Tuesday, June 30, 2015

LOGOS-CHRISTOLOGY

Logos-christology

(Excerpted from the book entitled: Godhead Theology, by Bishop Jerry Hayes. Look for it on Amazon.)

 Classical logos-christology had its origins with the Apologists of the second century who needed an offensive against the Modalism of the orthodox. The Apologists labored to establish a personal difference between the Father and the Son. The dis-tinction began as an abstract thought, as was expressed by men like Athenagoras of Athens (which did no violence to the Modalistic views of the Lord’s church) when he presented the thought that the Son (logos) and the Holy Spirit were effuences (something that flows out) of God, flowing out and returning, like the rays of the sun [ Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol II, page 133; Athenagoras, ch X.]). (The modalist views of Marcellus of Ancyra  seems to have taken this tack.) However, the logos idea evolved and developed into a personal distinction from the Father. Also, those who accepted and promoted a logos-christology moved progressively through stages of subordinationism (such as was propagated by Justin, Origen and Arius) to what later became the Trinity of the Athanasian Creed. Logos Christianity stemmed from the need of Greco-Roman Christians to reconcile their faith with the widely accepted philosophical views of their culture.  It was a Greco-Roman perspective on a Jewish theme. The fact that Christianity was a new religion seemed to be impeding its progress; Christian apologists overcame this difficulty by showing that Christianity had common ground with Judaism and philosophy. In this task one cannot underestimate the influence of one Philo of Alexandria, Egypt.

Philo, a contemporary of Christ and the apostles, was a Jewish philosopher of Alexandria who was a student of Plato and the Stoics. Greek philosophy had worked on the concept of God for several hundred years and had brought the ancient superstitions of half animal and half human gods to an homogenized form of ‘principles’ and ‘energies.’ It was theorized that there is only one God who is God in Himself (in this it is suggested by Philo that the Greeks were influenced by Moses: i.e. the Shema, Deut 6:4), who could not touch or be touched by a created universe. This transcendent deity must, then, communicate through an inter-mediary that was called the logos. Since more will be said about Philo later, let it be sufficient here to say that he saw in the Greek Logos the promised Hebrew Messiah.  (The link between Plato's teachings and the Trinity as adopted by the Roman Catholic Church is so strong that Edward Gibbon, centuries later in his masterwork The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referred to Plato as “the Athenian sage, who had thus marvelously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Christian revelation—the Trinity.”) Philo was a Jew, not a Christian; but, a disciple of his by the name of Justin (called by Christians, Justin Martyr) embraced the thought of Philo con-cerning the logos and the Christ. Justin, as did the other Christian apologist, began to promote this logos-christology of Philo and the Greeks in their Christian circles. (Justin was a Platonic philosopher before he became a Christian and continued to wear his philosopher’s cloak as he preached his version of the Gospel. He saw Christianity as being the fruition of all true philosophies.) The doctrine of logos-christology is  basically this: 
God, Himself, is too holy and pure to become evolved in the created world of matter: so a secondary entity was brought into being called the logos who created all things in behalf of God the first principle; this logos was called the second principle. This “second god” (as Justin called Him) came to earth and was born of the virgin Mary and died for the sins of the world.

The latest offering of logos-christology is applying the term  Christophany to Old Testament manifestations of the Deity. This has only happen since a publication by James Borland in 1978. The term “Christophany” is new enough that it is not listed in the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary © 1981, although “Theophany” does appear. Many teachers of logos-christology hold that each and every manifestation of God in the Old Testament is a Christophany (a manifestation of the Logos, the second god-person and not God the Father). “The practice of the Greek Fathers from Justin Martyr, who identified the "angel of the Lord " with the Logos, furnish excuse for conceiving also the theophanies of the Old Testament as christophanies”  (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge). In this newest posturing of the logos-christology the Father is NEVER manifested in the Bible—only God the Son. In this writers mind, this posturing is now taking place because of the friction between Trinitarianism and Monarchianism in the form of the Oneness theology in American (includes Oneness Pentecostalism, but also New England Trinitarianism [The, more than, thirty year (1819-1850) debate in New England on the subject of the Godhead came about when William Ellery Channing challenged the hegemony of New England orthodoxy in his famous sermon Unitarian Christianity. The battle was immediately joined by Andover theologian Moses Stuart. Stuart’s defense of the Trinity was couched in Sabellianism. The Trinity that stood in New England after the smoke had settled was a Modalistic Monarchian Trinity called the New England Trinity.]) and Barthianism (is the name of the theological movement associated with the thoughts of the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968), hailed as the greatest theologian of the 20th century. Barth’s christology is un-blushingly Modalistic Monarchianism.  It is part of the theological movement called neoorthodoxy and is a reaction against the liberal theology of eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which was mostly associated with the work of Friedrich Schleiermacher. It's also referred to as Barthian Evangelicalism.) in Europe. The debate has established that the Jesus of the New Testament is the God manifested in the Old Testament. Therefore, instead of the adherents of logos-christology conceding the debate, they have doubled down on their position to the point of denying the presence of God the Father in holy Scripture, apart from His agent—in the person of the Logos.

Here is the truth: Modalist apologist have proven that the God who speaks and is manifested in the Old Testament is in very fact the Jesus of the New Testament. Now, Trinitarian apologist have tweaked, once again, their theology to accept that fact. But say that God the Father is too transcendent to associate directly with creation so He does it all through the Logos (Word/Son). Part of that tweaking is the new term “Christophany” which is replacing “Theophany.” “The doctrines of the logos, ... and the Trinity, received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and cor-ruptions crept into the Church from this source cannot be denied” (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Samuel Macauley Jackson, editor, 1911, Vol. 9, p. 91).

The logos-christology does not take into account the Hebrew’s revelation of God. This was the mistake of the Apologists. Possibly because they were anti-semitic. The Old Testament reveals one only God who brooked no other god-persons. The New Testament scriptures, then, should be viewed, and interpreted, through the lens of Old Testament revelation. The real question, then, is: What glasses are we to look through. The 1st century church of the apostles had only the Old Testament scriptures for its foundation. With and through these they understood the person of Jesus. In short, they viewed Jesus through the glasses of the Old Testament. As a result they worshipped Him as the Father incarnate in flesh. Consider this: With the coming of the Greek and Latin church fathers Jesus began to be viewed through the lens of the Platoic/Philo Logos. So then enter the “logos-christology.”

The christology of the Imperial Church claims the Greeks as its headwater, not the Hebrew prophets. Hence, Modalism is the oldest and original orthodoxy of the Church, and as such is the true teaching of the apostles: because the first century Christology was Hebraic, not Hellenic. One can not help but recall the warning of Apostle Paul, when in A.D. 62 he wrote to the church of Colosse from a prison cell: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.  And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power.”

 (Excerpted from the book entitled: Godhead Theology, by Bishop Jerry Hayes. Look for it on Amazon.)

If the ministry of the Bishop is a blessing to you, please consider leaving a monetary gift of any amount at the link provided here:
Apostolically Speaking
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)

Read other essays from the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Dual Nature Of Jesus Of Nazareth"

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"

"Glory With The Father"

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"

"How Is God One?"

"Hebrew Monotheism"


"The Apostolic Creed"

"Jesus Is Father God"

"Homoousia And The Creed Of Nicaea"

"The Triquetra And Modalism"

"Modalism, Simultaneous Or Sequential?"

"Micah 5:2-4, An Exegesis"


"Elohim, the Plural form For God"

"Can the Deity of Jesus Be called The Son Of God?"

"Mathematical Equation For The Godhead"

"Hebrew Monotheism, Second Edition"

"Jesus, On God's Right Hand"

"The Name of the Deity" (The Tetragrammaton)

"Christology of the Apostolic Church Fathers"

"Christian Modalism challenged by the Greeks"

"The Apologists and the Logos Christology"

"Logos Christology"

"The Seven Spirits of God"

"Historical Numerical Superiority of the Monarchians"

"How Is God One?" Second Edition

"Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed"

"Another Comforter (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Echad vs Yachid (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"The Godhead Teaching of Ignatius of Antioch"

"Hebrews 1:8, (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Godhead Theology of the Tabernacle of Moses"

"Proper Biblical Understanding of the Word 'Person'"

"Defense of Isaiah 9:6, Answering Objections to Modalism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/defense-of-isaiah-96.html

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)


Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4





 THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY
PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY


Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. Julia RobertJune 11, 2024 at 1:52 AM

    I thoroughly enjoyed the blog post on logo design! It's inspiring to see the thought process and creativity that goes into creating a memorable logo. For anyone looking to bring their logo designs to life through embroidery, I highly recommend "Logo Digitizing by Absolute Digitizing. Their professional services ensure that your logo is perfectly digitized, maintaining all the intricate details and delivering high-quality results. Thanks for sharing such insightful content on logo design!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)