[OPEN] Reading Athanasius: Week One

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

This is a second letter addressed to the same person. When he uses the first person plural, he's talking about himself and his audience.



I agree with PassthePeace1. Also, I think Athanasius is not primarily concerned with foreknowledge, but with God's provision. Adam and Eve could have sinned against God without God having told them the consequences. But in His provision, God told them that they would abide in death if they broke fellowship.

After re-reading it, I agree with you. I went back and forth on it. So, that is why I wanted to know how others were reading it.

Thank you for both of your responses.

 

[a_ntv]

In Chapter 2, he says, "For if, as they say, everything has had its beginning of itself, and independently of purpose, it would follow that everything had come into mere being, so as to be alike and not distinct. For it would follow in virtue of the unity of body that everything must be sun or moon, and in the case of men it would follow that the whole must be hand, or eye, or foot. But as it is this is not so. On the contrary, we see a distinction of sun, moon, and earth; and again, in the case of human bodies, of foot, hand, and head."

Here St Athanasius makes a very quick reference to the philosofhy used in such a age. The idea of qualities is from Aristeteles, and this was considered a proof of the existenxe of a Creator (you can find it also in St Thomas): if there are so many variations in the world, each one with its use, there should be someone who designed them.
(nowaday these anciant prooves of the creation make us simply smile, but they were the scientific=philosophic approach in such a age).

Anyway St Athanasius make this brief introdiction about the creation not to debate about is, but to start to built the link between creation and incarnation, that is one of the bases of this book
This part of the Incarnation summarize briefly the

I thought it interesting that Athanasius quotes the Shepherd of Hermas alongside scripture, sandwiching it in between quotes from Genesis 1 and Hebrews 11. I sometimes forget how important the non-canonical apostolic texts once were.

Well, it is not that the non-canonical apostolic texts were too important, but that the Bible had less importance, as it has always been up to 1200 years later.

I had a question. In Section 3 of Chapter 1, he says "since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things - namely, a law and a place."

When I first read it, it implied to me that he felt since God gave us free will He would not know what we would chose so He created a plan to secure us. While I agree that God gave us free will and created a plan to secure our salvation, I also believe that God knows all and knows what we will do before we do it. He knows which way we will turn. (Maybe I am reading too much into the statement.)

How do you guys interpret this line?

No

He states that (and it is the base of this book):
upon men ... He bestowed ... the impress of His own Image,... so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable ..., though in limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise-> for St Athanius the man was created HOLY and similar to God

To respect such a HOLY creation, that includes the free will, God wanted that the man to be free to choose also the evil from the very beginning.
That is clear from the previous sentence: the man is reasonable (can make logic choices) because he reflects God.

So God created a place (the garden) and a law (do not eat the fruit) to allow the man to be really free, and so "in image of God".
In fact if the man were "without a free will", he would be a slave, not like God who is completly free (please note how St Athananius underlines the freedom of God in creating: God had not only made them out of nothing, but had also graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word. )

In the first section, first sentence, he says "in our former book . . ." By "our" does he mean someone else co-wrote the book with him or is it a translation issue.

In Latin and in Greek there is the use of saying "We" instead of "I" to give an idea of importance of the writer or of neautrality, like to say "in the other book written by Athaniasius, there is written that...".

 

[Knowledge3]

I have the book On the Incarnation.

The reasons the theology of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is so important and fundamental to the Christian faith is so that your understanding of God becoming man is the basis and foundation of your faith. So that the individuals Christian faith will be based on the Incarnation of the one Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[a_ntv]

§4...By nature, of. course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt. So is it affirmed in Wisdom : " The keeping of His laws is the assurance of incorruption." (Wisdom 6. 18)

I think here we have the basic ideas of St Athaniasius:
- the man bears the Likeness of God, and this is not a "renward" of God, but it is the very core of any man, something built-in.
- the free will ("if he preserves..")
- the evil as negation (lack) of the original mode to be of the man.
So the whole christian path is for the man to became a "true man", a "original man": fully in Likeness of God

PS: please note the quoting from the Wisdom, one of the OT books accepted by catholics http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/wisdom/wisdom6.htm and orthodox but not from the protestants.

 

[Knowledge3]

St. Athanasius

[54,3] 752

He became man so that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself in the flesh, so that we might grasp the idea of the unseen Father' and he indured the insolence of men, so that we might receive the inheritance of immortality.

 

[eccl12.13]

i thought it was really interesting what he said in chapter one about creation vs. evolution ... "If He only worked up existing matter -and did not Himself bring matter into being, He would be not the Creator but only a craftsman."

really blows a hole in the Big Bang Theory. i wonder how evolutionists would reply to this (i'll store this gem in the back of my mind and hopefully i'll get to use some time).

 

[Willtor]

i thought it was really interesting what he said in chapter one about creation vs. evolution ... "If He only worked up existing matter -and did not Himself bring matter into being, He would be not the Creator but only a craftsman."

really blows a hole in the Big Bang Theory. i wonder how evolutionists would reply to this (i'll store this gem in the back of my mind and hopefully i'll get to use some time).

I don't really want to get into origins theology, here (there's another forum for that), but I don't think Athanasius was talking about evolution or the Big Bang because they were another millennium and a half in coming. Both of those ideas are "craftsman" sorts of ideas and don't really discuss "Creator," too, but Athanasius' dispute seems to be with people who are discussing "Creator" (or lack thereof).

 

[Sojourner<><]

I don't really want to get into origins theology, here (there's another forum for that), but I don't think Athanasius was talking about evolution or the Big Bang because they were another millennium and a half in coming. Both of those ideas are "craftsman" sorts of ideas and don't really discuss "Creator," too, but Athanasius' dispute seems to be with people who are discussing "Creator" (or lack thereof).

She has a point though that Anathasius was basically in complete disagreement with theistic evolution, even though he didn't know it yet.

 

[PassthePeace1]

So God created a place (the garden) and a law (do not eat the fruit) to allow the man to be really free, and so "in image of God".
In fact if the man were "without a free will", he would be a slave, not like God who is completly free (please note how St Athananius underlines the freedom of God in creating: God had not only made them out of nothing, but had also graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word. )
.

Oh, that makes it clearer...thanks!

Peace be with you...Pam

 

[Willtor]

She has a point though that Anathasius was basically in complete disagreement with theistic evolution, even though he didn't know it yet.

I disagree. I think he would have argued against atheistic evolution because it denies a Creator. But theistic evolution does not do this. Note that his argument is not that God is not a craftsman, but that He is not a craftsman only.

If the argument had been that God created the world to form the things for His purpose, I suspect Athanasius would not have belabored the point. At the time, it was thought that one of the properties of the Earth was to produce life through spontaneous generation. Other Fathers actually treat the Genesis account in this light (such as when God commands the Earth to bring forth this or that, rather than forming it, Himself, per se). In fact, prior to Pasteur's experiments, both of the ideas of Biogenesis and Abiogenesis were supported and argued by various Christians on the basis of Biblical authority.

Back to this text, in summation, I don't think Athanasius was arguing that God is not a craftsman (or arguing the particulars of the craftsmanship), but that He is a Creator.

 

[a_ntv]

She has a point though that Anathasius was basically in complete disagreement with theistic evolution, even though he didn't know it yet.

When you read what the ECFs told about the scientific theories of the creation, we always smile.
In such a age the scientific research was still based on philosophy research....wondering what a "quality" is.

Anyway I repeat that the creation is NOT the subject of this book: St Athanasius simply summarizes briefly the knowledge of his age to introduce to his argument about the Incarnation.
We will see that a idea of this book is that the Incarnation is a new Creation

About the present debate about creationism/TE, this is something completly out form the interest of the author: he uses to read Genesis not literally but in a very allegorical (figurate) way, completly the opposite of present fundamentalist, and the scientific knowledge of his age were so poor that the CR/TE problem could not even arise

 

[Macrina]

What about the second chapter? I can't think of any good discussion questions right now, but I will say that I like the analogy he draws in section 9 -- about how the king visiting one house honors and protects the entire city. In the same way, since Christ has inhabited human flesh, the power of death no longer holds sway within the "city" of humanity -- at least not for those who are in Christ.

 

[Knowledge3]

I actually disagree with modern evolutionary theory and theistic evolution.

Orthodoxy is about God and His Creation.

So the two are incompatible because the two do not agree with or comply with the inerrant word of God.

 

[NewToLife]

I actually disagree with modern evolutionary theory and theistic evolution.

Orthodoxy is about God and His Creation.

So the two are incompatible because the two do not agree with or comply with the inerrant word of God.

There are many many Orthodox who do not share your view.

 

[Knowledge3]

There are many many Orthodox who do not share your view.

That's ok.

 

[Knowledge3]

There are many many Orthodox who do not share your view.

And to add, in Orthodox belief - God is King and Creator of the universe.

How are you going to reconcile that with atheistic modern evolutionary theory?

The ECF's of old did not have the science and technological innovations that we have today.

 

[Macrina]

*Ahem*

Let's keep this to Athanasius, shall we?

 

[Macrina]

So -- is two chapters a week going to be good? (According to the chapter breaks linked in the OP, that is -- they are several sections each). Or would y'all rather adjust the amount we have for discussion each week?

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

What about the second chapter? I can't think of any good discussion questions right now, but I will say that I like the analogy he draws in section 9 -- about how the king visiting one house honors and protects the entire city. In the same way, since Christ has inhabited human flesh, the power of death no longer holds sway within the "city" of humanity -- at least not for those who are in Christ.

I also can't think of any discussion questions for chapter two.

The only comment I have is regarding his comment "because death and corruption were gaining ever firmer hold on them, the human race was in process of destruction". Of course this is still very true today. Nice to know we as a race are consistant.

I thought the chapter was pretty straight forward.

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

So -- is two chapters a week going to be good? (According to the chapter breaks linked in the OP, that is -- they are several sections each). Or would y'all rather adjust the amount we have for discussion each week?

My vote is to keep it at two a week still. But, I am open.