For instance, The meaning "to look well, suit or be suitable to" is by early 14c., from the earlier sense of "to agree with, be fitting or proper" (early 13c.). I am thinking along the lines of "suitable to" and "fitting". One things that fits with another. One thing that even adorns another appropriately. The opposite of lipstick on a pig, if you get what I mean. Our beautiful ladies adorn themselves with beautiful clothes and jewelry, which becomes them.
From scripture, we are to "...speak thou the things which become sound doctrine..." (Tit 2:1). I believe this means, among other layers of meaning, that we are to speak those things which fit with, are in harmony with, befitting to, and which adorn scriptural truth. Does that make sense?
Of course I can't know what the author intended by that phrase, but what it speaks to me is that God came down as man, to die for His people, so that they could have eternal life, and as part of that, He regenerates (born again) His people, at which "time" the Holy Ghost (God) takes up residence in them, after which they can bear the fruit of the Spirit (sanctification), which process makes us ever more "become" Him, in the sense of matching, fitting, suitable to be named of Him - our lives adorn His gospel. Does that make more sense?
Athanasius is an interesting character. I am currently listening to the Nuclear Barbarians podcast where they have a series titled "The Esoteric Origins of the Enlightenment". They are discussing the different approaches Medieval thinkers took when assessing ancient philosophy going from Plato up until the early Greek Fathers like Athanasius. Many in the proto-Reformation considered the Alexandrian Fathers as letting in too much paganism into Christianity, starting with Origen.
Athanasius played an important role in formulating correct Christology, but as with every human, he was mixed bag, much better than Origen though. The time of the theologian is an important factor, but even nearness in time isn't an antidote to error. Serious heresy started from the beginning.
My thought around nearness in time...no doubt, there were errors early on. Perhaps it is better to think about it as some form of winnowing: there were many ideas about what "just" happened and how to describe it, very early in the Church. There were sifted, tested, etc., and, I think we have to believe that the Holy Spirit led godly men to the right conclusions.
At some point, that narrowing of thought toward the right conclusions started going the other way. When the Nestorians split off, were they right or wrong? When the non-Chalcedonian Churches split off, were they right or wrong? This question can be asked of many doctrinal issues and conclusions and deviations and changes - both in the early Church and in the more modern Church.
I am much farther ahead in my reading of the book on the Armenian Church and Chalcedon than I am on writing / publishing, but what appears clear with the Armenian Church is that they were willing to make a creedal statement only as far as they saw that Scripture took them. It seems to me, ultimately, this is the point - whether for those nearer in time or those further in time from the apostles. As much as I value "tradition" (and I very much do), we need some standard by which to judge tradition. Prima Scriptura.
The bigger woe is to those who lead the sheep astray, but the sheep who go astray aren't without blame - and, regardless of who was the cause of the sheep going astray, those lost sheep are in danger of the wolves.
I'm glad I found your Substack. I read you for many years at LRC and occasionally remember to visit your blog. I have wanted to know why you are no longer at LRC. Since you have surely been asked this many times, could you please direct me to a link to an answer you may have already written?
Lew made decisions to publish me at LRC, and which articles he would publish. I am grateful for the exposure he gave for my work. At some point Lew decided to stop publishing me. I am not certain of the reasons, and will not share my speculation.
Another angle you can take on the beginning quote is to understand an older definition of the English word "becoming".
I welcome any insight you have on this. The best I can do:
> suitable; appropriate; proper;
> any change involving realization of potentialities, as a movement from the lower level of potentiality to the higher level of actuality.
Mr. M.,
For instance, The meaning "to look well, suit or be suitable to" is by early 14c., from the earlier sense of "to agree with, be fitting or proper" (early 13c.). I am thinking along the lines of "suitable to" and "fitting". One things that fits with another. One thing that even adorns another appropriately. The opposite of lipstick on a pig, if you get what I mean. Our beautiful ladies adorn themselves with beautiful clothes and jewelry, which becomes them.
From scripture, we are to "...speak thou the things which become sound doctrine..." (Tit 2:1). I believe this means, among other layers of meaning, that we are to speak those things which fit with, are in harmony with, befitting to, and which adorn scriptural truth. Does that make sense?
God became man so that we could see what from us would be suitable to God?
That's what I think I get from it, a kind of archetype. But if I am way off, say so.
Mr. M.,
Of course I can't know what the author intended by that phrase, but what it speaks to me is that God came down as man, to die for His people, so that they could have eternal life, and as part of that, He regenerates (born again) His people, at which "time" the Holy Ghost (God) takes up residence in them, after which they can bear the fruit of the Spirit (sanctification), which process makes us ever more "become" Him, in the sense of matching, fitting, suitable to be named of Him - our lives adorn His gospel. Does that make more sense?
"...suitable to be named of Him"
I understand! Thank you for your patience in clarifying.
Mr. M.,
It is the least I can do for you, after all that you have done for my self-education over the years!
Athanasius is an interesting character. I am currently listening to the Nuclear Barbarians podcast where they have a series titled "The Esoteric Origins of the Enlightenment". They are discussing the different approaches Medieval thinkers took when assessing ancient philosophy going from Plato up until the early Greek Fathers like Athanasius. Many in the proto-Reformation considered the Alexandrian Fathers as letting in too much paganism into Christianity, starting with Origen.
Athanasius played an important role in formulating correct Christology, but as with every human, he was mixed bag, much better than Origen though. The time of the theologian is an important factor, but even nearness in time isn't an antidote to error. Serious heresy started from the beginning.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/
My thought around nearness in time...no doubt, there were errors early on. Perhaps it is better to think about it as some form of winnowing: there were many ideas about what "just" happened and how to describe it, very early in the Church. There were sifted, tested, etc., and, I think we have to believe that the Holy Spirit led godly men to the right conclusions.
At some point, that narrowing of thought toward the right conclusions started going the other way. When the Nestorians split off, were they right or wrong? When the non-Chalcedonian Churches split off, were they right or wrong? This question can be asked of many doctrinal issues and conclusions and deviations and changes - both in the early Church and in the more modern Church.
I am much farther ahead in my reading of the book on the Armenian Church and Chalcedon than I am on writing / publishing, but what appears clear with the Armenian Church is that they were willing to make a creedal statement only as far as they saw that Scripture took them. It seems to me, ultimately, this is the point - whether for those nearer in time or those further in time from the apostles. As much as I value "tradition" (and I very much do), we need some standard by which to judge tradition. Prima Scriptura.
The bigger woe is to those who lead the sheep astray, but the sheep who go astray aren't without blame - and, regardless of who was the cause of the sheep going astray, those lost sheep are in danger of the wolves.
I'm glad I found your Substack. I read you for many years at LRC and occasionally remember to visit your blog. I have wanted to know why you are no longer at LRC. Since you have surely been asked this many times, could you please direct me to a link to an answer you may have already written?
Lew made decisions to publish me at LRC, and which articles he would publish. I am grateful for the exposure he gave for my work. At some point Lew decided to stop publishing me. I am not certain of the reasons, and will not share my speculation.