Athanasius proved to be a key spokesperson at the First Council of Nicaea, where the Church officials wrote down the original versionof the Nicene Creed, and is considered a Doctor of the Church in the Roman Catholic Church. He is well known for his defending the Church against Arianism.
Within the chapters 1-3 Athanasius eludes greatly to theidea of the divinity of Jesus. One could even say that he is the light within the darkness. The darkness is that found in the hedonism of humanity and He is there to be the guiding light to bring all back to His flock. In addition, Athanasius also noted the great detail of the saving actions of Christ not only in his eventual death and resurrection but also his connection to God’s will through the Word that came to be the foundation of creation.
In section 8, Athanasius states that “No part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way.” Do you think that this is evident of Deist, Interventionist, or Sustained Creation. Please explain.
In section 16, Athanasius says, “the Word submitted to appear in a body in order that he as man might center their senses on himself and convince them through his human acts that He himself is not man only, but also God” From this quote, do you think Athanasius views Jesus from a Gnostic perspective, or is he fighting against the Gnostic perspective? If he is arguing from a Gnostic perspective, how does that affect his view of the Incarnation?
In section 17, Athanasius says, “The Word was not hedged in by his body, nor did his presence in the body prevent his being present elsewhere as well. When he moved His body He did not cease also to direct theuniverse by His mind and might. No.” In your opinion, is this view compatible with the idea of the Incarnation according to the Church?
Posted by: Mary Cieslak, Brooks Reagan, Brendan Zaleski
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen Athanasius says that "No part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way", he seems to be talking from more of a "Sustained Creationist's" point of view. He says that as God is the ultimate Creator, He is also part of His creation. That is, creation cannot exist without God. Also, with the last statement in that phrase, Athanasius refers to the Word becoming flesh. This event of the Incarnate Word occurred because humanity, created in the Likeness and Image of God, could not descend into non-existence, because God is the fullness of existence, therefore His own likeness could not be non-existent. Because the Word became flesh, this resulted in the idea that creation is still being shaped and formed since, with the Incarnation of the Word, a new likeness and image was formed. Since the Word renewed the Image of God in humanity, creation could not be an event that is complete, seeing as humanity is a major part of creation; if humanity is renewed then that means it has undergone some form of change, and if it is susceptible to change then it is not complete. Therefore, this phrase supports the Sustained Creation point of view.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in section 16, I believe that Athanasius is fighting against the Gnostic perspective because they believe that the body is a prison. However, I think that Athanasius was trying to make the point that the Word became flesh to live among human beings in order to show them and set the example of how the body was actually created as an instrument for good, and not an inherently bad 'prison'.
In section 17, Athanasius says, “The Word was not hedged in by his body, nor did his presence in the body prevent his being present elsewhere as well. When he moved His body He did not cease also to direct theuniverse by His mind and might". I think that this phrase completely agrees with the idea of the Incarnation according to the Church, because the Church believes that the Word, or Jesus, was both fully divine and fully human. His divinty allowed for Him, as His father, to "direct the universe" and His humanity did not block this, but actually supported it, seeing as the continuation of the universe depended on the salvationa and renewal of creation, which was brought about solely through the Incarnation of the Word.
Athanasius is definitely not a deist. He describes the world as never having been apart from the Word, which does not seems to describe a watchmaker God. He could be arguing either for sustained creation, since he is never apart from the world, constantly aiding it, or for interventionism since the incarnation was a great miracle.
ReplyDeleteAthanasius is not a gnostic either. He says that Christ was not defiled by entering a human body, but rather glorified in by entering it. His becoming human was the ultimate act of saving his creation, Athanasius never describes it in any kind of negative light. He is quite clear in his defense of both Christ's humanity and his divinity.
As for the third point, yes I believe that is perfectly in line with the church's teachings. Christ was in human form, but that did not prevent him from being the omnipresent God.
I agree with Evangeline in that I do not think that Athanasius is a Deist. I believe that Athanasius would believe in sustained creation. Before Athanasius says that "no part of creation had ever been without Him," he says that "He was not far from it before," it being his entrance into the material world. I think that this is a clue that the Incarnation is part of creation that is unfolding, if the Incarnation was always not far away. Athanasius is clearly not arguing from a Gnostic perspective. If he were, he would not say that "He himself is not man only, but also God." Additionally, Athanasius talks about how He did not "will meerely to become embodied or merely to appear." Athanius truly believes that the Word of God is both man and God. Because Jesus was not "hedged in by his body," He was able to still be one with God the Father. This is in line with at least one facet of the Church's trinitarian view, which is that Jesus and God the Father are one in the same.
ReplyDeleteBeyond this, one thing that I really liked in Chapter three was the quote from Saint Paul, who said that man had started "worshipping the creature rather than the Creator." I think this serves as a reminder to always focus on God and not the material world. I think that by focusing on the creature, we come closer to the state of corruption and non-existence. Especially considering that it is Lent, I think that it's important for us all to remember that God created us, so the least we can do is worship Him, not our fellow creatures.
When Athanasius says, “The Word was not hedged in by his body, nor did his presence in the body prevent his being present elsewhere as well. When he moved His body He did not cease also to direct the universe by His mind and might. No,” I think it upholds the beliefs of the Church on the Incarnation. This statement discusses the eternal spiritual presence of Jesus in our lives despite not being in physical presence with all of us. He died and lives in our presence as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not only in this section but throughout Athanasius’ writings he discusses the role that each plays in our lives from creation, during our lives, and in death. I do not see why it would not follow the Church’s beliefs on incarnation. He affirms that Jesus was incarnated and that his presence lives on in more than just remembrance. We are guided by Him in conjunction with the rest of the Trinity, too. I think Athanasius is pretty cool. He reiterates good points from the Bible and common Christian thought. It seems to go hand in hand with Catholicism, as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren that Athanasius would believe in sustained creation. He constantly talks about how Creation has never been and is never without God. By the Incarnation, He saved creation. His divinity and humanity were combined. Athanasius also talks about the miracles, which are evidence of sustained creation. I think his writings are in line with Church teachings, including the quote from section 17.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to section 16, I believe that Athanasius views Jesus from a Gnostic perspective because he says that "He himself is not man only but also God," and Gnostics believe that while Jesus seemed human he was not human. This is different from the Arians' perspective because they believed that Jesus was not God because the only God was the Father and so God could not also be the Son.
ReplyDeleteI also think that Athanasius would agree with the idea of sustained creation, which is evident in section 8. God recognized a greater need for His presence in the world, and therefore took the form of man. This great mystery of the Incarnation shows that God does not simply sit back and watch His creation without interceding. He is involved in the lives of the beings that He created and loves.
ReplyDeleteI also do not think that Athanasius views Jesus from a Gnostic perspective. I think he instead shows that because Christ was both fully divine and fully human, than the human body is not the evil thing that Gnostics believe it to be. In section 16, Athanasius writes that it is because Jesus took the form of a man that he was really able to grant us salvation and renew humanity in Go'd love. He had to humble himself and become man- and suffer greatly as a man- so we could be reunited with God and one day be freed from our sufferings.
I agree with Maria et al. in that Athanasius definitely presents a sustained creation viewpoint. He is very emphatic about both the Word's (the Word, of course, being Jesus) presence in and nearness to all of creation, since the beginning of creation, and about the Word's becoming flesh in order to save us from death and reveal His glory to us. This perspective is contradictory to the deist and interventionist viewpoints because the Word is not just there at the beginning (Deist), and nor does He abandon creation and occasionally check-up on it (interventionist), but He is always present and active in creation.
ReplyDeleteIt is also apparent that Athanasius is not supporting the Gnostics' point of view. For instance, Athanasius tells us that “the Word submitted to appear in a body in order that He as a man might center their senses on Himself and convince them through His human acts that He Himself is not man only, but also God.” This statement is blatantly opposed to the Gnostic beliefs because, whereas they would say that the Word's humanity reveals that He is not divine, Athanasius is arguing that the Word became human to reveal his divinity.
As previously stated, Athanasius is certainly not deist. However, I think that he may be slightly borderline between Sustained Creation and Interventionist, with a leaning toward Sustained Creation. Regarding previous posts, I do not think that an Interventionist view means that God abandons His creation in between intervals of "checking up" on it. Instead, I think that the views expressed by Athanasius demonstrate a borderline case, because the Word was always with creation (Sustained Creation), but then the Word does come down into the world to save it (showing slight Interventionist leanings).
ReplyDeleteAlso, as previously mentioned, Athanasius does not present the human body as a prison to the Word. Instead, the body is something that the Word took on. If, then, the body was created by the Word and taken on by the Word, it cannot be evil. This is a refutation of the Gnostic heresy.
As far as the teachings of the Church go, Athanasius would not have become a Doctor of the Church if he did not teach orthodoxy! Thus, his teachings on the Incarnation must be in line with the Faith; otherwise, a heretic would have become a Doctor, which does not really make sense. Because of Jesus having two natures, both divine and human, He could continue His existence as the Word while simultaneously existing as a man. Because He was both true God and true Man, He was able to experience both to their fullest degree. Thus, He could not be partly the Word; He was always the Word in a full and complete way, which means He exerted control over all of creation.
I do not believe that Athanasius is particularly defending Gnosticism. Though he does not doubt whatsoever the divinity of Christ and how He is surely God, Athanasius talks in depth about how God had to re-create His image in a human body; particularly a mortal human body, capable of dying in order to be the ultimate sacrifice to end death for all human kind. Athanasius may be leaning towards Athanasius in believing Jesus is totally God and divine, but I do believe he recognizes the fact that Jesus was totally man.
ReplyDeletei meant Gnosticism, not athanasius haha
DeleteBased on Paragraph 8, I would say that Athanasius is an interventionist. He clearly states that God gets involved in creation and life and sent us his son which automatically rules out deist, and from what I can tell, he does not mention anything like sustained creationism, which leads me to believe he is an interventionist. Also, his discussion on Jesus' miracles is a big sign that he is an interventionist.
ReplyDeleteSo most people seem to agree with Atahnasius' basic idea of sustained creation. This automatically implies that he interprets the miracles in the Gospel literally. Does this change your view on the interpretation of miracles in the gospels? Is it possible to synthesize both metaphorical interpetation of miracles with Sustained Creation?
DeleteI agree most definitely that Athanasius believed that Christ was fully man as well as fully God. Part of the reason why he was writing was to dispel the view of the Gnostics and to answer the question of "who is Jesus?" Several times throughout the reading Athanasius discusses the "Word's becoming Man" (see paragraph 1, 4, and elsewhere). In "becoming man" Christ had to fully be man. And when discussing what Chris mentioned in having to assume a human body in order to die, Athanasius says that "He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren." Again, to have human brethren Christ had to be human.
ReplyDeleteI acquiesce with Dan. Athanasius was a defender of Christ's divinity and humanity. God became a man to restore us to life. Humanity fell through Adam, and it would not be possible for humans to redeem themselves and put and end to death by themselves-only God can. But for God to truly do this, He had to become a man to die and rise to life, thus restoring life for all humankind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dan and Chris, Athanasius seems to believe that Christ is completely man while being completely Christ and this is because the Word needed to become man to die. I also believe that Athanasius would believe in sustained creation. I agree with Lauren, because God became man he save his creation and God is always with us and is not just watching but interceding when deemed necessary.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to section 17, I think we must be careful in understanding Athanasius' intentions. Although Jesus is fully divine and fully human, he was not so while on earth. He voluntarily limited his omni powers to live a human life. the essence of his hypostatic character remains, yet he he does not possess all the powers he does as when in his full glory in heaven. this reality is similarly seen in the Eucharist. Jesus is fully present in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul, divinity, but he is not in all his glory, for if he were, we upon adoring him would die. for this same reason, we were sent out of the garden of Eden. not as punishment for our transgressions, but because in our fallen state we could not bear to be in the presence of God, who is love. the revelation of his full glory, after having eaten the fruit, would have killed Adam and Eve.Throughout the Gospels Jesus speaks of the moment in which the Son of Man will come in his full Glory. he also speaks of the fact that only the Father in heaven knows fully the plans he has for us.
ReplyDeleteJesus limits his divinity in his assuming of the flesh. Similarly, Jesus is only fully human from the moment of his birth to his death. his humanity does not preexist nature because although God is timeless, Mary is not, and the flesh that Christ assumed and the blood he shed on the cross was that of Mary's. Mary therefore, is our co-redemptrix, our co-redemer. Because Jesus assumes our broken flesh and because we are the Body of Christ who is under the reign of evil, Jesus Christ's body is crucified on the cross. in essence we are crucified in Christ to redeem our fallen state. Naturally, Paul calls us to do just that, to die to ourselves and live for God. it is only in dying that we can be raised to new life in glory with the Father and the Son, just as Jesus was only raised as the Son of God in glory once he suffered the fate of the Son of Man.
if we were to believe that Jesus were fully divine while here on earth then we would not be able to intimately say that God can relate to our human suffering as we can now affirm.
this is a testament to how extravagantly and truly he loves us! the infinite God became finite so that we might be saved and also lean what it means to truly love another selflessly and unconditionally. in this surrender, God displays his supreme power.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with what Amber is saying, how do we know that Jesus suspended his divinity while on Earth? Anthanasius says in Chapter 3 (17) that Jesus performed miracles to show that He is the Lord. This means that Jesus still has some sort of divinity to him. How or where can we find justification in this claim that he limited his powers while on Earth. I think this is important in trying to understand what Anthanasius has to say about the Incarnation.
ReplyDeleteit was their faith that healed them. yes there is still some divinity, it is not eradicated, only limited.
DeleteWhat is very interesting to note is that we look at the divinity of Jesus in respect to the Incarnation from the vantage point of modern beliefs. In addition, we speculate on parts of the divinity within Jesus, but should we not also look at the view that Athanasius took while in his respective time period. While we may give a conjecture about Athanasius' stance on certain fundamental beliefs, we are being neglectful of the audience of which he is talking to and with that the opinions that may be raised concerning the Incarnation in a holistic sense.
DeleteI think Dan already covered who the audience was for Athanasius - the Gnostics. As some have already said, his intention was to defend Jesus divinity and the paradox he had of being full man and fully divine. That's why the text itself seems repetitive and emphatic of certain contents - to reassure and to encourage a deeper faith in Him. Additionally I think we can account for his suspended divinity through examples of his humility. Many accounts could have been handled differently had he practiced his divine powers. What I feel is important is that he had to suspend his powers if he wanted man to learn from him. Athanasius talks briefly about Jesus working to cater to human senses, so that we ourselves can understand empirically who he was and how we ought to live our lives, something that we may be incapable of doing had he not been fully man.
DeleteI agree with the others above that Athanasius is not a deist. His work includes many examples of the Word and its interaction with Creation. By doing so, he is illustrating that God is present in Creation on a daily basis. This does not follow the idea of the watchmaker God that is presented with deism. Instead, Athanasius sees the Word and God in aspects of life and reminders such as miracles. In doing so, God's love and power is displayed.
ReplyDeleteI think that Athenasius would hold to what we are calling sustained creationism. He would say that God, and in Him the Word of God, have been present and involved in creation since the beginning of time, but that this involvement did not stop there. Athenasius says that God and the Word "abide" with creation, implying an intimate and sustained existence and interaction with the created order. With the incarnation comes a profound unveiling of a new chapter of the creation story, but it was what salvation history was tending towards and leading up to the whole time. And the story doesn't end there.
ReplyDelete...
The quote that could be construed to be of a Gnostic persuasion is better read, I think, as speaking to the incredible power of God coexisting with His great humility. He left His rightful station as King of the universe and crammed all of His glory into a human body, to come to us men so that we might begin to understand Him. In taking on our humanity He lost none of His divinity. (This is the same way the second quote can be read, which makes it fine in my book.)
Athanasius' statement in Section 8 seems to be evident of sustained creation because the Word has created, maintained/refreshed, and continued creation because all things are created through Him, nothing can be without Him, and creation is a never-ending cycle. The Word has a constant and consistent authority over creation; he does not abandon us in between spurts of intervention, nor does he abandon us after creation.
ReplyDeleteAthanasius is not representing Jesus from a Gnostic perspective. Athanasius is saying that Jesus was gloried by entering into the human body because it was the route and for the purpose of saving humanity and creation.
What Gina said was really interesting. Was the MAN Jesus of Nazareth limited? As a true man, Jesus felt pain to the extreme in his crucifixion, to the point where he said: "If it is possible let this cup pass from me!" As Amber said, the infinite became finite, in a certain place and time, in order to be a real presence for the people of that time. He was not only able to feel pain, but did so willingly for the sake of those he loved. Ok cool.
ReplyDeleteBut Athanasius doesn't stop there. He says that Jesus's presence was so that he could witness tot eh people that fact that he was God. So yeah sure, he died, but he was raised. Yeah he pleads that this "cup" of pain would disappear, yet he says "Your will be done." Jesus's humanity brings him within the reach of regular people, yet does not diminish his Godliness.
Therefore Athanasius clearly believes in Divine Intervention, because He argues that Jesus was and is divine and has intervened. Yet he also shows that Jesus is the connection between the present and the beginning of time, because he is the Word who was the "foundation of creation" as the opening post said. Jesus is God, and God is infinite, so existant and active throughout all of time and in the midst of all of creation.
Amen David Bond! although Jesus became fully human he does not ever become less than divine. its really funny because this is what we were talking about in Renew yesterday...
DeleteI agree with most people that Athanasius can be considered a believer of sustained creationism. He discusses at great length the role of the Word in creation, but the Word also continues to influence creation through "re-creation." Athanasius describes this "re-creation" as the Word's saving act - the Incarnation and Resurrection. Athanasius is most certainly not a deist because of his beliefs in the active role of the Word in humanity. He is also not an interventionist because the reason the Word came to save humanity was humanity's own choices to turn away from God as a result of their imperfections. God is not controlling every aspect of humanity but rather gives us free will.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Laura that the quote about Jesus entering a human body has more to do with Jesus' humility than the "evil" of the human body in the Gnostic perspective. Jesus took on the human form which, compared to God, is inferior. This does not imply that the human body is bad, simply that it cannot compare to the good of the divine.
I feel that with this conjecture about the Gnostic perspective that humanity has been severely degraded. I am certainly not trying to raise humanity to the same level as God, but we were created by Him in his image and not only given the capacity to think and reason but as well as have the unique ability to create. With that in mind we are elevated above the beasts that populate creation. We still made in the image of God that has been eternally engrained within our being but sin has cast us asunder. Humanity should be more elevated than what previous peoples believed.
DeleteI think that what Athanasius says in section 8 clearly indicates that he believed in sustained creationism. The discussion on this point is quite interesting. The deciding factor is precisely how we define interventionism and sustained creationism. The sustained creationism view enters Athanasius’ language specifically where he details how the Word renewed creation, but also made it in the beginning (section 1). If we know that Athanasius views the Christ as the Word made flesh and we can gather from his language that he thinks of God as existing outside time, then it all makes sense. Christ intervening on humanity’s behalf is not an act that humans prayed for then God granted. That line of thinking is too sequential. Christ was already going to enter the world to secure the original innocence before the fall in myth of the Garden of Eden. (section 3) Only if we think of God as independent of time can this work. Then we can gain an impression of sustained creationism: creation as a continuous process for God because He doesn’t experience time, so he doesn’t change any of the laws He formed.
ReplyDeleteI like Amber’s point about section 17. Yes, I think that Athanasius realized the double nature of Christ as fully God and fully man, yet Christ’s body here on earth is not the whole of His presence and not the full divine part of His presence. In order for His life on earth to be truly human, it cannot be. Thus, Christ being in full union with God makes sense as His presence can be on earth in a body of flesh and with God.
As many others have said, I believe that Athanasius would agree with sustained creationism. He never says that "re-creation" has been completed and therefore there could still be work being done.
ReplyDeleteI found Athanasius' argument that Jesus' miracles were meant to demonstrate His divinity very interesting. His theory makes a lot of sense because throughout the Gospels, Jesus verbally denies His divinity. However, His work is far from human. In wondering about why He did this, I realized that this was a very modest way of Him proving His divinity. Other prophets would tell of their 'power' or 'predictions' as well as do things. By not saying anything, Jesus was allowing people to come to the realization themselves and I believe that this made them truly believe in Him.
What Athanasius says in his book the Incarnate Word is all well and good, it remains one of the pillars of Catholic Christian theology. But how would you read it from the deist perspective? The deist would take into account that Creation was indeed propelled into existence by a Divine Being, but he would also point out that the corrupted state of mankind is far from needing a savior or a redeemer because of the inherent gift of reason. The deist would recognize that the state of humanity was on the verge of non-existence, but the tentative hook of human intellectualism could provide a man or a woman's own path to salvation. The deist would point out that there is no concrete proof for miracles to have actually happened, and that it would defeat the purpose of free will to advocate an interventionist line of thought. By saying this, the deist would propel him or herself into a borderline Arian philosophy, which remains open ended in Athanasius' theology, not because Athanasius denies Christ's divinity, but that he does not at all defeat an Arian line of thought (I know he does so in other writings, but that is besides the point). A deist would read Athanasius' Incarnate Word and conclude that Athanasius does not go far enough, and state that Jesus could not have been divine because taking up of human flesh would corrupt his message. The deist would then conclude that Jesus was a man who realized the hypocritical state of religion, and preached an anti-religious and pro-scientific message in which one could achieve salvation through a purely intellectual humility by accepting that yes, humanity is fallen, but God gave us the necessary tools to gain redemption without submitting to a corrupt human dogma and church that claims only God can save. Free-will is important, and God would not destroy such a fundamental good by intervening in the world he created.
ReplyDeleteThe points Gina and Amber bring up are very interesting and controversial. Upon reflection, it seems quite contradictory to be fully human and fully divine.
ReplyDeleteI think Athanasius would disagree in regard to the idea of Jesus' divinity being limited when he assumed the flesh. In Ch.3 (17) Anthanasius says, "His body for him was not a limitation." Rather it is an instrument that Jesus was in and at the same time Jesus was in all of creation and outside of creation. Athanasius also reasons, "not even his birth from a virgin, therefore, changed him in any way." (With a theology of sustained creation : ) ) He said that Jesus was still ordering the universe while revealing his divinity though acts done in the flesh. This does beg the question however about Jesus' "omnipowers." I think Anthanasius would have argued that him omnipowers were all intact because Jesus was still in all of creation and outside of creation while in his own human body. The idea of Jesus' powers being limited in any way does not sit well with me either. Divinity does not seem to me to be something that can be participated in partially. And I dont think Jesus is partially divine and with divinity (being God) comes the divine powers of knowing all and having power over all. If we say that his powers are limited then we say that his divinity is limited. I don't think true humanity robbed him of any of hid divine nature. Though I don't think I am even scratching the surface of the true depth of this idea, at some point we cannot know as humans all the intricasies of God. But, we can come closer. JESUS IS A DIVINE MYSTERY.
At the same time, I agree with Amber when she said If Jesus' full divinity was unleashed all the people who saw him would have died. For the same reason we were shunned from the garden and we cannot see Jesus in full glory in the Eucharist. Therefore, Jesus is not exposed in his fully glory.
Somehow having full divinity must be different from revealing all divinity. Maybe that is where the distinction lies.
My question is however does this contradict Luke 2:52, "And Jesus advanced [in] wisdom and age and favor before God and man?"
DeleteQuestions that I think seem to puzzle both sides of this argument: Does Jesus retain his power of knowing all? Could Jesus really be sustaining creation without knowing it? On the other hand, does that infant born in the manger know and understand that he is going to be crucified on the cross for the sake of our sins?" Did Jesus know I was going to exist when he was on Earth? We know for sure that Jesus did know more than a human being would know, but is this knowledge limited? How would that limit be definable/ What would that limit be?
That is a good question to pose. The question of knowledge and existence does lie within the finite and infinite. The limit of what is definable depends on what our own definition is for what is able to be understood by the human mind. Relying on basic theological premises we can stipulate that Jesus knew where we are in terms of our existence but the rest solely relies on what we seem fit to render a belief on. What is meant by this is that we are only capable of knowing only so much within the confines of our human minds. We could simply rely on conventional theological premises to guide us in our actions but our own original thought is also healthy to apply here.
DeleteI think it is the wrong decision to blindly follow conventional theology. To say there is no possible way we can understand it is a cop-out. In answer to Jackie's questions, I believe the Church would agree with the idea that while Christ was on Earth, His human body had to subscribe to the rules and laws of Creation. Just because He was God, does not mean that he would have been able to fly about like Superman. Indeed, in every one of his miracles, it is almost explicitly stated that they would have no effect without the help of the Father. It would not have been Jesus per-say that performed these deeds, but as Jesus Himself states in John 14:10 ""Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." You can think of it more like the Son's human form acts as a conduit to the divinity which is embodied by him, and that all the miracles are the works of the Father. So, when you ask whether or not the babe in the cradle knew of his mission, I would say He knew as much as a baby could know, and when Jesus was old enough, He was able to recognize the divinity within Him. Jesus' human nature could only comprehend and know whatever a human could, so therefore He could feel fear (why would a god feel fear?), He could pray to the Father (why would a god need to pray to himself?), and He could have miracles performed through Him, much like saints and prophets can. In a way, this is not limiting His knowledge, for His human nature could not comprehend what is incomprehensible. He could not know what could not be known, but He indeed knew all there was to be known.
Deletewhoops, this is me, Brendan Zaleski
DeleteBrendan, I think that blindly following something is wrong also. I am glad we are discussing these theological ideas in order to understand our faith more fully. I like that you brought up the idea of the intimate relationship Jesus has with his Father. Jesus makes the Father, who is in a certain sense unknowable by people, more understandable to humans by becoming a human and revealing who God is in a way that we can understand more fully. He does perform miracles in way that is similar to the prophets, but he does them differently than the prophets because he is different than the prophets; Jesus is both God and a man, and the prophets were only people. It is difficult to determine whether the Father or the Son did the miracles because both persons are so intimately connected. Asking "Could Jesus rise from the dead without the Father?" or "Could the Father have created without the Son?" is silly because the fact is they are both mysteriously one divine being.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I will agree with the majority and say that Athanasius was a supporter of the concept of sustained creationism. He is clearly working away from Deism, because his language regarding the Word and the incarnation too heavily state that God is not done in creating the universe. This is far from the watchmaker model that is Deisms central dogma.
ReplyDeleteWhere an interesting discussion is available is in the definition of Sustained Creationism versus Interventionism- for both of these are inclusive of Athanasius idea of the Word at Creation. Where the two differ, and the reason why I believe that it leans towards sustained creationism is that there is no mention of a "re-creation" which would lead me to believe that the first creation was complete- and that the incarnation of the word was another creation meant to intervene.
To add to the discussion on the divinity/humanity of Jesus- I believe there are several positions surrounding how to fully describe Jesus that were presented at the Council of Chalcedon that deserve mention. After all that council was the one where church leaders decided that Jesus had two natures (human and divine), one hypostaysis, and one was one person. Of course, even during its time this decision was controversial because it seems to deny the principle that a hypostaysis can only have one nature (which is true of its definition). However I think people have raised an interesting point about the suspension of Divinity, though I do not agree with it.
Silly typographic error: I meant to say there is no mention of a "completed" re-creation (re-creation is a term used by Athanasius)- only the mention of the first creation being complete would comply with the interventionist dogma of creation.
DeleteIn the quote from paragraph 16, Athanasius is arguing against Gnosticism. He is basically saying that through a human body, God did godly things. He drove out demons and cured the sick. What proves this idea is that Jesus had to die in order to save humanity. In death, the common law of humanity, Jesus did what is most human- die. From my understanding of gnosticism, it seems that they may not believe that Jesus ever died. But after being crucified, He was carried to a tomb where he lay dead. Thus, Jesus had to be human.
ReplyDeleteI see what Athanasius is saying as a testament to a belief in sustained creationism. Athanasius believes that Jesus came to earth not to re-do creation but to refresh and revive the role of creation in the minds and faith of the people.
ReplyDeleteAthanasius is also arguing against gnosticism. He believes that Jesus came to earth as the Word and brought life to God, faith and creation by taking human form. This human form was in a sense a glorification of the Word and the teachings of creation as it brought faith and literally God closer to His people on earth.