Does the theology of Arians and Jehovah's Witnesses admit that God was at one point ἄλογος?

score:5

Accepted answer

If I’m understanding you correctly, this is your central claim:

If God’s λόγος was created, then it did not exist before it was created. The corollary is that God at one point lacked λόγος, or was ἄλογος. The Greek word ἄλογος means “without reason, logic; irrational; illogical.”

Er, no. It doesn’t quite work like that. Here’s Witness theology, as I recall it.

God is God. Immutable. Unchanging. “For I am Jehovah; I do not change.” Malachi 3:6.

The Λόγος is a separate being (better known to us as Jesus, but bearing many other names besides, including Michael). The word is not, in this context, describing a quality of God, or an aspect of his nature. It’s a name. A person’s name. No doubt it’s a meaningful name, and the person so described is wise, but that does not mean that others lack wisdom, discernment, and rationality. Notably, God himself possesses all those qualities. And always has done.

How do Arians and/or Jehovah’s Witnesses respond when it is said that their God was without reason, irrational, and illogical?

I don’t know. I’ve never heard it said before. As far as I’m aware, this question is unique to you. You’ve come up with a novel approach.

I must say that the concept of an irrational God becoming rational would be a rather artistically pleasing element to a creation myth, but it does not form part of Witness theology.

Upvote:2

I'm not a JW, but I've gone through just about every christological position at some point in my life, so I'll give you the answer I would have given when I was an Arian.

Does anyone really view the "logos" as being God's logic or reasoning faculty? Certainly Trinitarians DO NOT since they view it as a PERSON. So why would you think Arians view it as his logical or reasoning faculty? The question begins with an absurd premise.

Now, yes, I realize some of the "church fathers" in the earliest days when the doctrine of the deity of Christ was scare, used the "reasoning faculty" argument, since they had to have the Son begotten in time, and yet not say there was a time when he didn't exist. So they argued that before he was begotten he existed in God as God's reasoning faculty, and then when he was begotten he was emitted and became a distinct person. But they argued this way only because they were alone in a sea of unitarians and had to minimize the novelty of their new doctrine. To understand what I mean on that, read Joseph Priestley's masterful work An History of Early Opinions Concerning Jesus Christ (a 4-volume work, available on google books), particularly volumes 2 and 3, where he quotes the church fathers at length on this subject.

Note that it was the early Trinitarians (not the Arians) who argued that prior to being begotten the logos was God's reasoning faculty, because the Trinitarians had to grasp at straws to defend the incomprehensible doctrine that before he was begotten he already existed. And they had to do it in a way that wouldn't sound like polytheism to the unitarians. As soon as Arianism and unitarians both seemed to be defeated, the Trinitarians dropped this language and just went for the idea that the begetting was not in time and that Jesus was always the logos and the Son both, always having existed exactly as he now is, and always having been a distinct person. They no longer displayed caution against lapsing into tritheism because their doctrine had gained the ascendency and there weren't enough Arians and unitarians left to worry about.

More post

Search Posts

Related post