Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The Greek word λόγος is a prevalent concept in the first century Greco-Roman world. It has many meanings like divine principle, reason, word and revelation. All of these views regards the λόγος as impersonal but Christians went beyond this age-old tradition and reinterpret the λόγος from personification to a real person subsisting.

John the Apostle wrote that the λόγος is God by nature and hence, teaching us that the λόγος is a person because God's nature includes personality.

John 1:1 is clear that the λόγος is with God and is also God.The immediate context reveals how is the λόγος God by nature and this is by being the μονογενὴς of the Father (John 1:14,18).

God = Person ( the Father- John 1:14)

λόγος =Person because God by nature ( the μονογενὴς in the Father's bosom - John 1:18)

But in the second century, the Logos Theology of the Greek and Latin Apologists began teaching that the λόγος is not an eternal person like what was taught in John 1:1 but rather, they adopted the Stoic terms of "logos endiathetos" ( Reason within) and "logos prophorikos" ( Reason expressed from the inside out) in order to teach that God is not an eternal Father and that the λόγος is not an eternal Son although they still teach that the Son is God and is of same nature with the Father.

Sources:

Against Praxeas Chapter 7

Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 61

Now this is my question:

Why did the second century Apologists adopt the Stoic distinction of the "logos endiathetos" and the "logos prophorikos" to teach Christ's deity?

share|improve this question
    
Can you please clarify, 'God by nature' and how that can be the only understanding of John 1: 18. Only if there can be another understanding can there be an answer. Otherwise it is a senseless argument that hinges on the understanding of what people understood the word 'logos' to have meant 2000 years ago in a particular culture in a particular tribal concept by a particular person that did not have Greek as his first language. Alternatively the answer to your question: 'why?', lands up being: 'because they understood the word differently'. And that teaches nothing. –  gideon marx May 3 at 8:27
    
@gideonmarx Do you mean that the Apologists had a different understanding of the λόγος because the contemporary culture they were in was having an impact on their theological reflection? What I want to know is why do these 2nd century Apologists taught that the Son has a beginning of existence albeit not in an Arian sense because these same Apologists confessed Christ as true God by virtue of being the true Son of God himself by means of begotten before all ages, being the λόγος of God, of same nature with God. –  Radz Matthew Co Brown May 3 at 10:12
    
I believe the answer is as simple as that. A lot of controversies would not exist if we all understood what other people understood. –  gideon marx May 4 at 15:03

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.