This was an argument put forth by Jay Dyer, who was a Thomist and Sedevacantist before he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, and he came to a conclusion that Thomism could only logically lead to Arianism.
Throughout the Old Testament, we are given glimpses of the Pre-Incarnate Christ in both interacting with God's Chosen People and through visions.
For instance, we have the three angels visiting Abraham, whom Abraham refers to as "Lord," we have the commander of the Heavenly Armies visit Joshua, to whom Joshua vows to and this commander says that the ground he is on is holy ground, we have "one like the Son of God" in the furnace of the three youths, and we have Jacob wrestling with a man, who sees God "face to face."
Although these encounters with God can be seen as just manifestations through angels, many Church Fathers believe that these Theophanies are actually Theophanies of the Pre-Incarnate Christ, foreshadowing the Incarnation.
The question remains, then, is if these manifestations are of the Pre-Incarnate Christ, how can these manifestations be Created without Christ Himself being Created?
Moreover, there are instances where - from a Christian perspective - people see the Pre-Incarnate Christ. In Daniel 7, we see "one like the son of man" who comes before God, to whom God gives absolute Dominion. Again, how can this vision be created without Christ Himself being created?
I should also say that this extends to apparitions in the New Testament and afterwards. When the Holy Trinity allegedly manifested itself to Sister Lucia, was this vision created or uncreated? If it was created, how can it not be Arian? Same with the Son appearing to Margaret Mary Alacoque - was this vision created or uncreated, and again, if it was created, how would it not be Arian?
I thought Jesus's human nature is a creature? He is uncreated, and his divine nature is uncreated... but the human nature is not uncreated.
Though this doesn't exactly answer the question, because Jesus united the human nature to his person. He did not unite anything else to his person.
Come to think of it, there was something in the Summa about that dove...
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on July 06, 2019, 01:13:30 PM
I should also say that this extends to apparitions in the New Testament and afterwards. When the Holy Trinity allegedly manifested itself to Sister Lucia, was this vision created or uncreated? If it was created, how can it not be Arian? Same with the Son appearing to Margaret Mary Alacoque - was this vision created or uncreated, and again, if it was created, how would it not be Arian?
How is the content of visual perception not formed matter and therefore created? A vision, in any case,
comes into being, and why is he conflating a sensual vision of God with God in himself?
If this is supposed to be an argument for Palamisn, I don't see how the former position, namely that the theophanies' appearances in the material sphere are created, is incompatible with the basic premise of a real distinction between the divine ousia and uncreated energies.
QuoteThe question remains, then, is if these manifestations are of the Pre-Incarnate Christ, how can these manifestations be Created without Christ Himself being Created?
Why would a material manifestation of an uncreated spiritual essence need itself to be uncreated?
Question: is the Eucharistic host's appearance created? Does answering that in the affirmative force us to conclude that the divinity therein is created and lead to Arianism? What's the difference if the divinity appears as a man ,angel or brilliant light?
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on July 06, 2019, 01:13:30 PM
I should also say that this extends to apparitions in the New Testament and afterwards. When the Holy Trinity allegedly manifested itself to Sister Lucia, was this vision created or uncreated? If it was created, how can it not be Arian? Same with the Son appearing to Margaret Mary Alacoque - was this vision created or uncreated, and again, if it was created, how would it not be Arian?
Let me ask you, is this Icon created or uncreated?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Christ_Pantocrator_Deesis_mosaic_Hagia_Sophia.jpg/605px-Christ_Pantocrator_Deesis_mosaic_Hagia_Sophia.jpg)
The created image is a symbol of the uncreated substance of God.
Quote from: John Lamb on July 12, 2019, 05:52:50 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on July 06, 2019, 01:13:30 PM
I should also say that this extends to apparitions in the New Testament and afterwards. When the Holy Trinity allegedly manifested itself to Sister Lucia, was this vision created or uncreated? If it was created, how can it not be Arian? Same with the Son appearing to Margaret Mary Alacoque - was this vision created or uncreated, and again, if it was created, how would it not be Arian?
Let me ask you, is this Icon created or uncreated?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Christ_Pantocrator_Deesis_mosaic_Hagia_Sophia.jpg/605px-Christ_Pantocrator_Deesis_mosaic_Hagia_Sophia.jpg)
The created image is a symbol of the uncreated substance of God.
Actually the created image is a symbol of the created nature (humanity) of Christ.
Christ's divinity (uncreated nature) cannot be represented by an image. But since the uncreated and created natures of Christ can't be divided, when representing His human form, the divine form is assumed.
Why does the OP see it as necessary that the immaterial be created when manifested?
How does the OP define "create"?
Can the OP link to Dyer's article to see how he arrives at the conclusion?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P3hprH0oc_I&t=1824s
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 12, 2019, 10:24:23 AM
Quote from: John Lamb on July 12, 2019, 05:52:50 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on July 06, 2019, 01:13:30 PM
I should also say that this extends to apparitions in the New Testament and afterwards. When the Holy Trinity allegedly manifested itself to Sister Lucia, was this vision created or uncreated? If it was created, how can it not be Arian? Same with the Son appearing to Margaret Mary Alacoque - was this vision created or uncreated, and again, if it was created, how would it not be Arian?
Let me ask you, is this Icon created or uncreated?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Christ_Pantocrator_Deesis_mosaic_Hagia_Sophia.jpg/605px-Christ_Pantocrator_Deesis_mosaic_Hagia_Sophia.jpg)
The created image is a symbol of the uncreated substance of God.
Actually the created image is a symbol of the created nature (humanity) of Christ.
Christ's divinity (uncreated nature) cannot be represented by an image. But since the uncreated and created natures of Christ can't be divided, when representing His human form, the divine form is assumed.
Not to say you're both wrong, but it looks to me like an image of a person, not of a nature.
Regarding Jay Dyer - Can somebody paraphrase what his exact argument is, and what he's trying to prove exactly? I watched the video but couldn't seem to follow it. It also felt like this video was in response to something, and difficult to make sense of without the relevant context.
Regarding the OP - I'd think that if the apparition is created and if Christ is uncreated, then the apparition simply isn't Christ. Just as an image depicting a thing isn't the thing depicted. But if the apparitions actually are Christ, then it seems there's a problem...
Quote from: Daniel on July 14, 2019, 10:31:35 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 12, 2019, 10:24:23 AM
Quote from: John Lamb on July 12, 2019, 05:52:50 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on July 06, 2019, 01:13:30 PM
I should also say that this extends to apparitions in the New Testament and afterwards. When the Holy Trinity allegedly manifested itself to Sister Lucia, was this vision created or uncreated? If it was created, how can it not be Arian? Same with the Son appearing to Margaret Mary Alacoque - was this vision created or uncreated, and again, if it was created, how would it not be Arian?
Let me ask you, is this Icon created or uncreated?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Christ_Pantocrator_Deesis_mosaic_Hagia_Sophia.jpg/605px-Christ_Pantocrator_Deesis_mosaic_Hagia_Sophia.jpg)
The created image is a symbol of the uncreated substance of God.
Actually the created image is a symbol of the created nature (humanity) of Christ.
Christ's divinity (uncreated nature) cannot be represented by an image. But since the uncreated and created natures of Christ can't be divided, when representing His human form, the divine form is assumed.
Not to say you're both wrong, but it looks to me like an image of a person, not of a nature.
Regarding Jay Dyer - Can somebody paraphrase what his exact argument is, and what he's trying to prove exactly? I watched the video but couldn't seem to follow it. It also felt like this video was in response to something, and difficult to make sense of without the relevant context.
Regarding the OP - I'd think that if the apparition is created and if Christ is uncreated, then the apparition simply isn't Christ. Just as an image depicting a thing isn't the thing depicted. But if the apparitions actually are Christ, then it seems there's a problem...
Sorry for not responding in a while.
1. If there exists an absolute one, in which all of God's attributes and actions are the Divine Essence, the inevitable result is Arianism. If the Spiration of the Spirit and Generation of the Son are eternal manifestations of the Divinity of God, are they the Divine Essence? Yes. Is Creation distinct from the Divine Essence? Yes. If Generation, Spiration, and Creation are all actions of the Divine Essence, how is there any distinction between Creation and Generation? This is called the Origen problematic, because Origen ultimately did think that Christ was a creature, because God's Fatherhood was identical to the Divine Essence. If there is any distinction within the Divine Essence, it must be a creation, as it would violate absolute Divine simplicity.
Quote from: Daniel on July 14, 2019, 10:31:35 AM
Regarding the OP - I'd think that if the apparition is created and if Christ is uncreated, then the apparition simply isn't Christ. Just as an image depicting a thing isn't the thing depicted. But if the apparitions actually are Christ, then it seems there's a problem...
Language issues ... "I see the apple" means an image of the apple is appearing to me which is the object of my consciousness; but that doesn't necessarily mean the image is the apple. But Christ certainly isn't fundamentally a visual image, he's a spiritual hypostasis of the divine ousia. In what sense can an apparition, much less the apparition as a sense image, ever
be Christ?
I challenge anyone anywhere who doubts the Sacred Doctrine of Divine Simplicity- which is Johannine, Pauline and Augustinian before it was Thomistic; indeed it is simply Tradition - to read De Trinitate of St. Augustine in full. It is an absolute classic on the Most Holy Trinity even for countless other reasons, and contains rich edification and much instruction for any Christian who reads it with an open mind.
It also teaches Divine Simplicity, the Filioque, and all else that is called "Thomistic" and was also endorsed by early Councils like EC5. All 15 books are available absolutely free on New Advent, a great Grace.
Some selected excerpts from Book 6: "For the apostle says, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. And hence some on our side have reasoned in this way against the Arians, at least against those who at first set themselves up against the Catholicfaith. For Arius himself is reported to have said, that if He is a Son, then He was born; if He was born, there was a time when the Son was not: not understanding that even to be born is, to God, from all eternity; so that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, as the brightness which is produced and is spread around by fire is co-eval with it, and would be co-eternal, if fire were eternal. And therefore some of the later Arians have abandoned that opinion, and have confessed that the Son of God did not begin to be in time. But among the arguments which those on our side used to hold against them who said that there was a time when the Son was not, some were wont to introduce such an argument as this: If the Son of God is the power and wisdom of God, and God was never without power and wisdom, then the Son is co-eternal with God the Father; but the apostle says, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God; and a man must be senseless to say that God at any time had not power or wisdom; therefore there was no time when the Son was not...
Chapter 6.— How God is a Substance Both Simple and Manifold.
8. But if it is asked how that substance is both simple and manifold: consider, first, why the creature is manifold, but in no way really simple. And first, all that is body is composed certainly of parts; so that therein one part is greater, another less, and the whole is greater than any part whatever or how great soever. For the heaven and the earth are parts of the whole bulk of the world; and the earth alone, and the heaven alone, is composed of innumerable parts; and its third part is less than the remainder, and the half of it is less than the whole; and the whole body of the world, which is usually called by its two parts, viz. the heaven and the earth, is certainly greater than the heaven alone or the earth alone. And in each several body, size is one thing, color another, shape another; for the same color and the same shape may remain with diminished size; and the same shape and the same size may remain with the color changed; and the same shape not remaining, yet the thing may be just as great, and of the same color. And whatever other things are predicated together of body can be changed either all together, or the larger part of them without the rest. And hence the nature of body is conclusively proved to be manifold, and in no respect simple. The spiritual creature also, that is, the soul, is indeed the more simple of the two if compared with the body; but if we omit the comparison with the body, it is manifold, and itself also not simple. For it is on this account more simple than the body, because it is not diffused in bulk through extension of place, but in each body, it is both whole in the whole, and whole in each several part of it; and, therefore, when anything takes place in any small particle whatever of the body, such as the soul can feel, although it does not take place in the whole body, yet the whole soul feels it, since the whole soul is not unconscious of it. But, nevertheless, since in the soul also it is one thing to be skillful, another to be indolent, another to be intelligent, another to be of retentive memory; since cupidity is one thing, fear another, joyanother, sadness another; and since things innumerable, and in innumerable ways, are to be found in the nature of the soul, some without others, and some more, some less; it is manifest that its nature is not simple, but manifold. For nothing simple is changeable, but every creature is changeable ...
But God is truly called in manifold ways, great, good, wise, blessed, true, and whatsoever other thing seems to be said of Him not unworthily: but His greatness is the same as His wisdom; for He is not great by bulk, but by power; and His goodness is the same as His wisdom and greatness, and His truth the same as all those things; and in Him it is not one thing to be blessed, and another to be great, or wise, or true, or good, or in a word to be Himself."
Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. said:"We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith."
QuoteI challenge anyone anywhere who doubts the Sacred Doctrine of Divine Simplicity- which is Johannine, Pauline and Augustinian before it was Thomistic; indeed it is simply Tradition - to read De Trinitate of St. Augustine in full.
Palamism does not contradict the simplicity of the ouisa; it asserts that the energeia are distinct from the ousia, and therefore divine simplicity does not force it to conclude that they are identical with the ousia. Augustine's has a particular idea of divine simplicity, but it's made difficult by the apparent fact that what Austine has in mind with essence is not what the Cappadocians had in mind with ousia.