no true clue of His true Spiritual Nature).

So from a practical point of view, we are ok praying to any of the Divine substantive realities (Hypostasis) part of the trinity while we are in the historical order ministering the reconciliation given freely by God.

Eventually, as Zechariah says, there will only be One, and His name will be Jesus Christ, so praying direct to Jesus Christ even from now, is ok also.

Liam: note that this write up is for you, not to polemicize, not to start a discussion, etc. I am giving you a view from the fringe of the orthodox envelope, for you to explore, reflect and comment if you want.

You seem to genuinely want to explore more, so voila.

Kind regards.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040381#Comment_1040381

Hamilton, you, like all of us, are bound by the forum rules. Please use PM for this sort of theological post.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040381#Comment_1040381

Hi Hamilton,

I'm always interested in exploring the perspectives of others whatever the starting point they come from, so thank you for taking the time to respond.

I'll admit that I find your conclusions on Isaiah, Zechariah, John, etc. unconvincing but, as MJ rightly pointed out, this is not the forum for discussing them further. Though I did appreciate the opportunity to think about them again in light of a new angle.

I think what I'd like to know most of all are the sources you are using. You paraphrase Iraneus and reference Tertullian, can you provide references for me to look up their respective works? You mention quasi-theologians, which ones did you have in mind? Finally, you said:

"Some persons studying the subject, even have said that the use of the term "person" with respect to the definition of God is disrespectful because God is way beyond our human concept of person"

Which persons and where did they say it?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but as you said, I am genuinely interested... particularly in first-hand sources. :-)

Thanks in advance. Liam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040386#Comment_1040386

MJ:

Liam Maguire does not appear as a possible recipient for a PM.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040414#Comment_1040414

Hi Liam:

Sorry if you found the post too theological.

Remember I am not a trained systematical like some here. I did research on all of that long time ago. I used Logos Bible Software and Google.

It was mostly to take part of the conversation in some threads on the now defunct Christian Discourse site.

You can probably do better research than me.

If I remember well, no one explained what Hypostasis was, so I had to look it up myself in Logos Software. Turned out the definition was something like "Substantive reality" and had to do with Neo Aristotelianism.

In some resource in Logos there was the explanation of Personae for Hypostasis (if I remember well).

I also got the Ireneaus quote from some resource, and I have not been able to get it back. I should have placed it in favorites.

Not sure about the greeks that decided that Hypostasis was a correct term for talking about the perceived Beings related to God that humans had experienced, I called them quasi theologians, because I think they had not developed Systematic theology per se back then.

The part of persons studying about "person" being an incorrect label for God I read (if my memory serves me) in an article found via Google, but I am not sure.

I would have to take some time to see if I can get all the info for you. I tried to send you a message via FL but you do not appear as a recipient for such.

I just hope that you understand that if I am able to get all the info for you, there are ethical implications if you are going to use such info in a paper.

Not that you will not do the proper referencing, but that you really did not explore such angle of your own free will (i.e. you ignored such angle existed), I am trying to expand your conceptual framework, but the whole bit came about because of the discoursing going on in Christian Discourse threads.

Christian Discourse was an excellent place to talk about specific topics, and get a glimpse of wide and diverse angles on any one topic.

I also met there persons that just wanted the research done for them (not ethical), I know you are not one of them, but please try to not come across as one.

As MJ mentioned this is better taken to a PM, is there any reason why you are not available for a message?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040516#Comment_1040516

In just about every field of study a vocabulary develops over time to express the concepts of that field. Almost always this jargon comes from the wider world, but develops certain specific meanings in that field. And much of the study undertaken to become a professional in that field is to learn that specific jargon so that you know what it means - and does not mean - when speaking about it.

In the Third Century there were two great theologians who did much to advance the theological art - Tertullian and Origen. In different ways their work is foundational for the next few centuries of Patristic thought. And yet neither one of them was officially canonized... Both of them were out on the edge in somewhat different ways in organizing vocabulary and concepts. And while it is easy to trace what became "Orthodoxy" to their work, it is also easy to see that both pushed a bit farther than was wise at times - and also did not have access to the fully developed vocabulary that came later.in

Tertullian wrote in Latin - and philosophically was influenced by various forms of Stoicism. He was instrumental in providing some key Latin theological vocabulary. In particular, he is the one who seems to have used the term "trinitas" to talk of God, and "persona" as what there are three of in God. These are still the terms used to this day in Latin - and their English derivatives "trinity" and "person" in English. A key work of Tertulian where he talks about this is his Against Praxeas, which is better at saying the disaster of NOT making a distinction than in clearly saying what the distinction is, IMHO.

Origen wrote in Greek and like most of the Greek fathers was influenced by various forms of Platonist metaphysics, rejecting Stoic metaphysics as being too material. Much of his doctrine of God is in his De Princ., but with your interest in prayer, I would still recommend reading his writing on Prayer that I mentioned earlier.

In the end the Orthodox vocabulary was worked out in the 4th Century by various figures - with the "Cappadocians" being some of the most influential. These were a group of Bishops from Cappadocia, namely Basil (the Great), his brother Gregory (of Nyssa), and their friend Gregory (of Nazianzus). Eventually they made a distinction between two terms which had been thought of as synonyms before - namely ὑπόστασις and οὐσία (a form of "to be"). One of the more clearer places he describes this distinction to me is in Letter 38 of Basil, but this ends up being a theme often returned to in all of their works.

I will certainly admit that some of this technical jargon can turn into jargon that instead of clarifying things can confuse people today. And yet, this very terminology was worked out over practical concerns like how can we pray and how can we talk about God who is so beyond our thoughts - concerns that are still with us. So if you want to hear what these figures are saying - and what they are not - it seems worth it to me at least to give them a bit of time to listen...

SDG

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040529#Comment_1040529

Hi Ken,

Thank you for taking the time to listen and providing a useful historical background. Sitting, taking the time, and listening is exactly what this thread has been about for me. Thank you for signposting me to some places to do just that,

Blessings, Liam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040529#Comment_1040529

Thank you Ken for an excellent orientation.

If we would want to learn more about Hypostasis and what it entails, are there any resources that you would recommend?

I was shocked to see that many graduates of all kinds of divinity, systematics, original languages, etc. Seemed to have no clue what that term is about and the theological implications of it.

It was shameful in my view to have me, a simple lay sheep have to dig into logos to learn what it meant and what the implications of it are.

I expected all the experts to have a full grasp of the term, its angles, and applications, but most either did not care to share, or simply did not know.

(I wonder how someone can graduate from Seminary, divinity, Biblical or systematics, and have no clue of what key terms are about).

Thanks ahead of time for any guidance.

Kind regards.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040601#Comment_1040601

I was shocked to see that many graduates of all kinds of divinity, systematics, original languages, etc. Seemed to have no clue what that term is about and the theological implications of it.

It has often been joked that as you advance in study, you learn more an more about less and less. There is a vast number of related fields in studies of the Christian Religion. And as important as this question was to the 4th and 5th centuries, especially in the Greek speaking world, neither we nor any part of the Bible is from the 4th and 5th century Greek speaking world. And so the topic would be covered in survey classes, leaving the details to experts. A long time ago I heard the joke that the Trinity was taught with the following formula:

In the One God there are Two processions, resulting in Three Persons and Four Relations

but NO understanding....

More than a few people have found that there is indeed great wisdom to be found in these distinctions and debates. I am one of them. But I also recognize that this is not the way we speak today and that busy Pastors often have many other things to deal with instead of researching these debates and knowing all the technical vocabulary off the top of their heads.

As far as recommended resources? I am a lay person, and really my interest is more in Irenaeus and Luther and not this period. That said, I offer the following:

I first learned to struggle with it in studying Catherine Mowry LaCugna's God For Us. This is not in Logos, to the best of my knowledge, but there are lots of works from the Trinitarian Renaissance since the writings of Karl Barth and Karl Rahner. In my Logos Library I have Barth (which I have not spent enough time in), Pannenberg (who assumes you know the basics already), and Braaten/Jenson (where Robert Jenson has a helpful summary of various fathers) off the top of my head...

But while I first ran into it with systamaticians like the above, more recently I have spent much more time with various historians. Great - but not in Logos would be volume one of Pelikan's The Christian Tradition. He also has a volume on the Cappadocians which I have not yet read (Christianity and Classical Culture).

Nowadays it seems that it is assumed by people who publish in this field that you know RPC Hanson's The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. I spent a while reading it in chunks a few years ago, and there is a lot of good stuff to digest there.

I am currently slowly working through John Behr's treatment, which is available in Logos. And from what I have read, it is quite good. That said, I haven't spent as much time with it as I should, and the time I have spent in it is the first volume...

But when you want an overview of the topic, this is the place where specialized encyclopedias shine. I got an Orthodox Base package for Logos 8 to get the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, and so far I have been quite impressed, but have barely scratched the surface of it.

Years ago I got Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church back when it was a prepub, and it has been my first go-to for just about any historical question... In addition Trevor Hart's Dictionary can be useful, if he covers the topic you are interested in, or you know enough to find where he discusses what you are looking for.

If you have the Greek, Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon is on Internet Archive....

And of course, primary sources. To start I would pick a volume from Popular Patristics or The Classics of Western Spirituality. These are available in Logos, but the full sets get quite pricey. But selections from these collections have appeared in may base packages. And earlier in the thread I have referenced a few primary sources...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040669#Comment_1040669

In the One God there are Two processions, resulting in Three Persons and Four Relations

but NO understanding....

LOL, awesome, really like this.

Thank you Ken for taking the time to point us in a good direction. I do have many of the resources mentioned.

I found the following:

https://www.logos.com/product/163180/the-freedom-of-morality

Seems like it touches on hypostasis, but have not read it yet.

Kind regards.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040791#Comment_1040791

Seems like it touches on hypostasis, but have not read it yet.

For understanding "hypostasis", I recommend Aquinas on Doctrine: A Critical Introduction, chapter 3, by Gilles Emery, OP, or The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God, chapter 4, by the same. Or, if you want the primary source, the Treatise on the Trinity in the Summa Theologiae by St. Thomas Aquinas.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040880#Comment_1040880

Thank you very much SineNomine.

Can you share with us why is so hard to find information on Neo Aristotelianism?

Roughly my understanding of the difference between Plato and Aristotle is that Plato suggests that we can know deity (in our case God) by abstractions, concepts, ideas, etc.

While Aristotle suggests that to know God we need to experience Him.

Is such oversimplification correct?

I do think that we need to know very well the propositional truths of the Bible to keep an eye and make sure we do not deviate from true faith (the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself), but I know that the Bible is a record of the amazing experience with God and His Hypostasis and stands as a witness for us to strive to have such encounter with such amazing God.

According to John Frame, "Experience is the highest form of perception", and in my view only when we encounter and are influenced by any of the Hypostasis of God is when we can really have the change in our core to be able to connect better to God, and to be more Christlike.

Thanks ahead of time for your valuable input on any of the above.

Kind regards.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040902#Comment_1040902

According to John Frame, "Experience is the highest form of perception".

I'm not entirely sure John Frame actually ever said that, Hamilton. I'm no expert but I've read quite a bit of his stuff and that doesn't sound like something he would say. A search of your exact quote doesn't produce any hits in the 17 logos resources I have by John Frame and searching 'perception NEAR experience' doesn't produce anything near that quote. Finally, a google search showed that the quote doesn't exist outside of your own comments on Faithlife affiliated sites. This is significant to consider how many articles by John Frame are available on his website.

I may be wrong, and if you can point me to where John Frame wrote those words I'm happy to be corrected. However, if you can't I'd kindly ask you not to write Iraneus said or Tertullian said or John Frame said unless you actually know they said it and can show people where they said it. That is I believe, a legitimate application of 9th Commandment (Dt 5:20).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040923#Comment_1040923

Hi LIam:

You have touched on a problem that is important.

Many times doing research on something, one runs across important information that as is not pertinent to the actual concept being searched, one may mentally note it, but not formally get all the source info.

If my memory serves me, such thing happened to me when I was searching for something and saw such search hit from Mr. Frame.

I do not think I paraphrased it, as when I do not remember well or do not have it referenced I usually mention that is off my mind and may not be verbatim.

I cannot find the quote, and is a bad habit of mine not to put it in favorites or add to clippings.

I do not think I have the intellect to come up with a phrase like that, I must have seen it somewhere.

Now to tell you the truth, there have been cases in which I saw information in a resource, only to have it gone after an update to the resource and without prior warning.

The closest I got was:

"Experience is a broader category than perception. It is possible to have an experience of something (for example, a prophet’s experience of the divine Word) without perceiving it through the sense organs; at least that possibility is arguable."

Frame, J. M. (1987). The doctrine of the knowledge of God (p. 332). Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.

But I do not think that was what I read long time ago in a search hit because the sense used is different.

The whole section in the book makes it pretty clear that reason and perception have strong and weak points, but neither should be taken as the basis for finding ultimate truth apart from God's revealed truth in the Bible.

My example when talking about this type of event is:

A man of God was near a river, so were other human bystanders.

The man of God saw a heavenly messenger, heard a message that was intelligible,while the bystanders saw nothing, and just heard a loud noise.

The bystanders ran away in fear.

So the question is: who had the right perception of the event?

The answer is: the man of God of course, and why was he able to perceive the true reality of the event? because of the Holy Spirit of course.

It is the Holy Spirit the one that allows proper interpretation of the experienced event of things from God.

I will continue looking in the History tool, layouts, etc. to see if I find the quote, I am not sure how far back does history tool go.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1041001#Comment_1041001

from WikiDiff

[quote]

As nouns the difference between perception and experience

is that perception is organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information while experience is event(s) of which one is cognizant.

As a verb experience is

to observe certain events; undergo a certain feeling or process; or perform certain actions that may alter one or contribute to one's knowledge, opinions, or skills.

My point: definitions are critical for common understanding.

a prophet’s experience of the divine Word) without perceiving it through the sense organs

This is a nice definition of a mystical experience. Glad to see you embrace the experience if not the word.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1041002#Comment_1041002

Yes MJ:

But to me experiencing God is not mystical, esoteric, gnostical, or any of those weird artificial categorizations not native to the baptism of the Holy Spirit events in the Bible.

Before the foundation of the World, God prepared good deeds for each one of us believers to walk in, for many is to have a koinonia restored with God by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the second mission of Jesus after dying for us.

I do think that Prof. John Frame does a superb job of explaining the relation between perception, reason, experience, imagination, etc. I am very happy that he is crystal clear that neither of those apart from the revealed truth of God in the Scriptures amount to much.

Most protestants would agree with that. True sheep know for sure it is like that (regardless of tradition).

Like I mentioned to you in another thread, Jesus never ever said "you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit due to, or as a result of, or by means of: a mystical, esoteric, gnostical, meditative, or other such labelled way".

Jesus came to baptize us with the Holy Spirit period. It is God's will, and the elected ones will receive such baptism period.

Mystical, esoteric, gnostical, and other labels are eisegized by humans into the Scripture, as you do not see such terms associated with Jesus second mission of baptizing us with the Holy Spirit.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1041008#Comment_1041008

My disagreement with you with regards to linguistics is so deep we have no common ground. To put it humorous, I feel that it is equivalent to the duck test where someone says "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a rhinoceros. It certainly is NOT a duck." But across some denominational divides, this happens unless both sides are willing to provide very specific definitions so that a common temporary vocabulary can be used. Several years ago, it brought a smile to my face when someone agreed with my tag line, in a post that showed they totally misunderstood it, not recognizing it's Orthodox context.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1041010#Comment_1041010

Yes MJ:

We may have disagreements in many things. Yet I consider you a sheep of God. You are in the denomination you are because God has a plan for you there.

Even though people at times do not catch my drift, I am not into a rightiness contest, nor trying to push some weird theories. I value strong respectful dialogue because we may learn important angles not seen before.

Is God an idea, abstraction, concept or a real Being? If He is a real Being, did He create humans as concepts, abstractions, ideas or also as beings (of a lesser order)?

Think of this: The created order seems to point to a future family that starts here (just like the original intent of God).

If we are to become adopted into the family of God, is that for the purpose of us philosophizing about God or to have an actual experience with Him?

You are deep into liturgy, worship is important, what is the real purpose for that? is not to have God's presence among us?

What is the point of creating rational, relational, and creative beings if you are not to have experience with them?

Experience with God is where is at. When Adam and Eve were created, they interacted with God, they had daily experiences with Him.

That was allowed by the presence of the Holy Spirit. After the fall, the Holy Spirit left them. KoinonIa was destroyed.

Jesus came to restore that. He did by: 1 dying for us to pay the penalty of the trespasses, and 2 baptize us with the Holy Spirit, so koinonia can be restored with God.

The original plan for humans was always to have an experience with God, when the fall came, the World went through a change. We left perfect reality, and started living in an imperfect one.

So perception was limited, because we were isolated from true reality (God's). Only the Holy Spirit allows you to have a glimpse of that true reality.

So the experience with God at present for us usually transcends our normal sense perceptions (God's reality is above fallen one).

Remember the natural fallen humans by the river?, they could not see the messenger of God, nor hear the message. they were operating in a fallen level.

For those that are redeemed and have the Holy Spirit in their lives, the situation changes, if God so desires, they can be more attuned with the reality from His perspective.

There is nothing mystical about that, it is just persons getting back to the original state of having koinonia with God through the Holy Spirit.

I do not call scholastics "fallen reason dependents" even though that is what they are if they do not have the Holy Spirit.

We have a God given right to choose as we consider correct. I try to stick with what the Bible seems to show as evidence:

Mystical was not in Jesus vocabulary, He is the one sent from above to teach us, therefore, I do not consider such concept come from above.

Is there a difference between perception and sense perception? probably. I do think that Prof. Frame goes into good detail about all that.

When we experience God's presence in a worship situation, are senses above and beyond the normal acting? If the Holy Spirit is involved, probably.

I do think that Prof. Frame suggests a construct that is appropriate to describe a whole variety of religious experiences. I just do not think that the ones involving the Holy Spirit of God should be called mystical.

Prophets in the OT, and people of God back then were called holy, because they were under the influence of the Holy Spirit. they were not called mystics.

1 Peter 2:9

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Chosen ones seemed to be classified as holy nation, not mystical nation, not nation of mystics, etc.

I hope you catch my drift.

Kind regards.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040923#Comment_1040923

So far I have not been able to find where I saw (or think I saw) a phrase where Prof. John Frame mentioned that "Experience is the highest form of perception".

I tried to edit the post to let readers now that I have not found where I saw (or thought I saw) it. I did not write down the details, as it was a chance search hit when looking for other concept.

If I find it I will give all the details.

I did not mention the phrase with malicious intent, just to point that in experiences with the Presence of God, there may be supra normal human sense involved due to the effect of the Holy Spirit.

Prof. John Frame articulates a very nice explanation about Experience, perception, reason, imagination, etc. I consider such a very valid construct to examine the variety of religious experiences.

I will probably have to make use of Zotero or other system to track better information.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1040902#Comment_1040902

Thank you very much SineNomine.

Can you share with us why is so hard to find information on Neo Aristotelianism?

It doesn't seem hard.

But Neo-Aristotelianism has nothing to do with my earlier post.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042136#Comment_1042136

Hi SineNomine:

It seemed to me you were well versed in Aristotle, just wondering if there are major divergences from that core in Neo Aristotelianism.

Sorry if I digress from the topic, but is not easy to be able to interact with learned persons on certain topics outside the Forums.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042195#Comment_1042195

Neo Aristotelianism

of which Neo-Aristotelian are you speaking? rhetorical criticism? scholastic rediscovery via Islamic philosophers?

possibilities:

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1041010#Comment_1041010

Very interesting information:

While the Eastern Orthodox Christians in the first four great Councils (325–451) admirably defined and defended the doctrines of Christ’s eternality, deity, unipersonality, perfect humanity, and duality of natures, they neglected any in-depth study of Christ’s work.

Such neglect was also in large part due to the fact that even the best of the Greek Orthodox fathers, such as the Cappadocians, frequently became masters of compromise and synthesis in their attempts at reconciling aberrant philosophies, such as Origenism, Neo-Platonism, and Neo-Aristotelianism, with biblical doctrine. They often depict sin as a human weakness that any person can overcome by sheer will power. Salvation is initiated by baptismal regeneration and maintained by partaking of the Eucharist, confessing to a priest, doing works of penance, and practicing mystical contemplation. Patristic training originated from classical pagan schools that instilled proneness towards Neo-Platonic mysticism.

Beale, D. (2013). Historical Theology In-Depth: Themes and Contexts of Doctrinal Development since the First Century (Vol. 1, p. 487). Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press.

Neo Aristotelianism, mysticism etc. is clearly separated from Biblical doctrine. The point I am trying to make.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042203#Comment_1042203

Neo Aristotelianism, mysticism etc. is clearly separated from Biblical doctrine. The point I am trying to make.

Until you provide a definition of your meaning of mysticism, a meaning that clearly is uncommon, you cannot make a point. You might as well be talking gibberish ...

While the Eastern Orthodox Christians in the first four great Councils (325–451) admirably defined and defended the doctrines of Christ’s eternality, deity, unipersonality, perfect humanity, and duality of natures, they neglected any in-depth study of Christ’s work.

Given that there was no "Eastern Orthodox Christians" as a distinct group in the first 5 centuries .... but Copleston's History of Philosophy, Volume I: Greece and Rome is probably the best source. While he is occasionally irritatingly Lutheran, I would suggest you read Von Harnack, Adolf. History of Dogma. Edited by T. K. Cheyne and A. B. Bruce. Translated by Neil Buchanan. Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1897. (in Logos e-books) to get a decent, although a bit dated, understanding of the history of Christian beliefs. If the quote you gave from Beale is typical, you will need a more accurate antidote.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042206#Comment_1042206

Some online resources of varying quality:

https://www.academia.edu/1234204/The_Influence_of_Philosophy_in_Early_Christianity

https://indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/article/view/719/2291

https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3542&context=etd

If the quote you gave from Beale is typical, you will need a more accurate antidote.

It occurs to me that this may come across as more negative than I intend. Background: I was in an Greek Orthodox summer class with a professor from a reputable Texas seminary. He introduced himself as a professor of church history whose offerings included Orthodoxy. But he had never seen an Orthodox service nor known an Orthodox Christian ... hence he signed up for the course. Significantly the class also included a Coptic Catholic Jesuit priest who was interested in learning more about Byzantine Christianity. By the end of the class, the Texas seminary professor had a very long reading list. He explained that his Protestant seminary had not had a class on the Early Church Fathers and that pre-Reformation Christianity was a one semester course. He had read what he thought was broadly in preparation for teaching the course but that it was a case where he did not know that he did not know a broad swath of Church history, worship and doctrine.

I have learned from experience, that authors writing primarily for people who share similar beliefs, are frequently in a situation similar to the Texas professor. I have also observed that authors who are Protestant and come from a tradition that emphasizes the apostolic succession of bishops tend to have educations that includes significant pre-reformation as well as reformation forward coursework. Therefore, I frequently end up suggesting Anglican or Lutheran sources for early history. With the expanded interest in the Early Church Fathers, this will eventually cease to be necessary.

P.S. For much the same reasons, I find Catholic and Orthodox sources weak from the Reformation forward.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042317#Comment_1042317

I haven't read the whole thread, but here's one resource that may be useful:

Charlesworth, James H., Mark Harding, and Mark Kiley. The Lord’s Prayer and Other Prayer Texts from the Greco-Roman Era. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994.

It includes an annotated bibliography of over 100 pages on relevant material.

Regarding examples of prayers of early Christians, in my off time I've been doing research into early Christian fragmentary papryi and have located transcriptions for several prayers and translated them. You can see them here (go to the bottom of the page for Prayers and Amulets): https://rickbrannan.github.io/StuffEarlyChristiansRead/data/html/

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042203#Comment_1042203

Like MJ, I was shocked by the Beale quote you posted - and even more shocked to see how well this work has been reviewed online, with a few reviews saying how well he knows the primary sources.

What I have learned in trying to seriously engage some of these figures is that while they are almost always using the terminology of various forms of Platonism, they are also critically engaging it. I know no theologian who does not use some of the philosophies of their age - and in my opinion there are many who are less aware of the problems of this than figures like Athanasius, Basil, and the Gregories. And they are deeply interested speaking of Christ's work. It may not be fully systematic, but there are lots of passages showing that it is soteriological thinking that is driving their attempt at describing the ontology of God and Christ.

Yes - they are developing the language to talk about the faith. And even in the doctrines of God and Christ, as they are working out the language they are not fully consistent as they are teasing out HOW to talk about this consistently. They may not have a fully developed sense of Original Sin as worked out by Augustine and the Reformers. But they certainly saw overcoming sin as part of the work of Christ and so not just "a human weakness that any person can overcome by their sheer will power."

In fact, as Augustine would soon argue, this is one reason they teach baptismal regeneration. It is an acknowledgement that the power of sin is such that all of humanity needs to be cleaned by Christ.

I have probably gone too far already, but while there are a few who do seem to try to use these figures to bring back Christian Neo-platonism, there are many others who have found that what they are talking about goes well beyond their vocabulary of their time and that we can learn much about who Christ is and what he has done by reading their works. We may not always agree with them. We may think there are things that can be said better. But there are people who I hear in the pulpit that I can say the same thing....

SDG

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042206#Comment_1042206

Thanks for the info MJ.

I do not accept Mysticism defined as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer so that he / she understands / experiences correctly the things of God, because Jesus never used that term to explain such phenomena.

Psalms 51:11

Cast me not away from your presence,and take not your Holy Spirit from me.

I do not see a reference to mystical experience here. God takes away or bestows the Holy Spirit, no mystical experience involved, just His sovereign will.

Matthew 3:11

I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

It seems that many traditions forget about the "He (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit", a key mission of His. I do not see any mystical concept mentioned in that.

Luke 1:67

And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying,

Contextually, it seems that Zechariah was filled due to the influence of the hand of the Lord. No mystical contemplation, etc.

I can go on, but a better study can be done by you on this particular situation. To correctly restore koinonia with God the Holy Spirit is needed. That Holy Spirit is given through God's sovereign will, to His elected ones. It seems that is dependent on compliance with the requirements for the New Covenant that were set by God:

Read / hear the Gospel (understand that is God's unmerited favor the one that allows us to be restored to koinonia), Believe in the one He sent (Jesus), repent of missing the target, confess sins and Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, baptize as per Acts 2:38, receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (seal of the New Pact), and walk humbly with your God doing as He tells you to.

But it seems that you and I are in way different wavelengths,nothing wrong with that, just I do not think that mystical is the correct label to refer to the experience of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Biblically such experience is not called that.

As for the Catholic Mystics that you say are not associated with occultism, if they lived a holy life, they are fine, regardless of what they are called.

But in the Bible, people of God are called holy, not mystics, so I do not understand why the misnomer.

Peace and grace.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042317#Comment_1042317

Thanks MJ for the links, especially https://indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/article/view/719/2291, I will take a good look at that when I get the chance.

Very good clarification.

Just to be clear, we can have all the human authors in the world write about all the religion topics there are. Yet from my perspective it stands that Jesus is the only one come from above, and the only one that had the power and authority to bestow the Holy Spirit to humans as was shown in John the baptist explanation of the multipurpose of Jesus' missions.

I hope you understand that Jesus as the only authorized spokesperson on the subject, never used the concept mystical, mysticism, contemplative mysticism related to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore I reject such terminology when referring, to about such experience. You may call me close minded, fundamentalist, biblicist, etc. and I do not mind, the true Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ, and He is the one I will have to give account to.

If He asks me eventually, why you did not accept the term mystic when referring to the experience of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I will just say: You did not use it to describe the baptism of the Holy Spirit when you visited Earth the first time.

Is up to Him to see what will be of me then.

I think is my God given right to choose, and I stay with the Bible witness.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042344#Comment_1042344

Thanks for sharing Rick, excellent.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042425#Comment_1042425

Excellent post Ken, thanks for sharing.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1042202#Comment_1042202

of which Neo-Aristotelian are you speaking? rhetorical criticism? scholastic rediscovery via Islamic philosophers?

Thanks for the links MJ.

You just proved my point. There seems to not be a "Neo Aristotelianism" article that explains what is it, how did it diversify, who promoted it, or contributed to its development, how it differs from normal Aristotelianism, etc.

If my memory serves me, the term hypostasis defined as Substantive reality, was the product of Neo Aristotelianism. I tried to investigate what that Neo Aristotelianism was about, and did not find that much information.

Info on Neo Platonism is more available.

I just do not seem to find an article the way we find in the ISBE (well structured that touches on key elements) for example about such term.