Against the Lost

The full title of this section:

Against the lost nation of Saracens who are the forerunners of the Anti-Christ and are new heathens with the heresy of Arius and Cerinthus.

Book of Questions (PDF), by Gregory of Tatev

Gregory offers sixteen reasons why the Saracens are lost, and why they are heathens along with Arius and Cerinthus. We know the term “Saracen” was used in medieval time to denote Arabs and eventually all Muslins. We also know of Arius, so no need to expand here.

But I do not know this Cerinthus. I don’t recall his name ever coming up as a target of any of the Councils which I have studied. Who is he?

Cerinthus (c. 50-100 CE) was an early Gnostic, who was prominent as a heresiarch [an arch-heretic and founder of a new doctrine or heretical sect] in the view of the early Church Fathers.

He had his own gospel. He would deny that the Supreme God made the world; he taught that Christ descended on Jesus at baptism and left Him at the crucifixion. Further, that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was the biological son of Mary and Joseph.

Early Christian tradition describes Cerinthus as a contemporary to and opponent of John the Evangelist, who may have written the First Epistle of John and the Second Epistle of John to warn the less mature in faith and doctrine about the changes Cerinthus was making to the original gospel. According to early Christian sources, the Apostle John wrote his gospel specifically to refute the teachings of Cerinthus.

That’s very interesting, and if I ever came across this before, I just missed it. It sheds great light on why John’s Gospel is so different from the Synoptics – not merely because his was written last and he wanted to fill in some blanks, but because he was confronting already very early doubts and heresies regarding Christ. Really this is enlightening.

In any case, back to Gregory. As mentioned, he lists sixteen reasons why the Saracens are lost (making many of the same errors as the other mentioned heretics), and even adds that “they also have many blasphemies that I do not find worthy to mention…” I won’t list them all here, but will address the ones that I believe shed some light or otherwise expand our understanding – at least my understanding.

They, first, deny the Trinity of persons, like the heretic Sabellius, and say one God.

His opening reply to this is also a great starting point in my view: they are trying to comprehend the incomprehensible through natural knowledge and the human senses. They have neither the Holy Scriptures, faith, or the Holy Spirit to guide them. They argue that if God gave birth, God suffered corruption. And this, for God, is impossible.

Concerning this, we say that the divine birth is not bound by time, but is eternal, and it is not at all by power, but eternally by operation.

In other words, do not try to understand the Son of God in human terms.

Further, they argue that if God begat God, He either begat Himself (which is impossible) or there are two Gods (which is heretical).

Concerning this, we say that we disagree with both. For if it is said that God begat Himself God, this means that the Father begat Himself Father, wherefore, when we say that God begat God, God is understood here not in absolute [terms], but as the person of the Father who did not beget His own person, but the person of the Son. Also, He did not beget another God, because when we say another God, another here does not indicate the person, but the being.

This is very solid orthodox understanding. There is not a second God, but two beings who share the same nature or essence.

Further, they argue: if Peter is a man, Paul is a man, and Mark is a man – there, you have three men. The same, then, can be applied to the Christian claim. But Gregory argues that this is a category mistake:

We say concerning this that it is not the same. Because when it is said that Peter is man, Paul is man, Mark is man, their one humanity is not according to number, but according to species. But when it is said that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, [these] three are one divinity in relation to number.

I have heard Nathan Jacobs describe this as follows: dog begets dog, horse begets horse, man begets man. And God begets…God. it is, as Gregory points out, according to species: that which is begotten is identical in species to that which begat. To the extent we can grasp what this means for God, there it is.

Gregory gives a further defense regarding God and the Word: God is a rational being, and a rational being cannot exist without His Word – words are born from the mind, they are not created. Therefore, can one say that one part of God was Creator, and another part created? Impossible, because then it would say that God’s nature is also created.

I recall coming across a similar idea: was it Athanasius? I’m not sure. But to understand the Word of God as the Word of God! God cannot exist without His Word; hence, the Word is co-eternal with God the Father.

Gregory concludes this first item by offering Scripture to present the Holy Spirit and, in conclusion, he offers several analogies to explain the Trinity.

The second error of the Saracens, who say that good and evil are from God. About this we have said enough in the first chapter [of the Book of Questions].

I covered that chapter a few weeks ago, so will only offer the first response, as to me it is the strongest and it is sufficient (and I don’t want to be redundant to the recent post):

First, good has being; therefore it is evident that they [good and evil] are in polarity with each other, because everything that is good is, and everything that has being is and is good, while evil does not have being. Now, God is the cause of being, but not nonbeing; therefore, evil is not from God.

Evil is a lack or depravation. It is not created, but it is a corruption of that which was created.

The third error of the Saracens, who deny the humanization of the Word, and argue thus, first, that God is not a matter, nor is He power in the matter, nor is He mutable. Therefore, if He became man, then He is mutable.

Gregory responds that God the Word became man immutably, because nothing of the nature of the Word became confused in human nature. He further offers an argument against those who say it is unworthy that God the Word was present from conception, in Mary’s womb:

We say that it is not unworthy, because the creator lives in his creation, like the constructor in his construction. And behold! God lives in the heavens, and fills all places, and is in the minds of all humans. He also lived in the holy womb [of the Virgin]. And it is not nonsense that the archetype lived in His image, for what He has made by Himself He Himself does not abhor living in it.

Further, an objection to the claim that God’s mercy is greater than His justice, therefore He ought to have forgiven by mercy, and not to become man and suffer.

We say that it was improper for God’s mercy to oppose His justice, but to be together; wherefore He paid the debts according to His mercy and undertook punishments according to His justice.

God cannot violate either His mercy or His justice.

Finally, why not do all this via some other creature, and not through God the Word?

… it was appropriate for God to become man, so that His love be visible to us, and so that He manifests acts of justice. And He did not pay the debt of man by a different creation, because each creation has limited power, while to pay the debt of sins needed unlimited power. Also, [God did so] that we do not become indebted to and servants of a [different] creation, but of God the Savior.

God was to show us His love for us. Further, had this love been shown via another creature (an angel, a good man like Job, whatever), man would worship that creature and not God. Remembering Jonathan Edwards, God created for His glory – not for the glory of one of His creatures.

To wrap this section up: repentance, good deeds, and obedience to the law are all meaningless without Christ, the Son of God, the Word of God, becoming man and dying on the cross. Without His resurrection, we cannot escape corruption, as only the incorrupt can save us from corruption.

Conclusion

Well, that’s three of sixteen.

There is some real meat here, some different ways to expand an understanding of what are (small “o”) orthodox doctrines. It is interesting that even by the time of Gregory of Tatev, some nine hundred years after Chalcedon and the time when the Armenian Church split from those who accepted that Council, so much of the teaching and understanding appears similar if not identical, at least to this layman.