Units 3, 4, 5, & 6 Test #2 Material
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Tertullian (160-225), On Baptism) **How does appealing to pagan practices and ritual help Tertullian make his point? about how water is good?
"In view of this ancient privilege at its source, water of whatever sort acquires the mysterious power of conveying sanctity when God is invoked" - these pagan practices and rituals reaffirm the idea that water in whatever capacity when meant in the right way is seen as good and holy.
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Tertullian (160-225), On Baptism) NB: desert = death; water = life
"We are little fishes, called after our great fish Jesus Christ. We are born in water and can only survive after staying in water"
Homoiousia
(homoi = similar, like) have a similar being -a combination of two Greek words, homoi (meaning "like") and ousia (being/nature/essence). This term was preferred by Arius and his supporters since they could say that Jesus was like God (i.e., also divine) but not of the same nature/essence (since that sounded like polytheism to them).
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Characteristics:
* Anti-gnostic *Pedagogical (relating to teaching)
CYRIL Cyril then begins a discussion of terms that appropriately describe the hypostatic union: union? conjunction? assumption? Phil 2:6-11 is often quoted in this section. Cyril concedes "two natures" (McG 77) but insists that the two natures "came together in a mysterious and incomprehensible union without confusion or change" (ibid.) He draws the (dangerous) analogy of the union of soul and body (McG 78). (I use the word "dangerous" as in tricky, fraught with the possibility of being misunderstood; see Alpha's question "If someone takes flesh on its own, separating its unity with its own soul, and divides what was one into two, have they not destroyed the proper conception of man?"; McG 78).
**
CYRIL Cyril then quotes Jn 1:14 and raises the problem, whether "to become" in that verse implies a change or alteration in the Son. The discussion of this word continues for six pages (McG 52-58).
**
CYRIL Cyril then turns to the word Theotokos. The Nestorians deny that the Word, ineffably and incomprehensibly born from God the Father, underwent a second birth from a woman (McG 58-63).
**
CYRIL The work begins with a typical lead-in. Alpha affirms the enduring value of sacred science (i.e., the search for wisdom/truth), whereas pagans care only about style, not truth. Heretics are as low as the pagans. The Arians reduced the Son-Word to a secondary deity and denied the homoousion. The new heretics do the same thing. They are Nestorius and his followers (McG 49-52).
**
CYRIL There follows a discussion of titles appropriate to Christ (McG 63-72).
**
Consider the meaning of these two statements and be prepared to discuss them: (i) "That is, because the 'problem' that the incarnation addresses is overcoming the divide between Creator and creature, and because this divide is intrinsic to the very ontology [that is, how a thing "is"] of creation and is not a consequence of human sin, the Word's taking flesh is not dependent on and is thus logically prior (supra) humanity's fall (lapsus)" (9-10); and also: (ii) "In other words, the existence of the world and the human beings within it depends on the incarnation rather than the other way around: the truth is not that God has to become flesh to save the world, but that the world's creation and consummation alike are rooted in God's will to be made flesh" (11). MCFARLAND
**
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Glimpse into Church of the first few centuries- Primacy of Baptism and the Eucharist
**
Note McFarland's summary of the Christian claim: "So if at one level the confession of Jesus as Savior implied that he could be no less than God, and at another level the fact that this Savior took human form seemed to be equally significant. For if God had determined that human salvation was to come through a human being, then no aspect of humanity could be excluded from Jesus' life." (2)
**
Note that McFarland is concerned that many Christians simply do not take the humanity of Jesus seriously, as integral to his existence. It is not so much that Christians deny his humanity but that at every major instance of Jesus' life, it is assumed that "his humanity is overshadowed by the power of his divinity..." (3)
**
The Nicene Creed, from the handout "The Ecumenical Creeds" Identify the Anti-Arian aspects you see in the second paragraph
**
For McFarland, why is "all-ruler" (pantokrator) a better definition than "omnipotent"? (39-40). MCFARLAND
***Because "all-ruler" grounds God back in the Trinity -because omnipotent only encapsulates some of God's ability and divinity in the world. It instead places God as the superior and any other creature as subordinate, and that is not what God intended.
"Arianism," Hardy A. Skim the reading to look for evidence in the text/quotations that reveal Arius' core theological ideas.
- ""we are persecuted because we say, "The. Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning." For this we are persecuted, and because we say, "He is [made] out of things that we are not." But this is what we say, since he is neither part of God nor [formed]out of any substratum." (330-331) - "We know there is one God, the only unbegotten, only eternal, only without beginning, only true potentate judge of all, governor, dispenser, unalterable and unchangeable, righteous and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the new Covenant." (332) - "He begot him not in appearance, but in truth, constituting him by his own will, unalterable and unchangeable, a perfect creature as God, but not as one of the creatures --- an offspring, but not as one of the begotten." (333)
Summarize the content of this section, highlighting the cultural divisions of the Roman and non-Roman (i.e., Gothic) people in relation to the Nicene Faith.
- After initial resistance to and persecution of Christians, Goths adopted Christianity in 376 when they crossed into the Roman Empire. Scholars concur that the Goths then maintained their non‐Nicene Christianity in part as a means of distinguishing themselves as a people from the Romans; their eventual conversion to Nicene Christianity in the sixth century is therefore linked to increasing cultural assimilation - The Christianization of tribes through the decisions of their rulers is echoed in the non‐Nicene conversions of the Suevi, Vandals, Lombards, and Burgundians, although the exact historical process or reason for these religious changes often remains unclear - In the next several centuries the two forms of Christianity coexisted largely as descriptive of distinct ethnic groups. - At the Council of Toledo in 589 Nicene Christianity was formally adopted by the kingdom and its clergy, ending the ethnic division of religion; several revolts followed, as well as the unfortunate destruction of many Visigothic Christian texts
Describe what we know about Arius
- Arius as recently reconstructed is too 'modern' or too 'Barthian' - Arius was the presbyter of a community in a suburb in Alexandria, Baucalis, and originally from Libya - In this location his church would have included local herders; it may have been close to the tomb of St Mark and other martyrs, and perhaps a gathering place for early ascetics - Given his later popularity among ascetics‐a number of virgins shared his excommunication‐and comments on his drawn appearance, Arius may well have been an early ascetic - From his extant writings he appears to have been well educated in traditional theology and philosophy. From his appeal to Eusebius of Nicomedia as a 'co‐Lucianist', he probably studied with Lucian of Antioch, a famous teacher and martyr, although he does not appear on any list of students - He was ordained after the persecution of Diocletian, possibly around 311. - Although Arius was accused of being a member of the schismatic Meletian party, recent scholarship discounts this
What was the immediate result of the Council of Nicaea?
- The immediate result of the Nicene Council was not the stabilizing consensus hoped for by Constantine, but the hardening of certain theological alliances and the creation of others
Why did some non-Arians reject the term homoousios (two reasons given)
- homoousios remained unpopular due to its: 1. novelty 2. past use by Gnostics together with the anathemas which condemned the use of 'three hypostases'.
Identify and explain key teachings of Arius as know in his two letters and the Thalia (p. 4)
- profoundly apophatic in affirming God's unbegotten essence as ineffable, so that worship and knowledge of him came only through 'the one in nature begotten', the 'one who has a beginning', the 'one born in time'. -The Son is 'appointed' and 'born', but has nothing proper to God in his essence, being neither equal to nor consubstantial with him. The Son cannot see God, but sees only the invisible through the power given to him. The Son thus existed by the paternal will as only begotten God, and becomes 'wisdom' by the will of God who retains the original faculty of wisdom in himself. So, the Son is conceived by means of many concepts (epinoia) including spirit, power, wisdom, glory, truth, and light. He praises the supreme God, but he cannot by comprehension know the ingenerate one who begot him. These fragments seem to be a theological hymn on the transcendence of God as creator and the unique revelatory agency of the subordinate Son.
What was the position held by the Docetists about Jesus' humanity? (2) MCFARLAND
-DENIED HIS HUMANITY b/c of his divinity
MCFARLAND Note: "... to say that Jesus died is just another way of declaring that he was fully human" (151). Be able to explain/discuss.
-God cannot die, but the flesh and true humanity of Jesus allowed him to die for the sins of the people of the world.
MCFARLAND "For since the Creator's presence never crowds out the creature's, neither the divine nor the human nature needs to be diminished to make room for the other when the Word takes flesh" (128). How is this statement an assertion against both Apollinarius and Nestorius?
-It is against both because it acknowledges Jesus' full humanity and full divinity (against Apollinarius) and that this full humanity and divinity of God was made in ONE person (Against Nestorius)
For McFarland, why can't Jesus simply be a human with special powers/the ability to perform miracles?
-Prophets in the OT who were not divine were able to complete miracles, and Jesus himself said that his followers would perform miracles themselves; so, his performing of miracles cannot be evidence enough to say that Jesus is simply human with special powers to perform miracles. -Humans cannot save another human, only God has the power to restore humanity to its original state
Summarize McFarland's argument that "love is characteristic of God independently of God's relationship to creatures" (27).
-TO SAY THAT GOD IS LOVE IS TO CONFESS GOD AS TRINITY -- "love" characterizes God's concrete existence as these three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), traditionally designated as hypostases or "persons" -God loves the son just because he loves the son, and the son receives and returns said love to the Father, Love is not intrinsic of being God. ???
What were the conclusions of the Council of Sirmium (357)?
-This council rejected the use of ousia language altogether as unscriptural and controversial; it affirmed the superiority of the Father, and asserted that the Son was begotten and subordinate. - This led to the 'Dated' creed of Sirmium in 359, in which the Son was affirmed to be simply 'like the Father in all things'.
MCFARLAND What are the dangers of assuming the specific forms of Jesus' historical, physiological embrace of a particular humanity are the perfect ones? (128)
-This makes people think that Jesus and his humanity was perfect due to the specific human characteristics that he had. -This also makes people think that the Savior was meant to encompass specific human traits, when in reality the Savior does not require any specific attributes, nor to be superior to any other human being.
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Doctrine-Praxis (Paul)
-What you say (doctrine) should model what you do daily (praxis) -Imitate the life of Jesus--> conclusion to Kenosis hymn: SO BEING CHRISTIAN AND FOLLOWING JESUS MEANS TO IMITATE THE LIFE AND ACTIONS OF JESUS AND TO BE "a little christ" walking around the world
What challenges present themselves when we try to discuss the topic of God? (19-20) [Consider especially the author's comments about both "experience" and the quotation from St. Augustine]. MCFARLAND
-When discussing God we make claims that we believe to be true, but in reality we can not make comprehensive statements because we cannot know God or anything truly about God because God exists out of time and space that humans live in. -According to St. Augustine, if we say we comprehend things about God, then we truly don't comprehend because we can't possibly do that.
Identify and explain key teachings of Alexander as known from his two letters
-rejecting the eternity of God's fatherhood: God as being itself created the Son out of nothing, so the Son does not share God's nature, nor is the Son the essential Word or Wisdom of God. - He is one of the things created. Therefore, he was mutable by nature, and does not fully know or see the Father. I - Alexander claims that they also agree that theoretically the Word can change, since it is begotten
How does Christianity's trinitarian perspective prelude any worry that creation is irrational or without purpose? (47-48) As such, can any created being be considered truly "in itself"? Why or why not? (49). MCFARLAND
1. Christianity's trinitarian perspective preludes any worry about creation because "God, as Trinity, is love, eternally subsisting as the sharing of infinite being, it is thoroughly inconsistent that God should chose to share being in a finite mode by bringing into being entities that are other than God." 2. No, because humans cannot solely rely on themselves or their inner divinity. If they could be true in itself then the Creation would be null.
For Christians, how does God come to be known? (21). Can God be truly known apart from Jesus? (21-22). MCFARLAND
1. For Christians, God came to be known to us by his choice, and he allowed himself to become known through the the Son or his Word. 2. No, God cannot be truly known apart from Jesus because: Jesus allows us to know God
MCFARLAND orn Sinless (131-35): How is the sinlessness of Jesus tied to his role as Savior (131)? How does McFarland explain the claim that "Jesus was incapable of sinning" not place him outside of ordinary human experience (be sure to note the role of the human will for the good and the role of the Holy Spirit) (132-134). Be sure to understand the assertion "that Jesus' person has to be sinless in order to fulfill his ministry does not require any qualification of the principle that Jesus' human nature did not need to have any exemplary characteristics in order to fulfill his vocation as Messiah" (135).
1. His sinlessness is tied to his role as savior because only the sinless can restore sinners to salvation and redemption 2. ?? CLASS HELP
MCFARLAND Born Jewish (135-38): Summarize the theological importance of asserting the Jewishness of Jesus as a particular claim about his humanity (135-37). Given the historical rootedness of the Incarnation within Judaism, how is the antisemitic claim that God "abandoned" the Jews "utter indefeasible" (137)?
1. Jesus' Jewishness ties him to David and David's humanity 2. The claim does not have a rock to stand on because God brought his Word to live in the world with the Jews as a Jew himself. So there is no possibility that Jesus would abandon or attack the people of Israel or Judaism .
Summarize the two modern Christological positions which emerged as an effort to avoid marginalizing the humanity of Jesus: i) the Kenotic Christology/kenoticism, and ii) "a Christology from below" (4-5). Why does McFarland find each deficient? (5-6). MCFARLAND
1. Kenotic Christology/kenoticism: - his humanity overshadows his divinity because it can be seen through Paul's letters that in order for God to become just like us in every respect, Jesus must empty himself of his divinity (Kenosis) -Believe that God is truly present in Jesus, but only in a changed way -A constant battle between the divine and the humane 2."a Christology from below" - Share the common concern that the language from a "christology from above" puts the divine nature and the human nature of Jesus at odds with one another -defines Jesus's divinity with his humanity to keep them from being pitted against each other -His humanity acts as the driving vehicle for his divinity to be discovered.
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Tertullian (160-225), On Baptism) Identify the four basic reasons why water is good (175-76)
1. The age of water is a primeval substance (of or resembling the earliest ages in the history of the world) 2. High honor- they were at the seat of God's spirit because they were more acceptable to him than any other time because of this element. 3. Water has a kind of regulative form meaning that water is a common element of God's work and in his creation of the world it was essential 4. the waters were the first to receive the command to bring forth living things
What principle is "fundamental to Chalcedonianism without reserve"? (6). What is the pitfall of this approach (6)? How does McFarland plan to avoid this pitfall? (7) See also the author's stated thesis (9). MCFARLAND
1. The principle that is fundamental to Chalcedonianism without reserve is the idea that: the divine nature is inherently invisible and not capable of perception, so when we are encountering Jesus, we are just encountering his humanity. 2. The pitfall is that in only acknowledging the reality of his humanity, there quickly becomes a path to blasphemy and idolatry because if Jesus is the incarnate word, then he must be fully human and fully divine, or else Jesus would not be the incarnate Logos, he would just be a really powerful human. 3. Avoid this pitfall by "maintaining that Jesus' humanity, while inseparable from his divinity, is at no point to be identified with."
What does it mean to be "created"? (44). What do Christians mean by speaking of creation "from nothing/ex nihilo"? (45-46) MCFARLAND
1. To be created, according to McFarland means to: "exist by the will and action of another - a creator" 2. By this Christians mean: "created, but not out of anything." --Thus meaning that while humans create things from pre-existing items, God is the only antecedent and is the only factor contributing to creation.
Identify the four reasons given by the author of why we should be cautious/reserved when using the term "Arian" to summarize a theological movement/school of thought?
1. we have only three letters and fragments from a theological poem, the Thalia, from Arius himself, so much of the information about his theology exists through the mediation of hostile sources. Such heresiological sources are notoriously difficult to interpret. 2. scholars have begun to unravel the assumed theological ties between Arius and those later called 'Arians'. They now reject a coherent movement called 'Arianism', but rather study the variety of doctrines and alliances of those opposed to Nicaea, i.e. 'non‐Nicenes'. 3. if Christian religious identity is defined according to spiritual and theological principles of Nicene orthodoxy, it may be difficult to retrieve or comprehend alternatives as vital forms of Christian belief and practice. 4. the controversy spans a period of significant change in Christian institutional structures, public roles, and theological authority. These shifts, with their opportunities and anxieties, are woven into the texture of the debates, so that a strictly theological account is inevitably an impoverished one
MCFARLAND Summarize McFarland's claim that the "suffering" of Jesus must be understood beyond the specific suffering he endured during the Passion (the last hours of Jesus' life) (138-40).
According to McFarland his suffering should be understood past the last few days of his life under persecution of Pilate because he was brought to live on earth as a suffering servant. Good became human to do a lot of hard work and sacrifice, and this can majorly be seen in his early ministry when healing and working with the poor at his own expense. -If we only acknowledge Jesus' suffering in the last few days of his life we create an understanding that Jesus' suffering was dependent on his relationships/interactions with others; not the consequential suffering of being the suffering servant his entire life/ministry.
MCFARLAND If not the characteristics listed above, what does McFarland assert that "perfect in humanity" means? (129). How is this assertion documented in biblical evidence? (129-30).
According to McFarland, Jesus is perfect in his humanity because he is not lacking in any human characteristics/qualities. He lived a perfectly human life, not a perfect human as an individual.
MCFARLAND According to McFarland, what is "theologically suggestive" about the creed's affirmation that Jesus died (155)?
According to McFarland, the death and burial of Jesus is theologically suggestive aspect of the creed because it reiterates that Jesus' humanity and divinity of being dead and risen is the only way to truly understand that Jesus had to die in order to save, and to show humans who he truly was. -CLASS????
recapitulation (according to Paul) EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT
According to Paul, it means "to place back on top" -according to Paul, Jesus is recapitulating, he is reuniting all and putting back into place According to Paul, the incarnation is when: recapitulation is occurring; humans well away from God through the original fall, and from the incarnation God becomes human to descend to our level, unite us with nature, and restore us back to our original place with God.
(St.) Athanasius (296-373)
Alexander's deacon, who succeeds Alexander as Patriarch and continues the fight again Arius. Athanasius is exiled five different times as punishment by the Emperor -Patriarch (Archbishop) of Alexandria and leader of the Nicene party (that is, of theologians who defended the authority of the Nicene Creed). He spent most of his term as bishop in exile under Arian-influenced Emperors. He is the author of On the Incarnation.
"There once was a time when the Logos was not"
Arius. This phrase summarized Arius' teaching that the Logos is a creature of God. Only God is without beginning; everything else has an origin. At some point, God decided to create; God's first and greatest creation was the Logos. Through the Logos, God created everything else. For Arius (remember the Chain of Being), this allows him to assert both that there is only one God (a fundamental principle of Judaism & Christianity) while also affirming the divinity of the Logos (the Logos is the greatest of all creatures, only a little less than God -- who is uncreated). Be careful in how you frame this position. Do not say "There once was a time when Jesus was not" (i.e., 33 BC) or "Jesus was the first greatest creature." Jesus = in the Incarnate Logos but the question is about what became incarnate? That is, what exactly is he identity and nature of the divine being that took up human flesh? What is the relationship between this Logos and God? Is it equal to God or a creature/creation of God?
Arius (256-336)
Arius: a presbyter in northern Egypt; originator of the eponymous heresy -a priest and theologian in the archdiocese of Alexandria. He tried to affirm the divinity of Jesus while avoiding polytheism (i.e., belief in more than one god). To do this, he explained that all living things fall along a "Chain of Being" with God (who is being itself) at the very top, other divine creatures (such as the Logos and the Holy Spirit) just below God, then angels, then humans, etc. His ideas were popular and well-received at first, but eventually proved to be untenable in the Christian tradition.
How can Christians claim that they uphold radical monotheism while also saying that Jesus was God (the Son of God, the Word of God, or, the Light of God, the Image of God, etc.)? As J. Rebecca Lyman frames the issue
As J. Rebecca Lyman frames the issue: "the problem of the causality of the Son [where does the Son come from?] was inextricable from Christian claims to be monotheists who also affirmed the divinity of the Son" ("Arius and Arianism," p. 6).
Alexander
Bishop/Patriarch of Alexandria; first opponent of Arius
Be sure you are clear on what McFarland means when he refers to "negative" or "apophatic" theology (24-25).
By this McFarland means that we are not defining God by what we know to be true, but rather we are to define God by what we know NOT to be true.
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Genre: Sermons and Treaties:
Foundation of orthodox Christian tradition
Summarize McFarland's description of "divine patience" (31-32).
God is supremely and eternally patient precisely in not holding divinity as something to be hoarded, but in as subsisting as 3, each of whom subsists in a peculiar glory that, while inseparable from the other two, is distinctive and incommunicable
What does the author mean when he says, "God is never encountered as an object"? (23) MCFARLAND
God's interactions with humans is strictly perceptual, but that does not place him as an object, but rather the subject. God may be seen as objectified, but in reality he cannot be an object because his divine nature exceeds the humanity, and therefore posits him as the subject that cannot be object
"If it was not assumed it was not redeemed"
Gregory Nazianzen. This phrase summarized Gregory's criticism of Apollinaris' Christology. Apollinaris wanted to "keep the Logos pure" and free of any stain from human sin and flaws. But Gregory showed that God does not embrace humanity/human nature with a "floating arm" or "hover hand." Rather, if we affirm that the Incarnation was real, then the Logos' embrace of the human nature and condition must also be real, full, and complete. Therefore, the divine mind and the human psyche co-existed in Jesus. He went through all of the emotional development and feelings that humans go through. His catchy, pithy way of saying this was basically: if Jesus did not have a human mind, then humans were only saved on our bodies and not our minds -- and its our minds/emotions that get us into a lot of trouble!
What does McFarland mean when he says that "God is [not] to be sought behind or beneath Jesus' humanity" but instead "God is very much on its [i.e., the humanity of Jesus] surface"? (9)
He means that Jesus works to be the uniting factor between humanity and divinity, and God works through the humanity as well as the divinity, but is only seen in the human form. BUT God is always seen at the surface because it is his constant work being done and seen?
MCFARLAND Born of a Virgin (130-31): Summarize McFarland's argument that, while the conception of Jesus was extraordinary, it does not negate the claim of his ordinary humanness.
His conception was extraordinary, however, according to McFarland, it did not negate the ordinariness of his humanity due to his sinlessness and his born Jewishness. - Realizing his sinlessness was in/through his humanity -His Jewishness tying him to his fully human Jewish ancestors including David and Abraham.
Make note of the following quotation: "In short, they [Christians] will admit that when they say God is good, wise, or righteous, they do not fully understand what they are saying. But neither will they conclude that those words carry no meaning at all" (26). How does the "third way" of analogy become important in Christianity? MCFARLAND
It becomes important for Christianity because: - it points us to biblical evidence to show that we are saying true enough statements -leads to two categorizations of his divine perfections ???? DR. HALL??
MCFARLAND How is a discussion of Jesus' humanity more complex that the discussion about his divinity? (128)
It is more complex because there are so many variations under the title of "human being" in shapes, sizes, and other variations, and Jesus cannot encompass all at all times. WHEREAS there is only one True God, and there are no variations there. -"Jesus cannot be blue, brown, and green-eyed all at the same time."
Note the vocabulary of hypostasis, person, and nature MCFARLAND
Nature: refers to the "whatness" of an entity as defined by its constitutive attributes or qualities Hypostasis/Person: applies to entities that have rational or spiritual natures, and which take individualized form as "whos" --In other words, to have personal identity: TO BE SOMETHING IN ADDITION TO BEING SOMEONE
Ouisa
Ousia (oo-SEE-ah): Greek word for "being, nature, essence" -from the Greek, meaning "being, nature, or essence." The word means to indicate what something "is" (e.g., a human, a dog, a chair, etc.) Theologically, it is used in two ways. The first is to define God; "God is being itself" or, said another way "God does not participate in being -- in the same way you and I participate in human nature -- but rather simple 'is.'" Secondly, especially in Christology, the question was about the nature of Jesus. The Council of Nicaea (325) established/defined the nature of Jesus (as the Incarnate Word) to be the same as that of God the Father.
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Genre: Sermons and Treaties: *Sacraments/Mysteries *
Sacraments/Mysteries a. Catechumens only stayed for the Liturgy of the Word b. Half way (start of Eucharistic Liturgy), sent out for study c. Baptized, Confirmed, and first Eucharist at Easter Vigil d. Mystagogical sermons explain the faith to the newly initiated
"God became human so that humans might become god"
St. Athanasius. This phrase summarized the purpose of the Incarnation, of who Jesus is and what Jesus does. Two things to note. First, one has to begin with the account of creation in the Book of Genesis, where we are told that humans are created "in the image of God." Thus, humans share a particular likeness with God. This image/likeness was marred, flawed, broken etc. in the Fall (whether you understand that account as literal or figurative). Humans are unable to fix the flaw, so God -- the one who gave it in the first place -- had to act to restore it. This is what the Incarnation (the Logos, the second person of the Trinity) does: it restores the image of God to humanity. Second, when Athanasius speaks of humans "becoming god" he does not mean that we will evolve into THE God. Rather, he simply means that we will receive a fundamental character of God's nature: immortality (death being the one major distinction between humans and gods).
MCFARLAND How did the early Church associate Jesus' death on the cross with his "kingship" (153)? Be able to explain/discuss. (Note: the answer is tied to the discussion in the previous section about kenosis).
The early church made the association between Jesus' death and his Kingship by saying that in that moment he displayed kingly "righteous judgement". -On the cross, Jesus showed righteous judgement and restored/recapitulated us through Kenosis. Jesus emptied himself out on the cross for us to be restored to original grace with God -CLASS??
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Tertullian (160-225), On Baptism) What is the thesis? (see the first line); what is its genre?
Thesis: "the subject of this treaty is the mystery of that water by which the sins of our original blindness are washed away and we are set free for eternal life" Genre: treaties?
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Context Martyrs
Those who gave ultimate witness to the faith by dying/being put to deathDevelopment of the institutional church
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Sacramental Theology: how does the finite contain the infinite?
Through the finite Jesus and his humanity live on
As creatures, why is it necessary to speak of God as Creator? (43-44). Also, refamiliarize yourself with the limitations of language and categories when discussing God and also the conviction that some words are true without knowing how they are true. MCFARLAND
We have to speak of God as Creator because God is the basis for all creations and in talking about Creations we can communicate about God -But the limitations of our language and knowledge prohibit us from making claims that are true: such as "God created the world"
Apollinaris (+390
a bishop and early opponent of Arius (and friend of Athanasius and supporter of the Nicene Creed). However, his defended an "extreme" Alexandrian Christology. He argued that Jesus was the Incarnate Logos and of the same nature or essence as God. However, the Logos took up human flesh and used human flesh like a puppet. The humanity of Jesus was just like yours and mine, except that the divine Logos replaced the human mind and the human heart. It may help you to think of Apollinaris' Christology as a kind of "divine possession" in which the "spirit of God/the Logos" animates a human body; the personality of Jesus, therefore, was fully, entirely divine (he had no human soul, mind, or emotions). Apollinaris' was ruled inadequate because it did not sufficiently describe the full-humanity of Jesus. Gregory Nazianzen was his main opponent.
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Context Mystagogical Sermons
education for the newly baptized
Hypostasis
from the Greek word, usually translated as "substance" and later as "person." The word was a synonym with ousia and related in concept. Consider the following illustration: we may speak of "dogs" (as all things having the nature or essence of a dog) as having the ousia of dog-ness. Yet, we also speak of this particular dog (this German Wirehair Pointer who is named "Angus" or that Mastiff named "El Rey") as a hypostasis -- as a type, a model of a dog, as a particular being that participates in "dog-ness" without being identical to other dogs. In this example then, both Angus and El Rey share an ousia ("dog") but each nonetheless has a different hypostasis. Theologically, this word becomes essential in the developing language of how to distinguish the Logos as a equal to God (sharing in the ousia of what it is to be God) without being identical to God (the Father). Christian Trinitarian language will develop to affirm "one God (ousia) in three persons/substances (hypostases)."
Theosis
from the Greek, meaning "to make divine." This word is central to the theology of St. Athanasius (and wider Christian tradition) that the Incarnation of the Logos restores the "image of God" to humanity, an image that was lost due to original sin.
Incarnation
from the Latin, meaning "in flesh." In Christianity, it refers to the belief that the divine Logos became a human person. This word must be distinguished from and not confused with "Reincarnation" (likewise, while we're at it, the Resurrection of Jesus is also not the same as "reincarnation.")
(St.) Gregory Nazianzen (+390)
one of the greatest theologians of the early Church (as well as a noted poet and master of the Greek language). Gregory affirmed a "moderate" Alexandrian Christology. Gregory fully affirmed and defended the Nicene Creed. However, he also realized that the New Testament also affirmed that in the Incarnation the Logos had become a real, true human person. Therefore, Jesus had to also be like you and me in every way as well. This included a mind capable of doubt, a heart that could be troubled and grieve, etc. Gregory sets the framework for later theologians (like Cyril) who will ultimately affirm the summary Christological teaching that Jesus was "fully human and fully divine."
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Think too of Father-Jesus-Disciple parallels in John (ch. 14-16)
shows the de-apocalypsed world-don't wait for God to come back and take care of things, but this dynamic shows that we can do that for ourselves. c
Describe how the conflict originated (Arius vs Alexander)
the initial conflict began as a theological disagreement on the relation of the Father and the Son between Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and Arius. The exact chronology remains disputed, but it is generally thought to have begun in the period from 318 to 323 * According to the later church historian Socrates, and implied in a letter of Constantine, Alexander initiated a discussion of scripture among the clergy, and Arius's reply was unacceptable (Hist. eccl. 1. 5, 7). Arius complained in a letter to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, that he had been unjustly persecuted since he had disagreed with Alexander's teaching. He characterized the bishop's views as portraying the Father and Son as eternally coexistent and the Son as without beginning. This, he claimed, would make a number of eastern bishops anathema since they all teach that God has an existence without beginning prior to the Son. Arius insisted that the Son was not 'unbegotten' (agennētos) nor a part of unbegotten being, but by will and counsel before time came into being 'only‐begotten' and unchangeable. Before he was begotten, the Son did not exist. Therefore they are being persecuted because they teach that the Son has a beginning (archē), but God does not; he is made from nothing (ek ouk ontōn) rather than a part of God or pre‐existing material. Arius appealed to the bishop as a 'co‐Lucianist' to remember his suffering
EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Context Apologists:
those who explain the Christian faith to non-Christians
Homoousia*
· (homo = same); have the same being -a combination of two Greek words homo (meaning "same") and ousia (being/nature/essence). This term was used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to summarize the biblical teaching that Jesus (as the Incarnate Logos) was "of one being/essence with God the Father." That is, in Jesus we see God; more importantly, Jesus was not a subordinate deity (as Arius claimed). --*You will also encounter with word as homoousios because Greek is an inflected language (the ending of the word changes to indicate the nominative, genitive, accusative, dative, and ablative cases).
Anomoean/Heteroousian
· Not alike/different in being
Solidify your understanding of the Homoiousians
· affirmed a 'like substance' between the Father and the Son, if maintaining a hierarchy of being and action. - This position was developed in reaction to both Nicene thought and the increasing radicalism and politics of some Homioans, namely Eudoxius and Aetius. Condemning the 'modalism' of Marcellus and the unscriptural theology of Aetius, they presented themselves as true heirs of Lucian of Antioch (Steenson 1983; Löhr 1986; Brennecke 1988). They protested against both the theology and the tactics of Eudoxius in becoming bishop of Antioch.
Solidify your understanding of the Anomoeans/ Heteroousians
· most strenuous opponents of Homoouisos - claimed that the nature of the Son must be different from that of the unbegotten Father (heterousion) or dissimilar (anomoios) - y. In his Syntagmation of 359 Aetius defined the divine essence as 'ingenerate' (agenētos), and insisted that this description was fully revelatory of God and the basis of all theological teaching, - for him names expressed realities, 'ingenerate' was not merely a title, but expressed the very essence of God
