tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post7463109043172343025..comments2023-10-28T03:26:35.948-05:00Comments on Catholic in the Third Millennium: A Blast from the Past: What did Augustine and Arius have in common?Dan Dunlaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-47193195422879484222007-06-04T14:45:00.000-05:002007-06-04T14:45:00.000-05:00Dear Mike,The "causality" to which my brief entry ...Dear Mike,<BR/><BR/>The "causality" to which my brief entry refers is not a general causality, but rather a "divine causality," i.e., the generation or cause of divine filiation or procession. Any introductory work on the Arian heresy would confirm that Arius' entire argument was grounded in the notion of divine causality: The Father is the "cause" (through begetting) of the Son, who is thus divine to a lesser degree. In this way, Arius distinguished the essential deity of the Father from the begotten or "created" divine status of the Son. Again, you can study this in any introductory work.<BR/><BR/>The same is true of Augustine. Mountains of material have been written by him and about him. Indeed, practically the entire Western system has been built on the foundation of his theology. Incidentally, I was not accusing Augustine of being an Arian, I was just pointing out a particular affinity in their respective approaches to the question of divine causality. Nothing new here. Again, any introductory primer on Augustine's trinitarian thought will confirm what I have said: that Augustine understood divine causality to be an essential aspect of what it means to be God, which is exactly why his system REQUIRES filioquism. The Father begets the Son; the Spirit proceeds from Father and the Son. The question that remains (and I am not the first to ask it by any stretch) is what about the Spirit? Must not the Spirit be the "cause" of the generation of yet another divine person in order to be fully God?Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-74629726546447145592007-06-03T15:21:00.000-05:002007-06-03T15:21:00.000-05:00...thus understanding causality to be the essentia...<I>...thus understanding causality to be the essential attribute of deity rather than the hypostatic (i.e. personal) feature of the Father's monarchy.</I><BR/><BR/>That is vague, especially given that you haven't quoted any passage in particular. Indeed it is so vague that, as stated, the thesis Augustine is alleged to have held concerning deity could apply just as well to any actual entity: for any x, x is actual just in case x is a causal agent of some kind. Thus "causality" is the essential attribute of actual existence, not just of deity.<BR/><BR/>Augustine is often charged with holding ideas, especially heretical ideas, that he did not in fact hold. In the present case, you haven't succeeded in specifying just what erroneous thesis, if any, he did hold.Mike Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18100363229707213441noreply@blogger.com