Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Oct 26, '07, 8:01 am
MH84 MH84 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2007
Posts: 1,725
Religion: cradle Catholic
Default Did Justin Martyr believe in the Trinity or not?

I found this on Wikipedia (I've added bold text myself to highlight points):

Doctrine of the logos

Justin's use of the idea of the logos has always attracted attention. It is probably too much to assume a direct connection with Philo in this particular. The idea of the Logos was widely familiar to educated men, and the designation of the Son of God as the Logos was not new to Christian theology. The significance is clear, however, of the manner in which Justin identifies the historical Christ with the rational force operative in the universe, which leads up to the claim of all truth and virtue for the Christians and to the demonstration of the adoration of Christ, which aroused so much opposition, as the only reasonable attitude. It is mainly for this justification of the worship of Christ that Justin employs the Logos-idea, though where he explicitly deals with the divinity of the Redeemer and his relation to the Father, he makes use of the Old Testament, not of the Logos-idea, which thus can not be said to form an essential part of his Christology.

On the other hand, Justin sees the Logos as a separate being from God and subordinate to him:

"For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).

"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

Justin speaks of the divine Logos as "another God" beside the Father, qualified by the gloss: ‘other, I mean, in number, not in will’. Justin actually finds fault with the view of hellenized Jews who held that the divine Logos is no more distinct from God than sunlight is from the sun and suggested, instead, that the Logos is more like a torch lit from another. He wanted to do justice to the independence of the Logos.


The importance which he attaches to the evidence of prophecy shows his estimate of the Old Testament Scriptures, which are to Christians absolutely the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, and confirmed by the fulfillment of the prophecies. Not less divine, however, is the teaching of the apostles, which is read in the assembly every Lord's Day—though he can not use this in his "Dialogue" as he uses the Old Testament. The word of the apostles is the teaching of the Divine Logos, and reproduces the sayings of Christ authentically. As a rule he uses the synoptic Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – but has a few unmistakable references to John. He quotes the Book of Revelation as inspired because prophetic, naming its author. The opposition of Marcion prepares us for an attitude toward the Pauline epistles corresponding to that of the later Church. Distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and 1 John. The apologetic character of Justin's habit of thought appears again in the Acts of his martyrdom (ASB, Apr., ii. 108 sqq.; Thierry Ruinart, Acta martyrum, Regensburg, 1859, 105 sqq.), the genuineness of which is attested by internal evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Oct 26, '07, 10:25 am
JimG JimG is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 22,327
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Did Justin Martyr believe in the Trinity or not?

Any theologian, like any philosopher or scientist, is limited by the words and concepts which he has available to work with. A physicist today would find it impossible to give what he would consider to be a complete description of the universe without using the language and the mathematics of quantum physics and general relativity. A scientific genius living in the time of Justin Martyr, for example, no matter how great his understanding of the universe, would not be able to fully describe it without having those concepts available.

Similarly, the language of theology has developed, allowing more complete (but never perfect) expressions of theological truth.

When Justin says “distinct, numerically, but not in will,” what is he trying to convey? The Thomistic concepts of person and nature had not yet been invented. I’m guessing that his use of the term “distinct” meant “distinct in person.“ Also, I think that his use of the term “being” did not at that time contain the distinction that later theologians would make between separate entities and distinct persons. It is difficult, even now, to realize that distinct persons need not necessarily be distinct entities or distinct beings.

But perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Justin Martyr could give a more complete answer. It’s important to understand what is meant by an author, since the words he uses might not mean the same thing to him that they mean to us. The question is, what did the words mean to the writer?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Oct 26, '07, 2:22 pm
Verbum Verbum is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Posts: 2,138
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Did Justin Martyr believe in the Trinity or not?

Hi Jim

I think your post makes a lot of sense. Justin was trying to conciliate Christian teaching with Greek philosophy, and was not particularly successful. Here from the Catholic Encyclopedia : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm

Quote:
The Logos
Quote:

The Word is numerically distinct from the Father (Dial., cxxviii, cxxix; cf. lvi, lxii). He was born of the very substance of the Father, not that this substance was divided, but He proceeds from it as one fire does from another at which it is lit (cxxviii, lxi); this form of production (procession) is compared also with that of human speech (lxi). The Word (Logos) is therefore the Son: much more, He alone may properly be called Son (II Apol., vi, 3); He is the monogenes, the unigenitus (Dial., cv). Elsewhere, however, Justin, like St. Paul, calls Him the eldest Son, prototokos (I Apol., xxxiii; xlvi; lxiii; Dial., lxxxiv, lxxxv, cxxv). The Word is God (I Apol., lxiii; Dial., xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii, lvi, lxiii, lxxvi, lxxxvi, lxxxvii, cxiii, cxv, cxxv, cxxvi, cxviii). His Divinity, however, seems subordinate, as does the worship which is rendered to Him (I Apol., vi; cf. lxi, 13; Teder, "Justins des Märtyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus", Freiburg im Br., 1906, 103-19). The Father engendered Him by a free and voluntary act (Dial., lxi, c, cxxvii, cxxviii; cf. Teder, op. cit., 104), at the beginning of all His works (Dial., lxi, lxii, II Apol., vi, 3); in this last text certain authors thought they distinguished in the Word two states of being, one intimate, the other outspoken, but this distinction, though found in some other apologists, is in Justin very doubtful. Through the Word God has made everything (II Apol., vi; Dial., cxiv). The Word is diffused through all humanity (I Apol., vi; II, viii; xiii); it was He who appeared to the patriarchs (I Apol., lxii; lxiii; Dial., lvi, lix, lx etc.). Two influences are plainly discernible in the aforesaid body of doctrine. It is, of course, to Christian revelation that Justin owes his concept of the distinct personality of the Word, His Divinity and Incarnation; but philosophic speculation is responsible for his unfortunate concepts of the temporal and voluntary generation of the Word, and for the subordinationism of Justin's theology. It must be recognized, moreover, that the latter ideas stand out more boldly in the "Apology" than in the "Dialogue."
As you intimate, Justin writes way before all these matters were treated by councils and theologians, and before a proper terminology was conceived.

Verbum
__________________
In principio erat Verbum

Last edited by Verbum; Oct 26, '07 at 2:25 pm. Reason: sp
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Oct 26, '07, 3:56 pm
Gerry Hunter Gerry Hunter is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 1,707
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Did Justin Martyr believe in the Trinity or not?

Justin lived and wrote when the Church was in her infancy. She was still formulating the best ways, given the limits of language, in which to share the truth she had received. (Even in the rite for the Eucharist, Justin wrote of the predider as giving thanks as best he could, there being as yet no specific standardized liturgy.) And it's virtually impossible to delve into one aspect of a mystery or of the infinite in a manner that avoids not doing justice to some other aspect of it.

The key is that Justin always "thought with the Church", and we should read his writings in that light. He is, after all, Saint Justin, and the Church cannot make the error of cononizing a heretic -- which a non-believer in the Trinity would be.

Blessings,

Gerry
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Oct 27, '07, 9:36 am
FCEGM FCEGM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2005
Posts: 6,022
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Did Justin Martyr believe in the Trinity or not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MH84 View Post
I found this on Wikipedia (I've added bold text myself to highlight points):

Doctrine of the logos

. . .

[b]On the other hand, Justin sees the Logos as a separate being from God and subordinate to him:

"For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).. ..
This is not so. The Greek original of the above can also be rendered as "...the Logos, Who extends from the unbegotten and ineffable God ...," meaning that the Logos is an aspect of the One God, not something distinct or necessarily subordinate to Him. While Justin's terminology is under-developed, as others have already noted, and does not fit the standards of later Nicene dogmatic expression, he was not an Arian either.

Likewise, when he says ...

[quote]"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56)."[/QUOTE]

By "another God," Justin is not denying monotheism. Justin's monotheistic theology is very clear for anyone who bothers to read him comprehensively. Rather, the statement above refers to the mystery of Christ's Incarnation (making Him subject to the Father), and so the status of an "angel" (messenger/ representative) from the Father that this Incarnation represents. For Justin, along with many early fathers, and even the Apostle John, the appearance of the angels to Abraham, and to Jacob and to Moses in the OT were seen as mysterious manifestations (outside of time and place) of Christ's human Incarnation. It is the incarnate Christ Who eats with Abraham, and who wrestles with Jacob, and who manifests Himself to Moses in the burning bush. This is also what John's Gospel is referring to when it presents Jesus saying that "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced."

Quote:
Justin speaks of the divine Logos as "another God" beside the Father, qualified by the gloss: ‘other, I mean, in number, not in will’.
The term "other God" does not refer to a distinct God, but to another expression or appreciation of God, that is, the one God as worshiped in the Incarnate Christ. One must be careful not to wrench St. Justin out of his intended context. The man was not a polytheist or an Arian. Also, it is unproven that "I mean in number, not in will" is a gloss. The only ancient objection to this reading came from the Arians, who may have removed the line in their copies of Justin.

Quote:
Justin actually finds fault with the view of hellenized Jews who held that the divine Logos is no more distinct from God than sunlight is from the sun and suggested, instead, that the Logos is more like a torch lit from another. He wanted to do justice to the independence of the Logos.
He did, but this does not apply ontological "otherness" for Justin. What he is saying (in perfect conformity with substantive Christian orthodoxy, given the undeveloped terminology of his time) is that the Logos is not merely some kind of "emanation" of God the Father (like the Shekinah Glory in the Old Testament, which is what Trypho the Jew, following Philo, had in mind via the sunlight from the sun analogy), but something/Someone distinct from the Father as a Person (a word Justin would not have used) in His own right, but dependent on the same Divine nature as the Father at the same time. The Logos as a torch was, for Justin, an image to convey how the torch is a separate flame from the flame that "begot" it, but still of the same nature as the original flame (that is, God the Father). This is all that he is saying.


continued. . .
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Oct 27, '07, 9:40 am
FCEGM FCEGM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2005
Posts: 6,022
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Did Justin Martyr believe in the Trinity or not?

Quote:
The importance which he attaches to the evidence of prophecy shows his estimate of the Old Testament Scriptures, which are to Christians absolutely the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, and confirmed by the fulfillment of the prophecies. Not less divine, however, is the teaching of the apostles, which is read in the assembly every Lord's Day—though he can not use this in his "Dialogue" as he uses the Old Testament. The word of the apostles is the teaching of the Divine Logos, and reproduces the sayings of Christ authentically. As a rule he uses the synoptic Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – but has a few unmistakable references to John.
This is because St. Justin was based in Ephesus, and John's Gospel was only in use in Asia at the time. It was not yet widely accepted (or even necessarily known) throughout the rest of the universal Church, where the Synoptics were the liturgical norm. St. Polycarp, for example, whose very name (meaning "much fruit") comes from Jesus' expression in John 15:8, doesn't quote the Gospel of John in his epistle to the European Philippians, but uses only the Synoptics. It is only in the time of St. Ireneaus, about 20 years after Justin, that John's Gospel has gained universal acceptance on par with the Synoptics.

Quote:
He quotes the Book of Revelation as inspired because prophetic, naming its author.
This, again, shows St. Justin's preference for the traditions of the Asian Church, based on his long stay in Ephesus. Outside of Asia, John's Revelation was not widely known.

Quote:
The opposition of Marcion prepares us for an attitude toward the Pauline epistles corresponding to that of the later Church.
??? There was no problem with the Pauline epistles. Everyone, aside from some Judaizing Gnostics, accepted them in Justin's day. Also, Justin's opposition to Marcion should illustrate quite well that Justin only believed in one God.
__________________
Frances

"I am a daughter of the Church." St. Teresa of Jesus

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

Magister adest et vocat te.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Holy Trinity? BlyssfulDreamer Apologetics 9 Sep 20, '06 9:52 am
Should baptism be in the name of Jesus or Trinity? RCCDefender Apologetics 11 Sep 17, '06 11:02 am
St. Justin Martyr MamaGeek Apologetics 3 Jun 1, '05 10:26 am
The Mithras/Eucharist connection in Justin Martyr Madaglan Apologetics 7 Nov 1, '04 6:18 am
Justin Martyr Enigma Popular Media 2 Jun 22, '04 7:10 am



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8256Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: KEPardue
5018CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4345Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: lsbar
4029OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: B79
3833SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3568Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3227Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3203Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3126Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3048For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: tammany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:42 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.