While completing what right now seems endless reading for my summer course- Trinitarian and Christological Controversies, I came across a most intriguing logical argument from Athanansius for the divinity of Jesus, the Son of God. Also, the thoughts here are a further result of the class notes and presentation of the class notes by my prof- Dr. Don Fairbairn.
In Athanansius' Orations Against the Arians, he sets forth three types of arguments: Direct Biblical Arguments; Biblical/Logical Arguments; and Biblical/Soteriological Arguments. And again, the most interesting one to me was his logical argument.
The logical argument in particular that caught my eye responded to Arius' understanding of who Jesus is. Specifically, Athanasius is responding to the Arian notion that the Father is the One (God) and Jesus is the first one and greatest of all created beings. In other words, Arianism pushes the subordination of the Son to a logical conclusion (which Origen might have already implicitly stated) and explicitly denies the Son's deity. The Son is a creature whom the Father has created out of nothing, and is only God in the sense that he has been given the dignity of deity.
This Arian thinking caused many (Athanasius included) to respond quite harshly, and this brings us Athanasius' logical response to such a notion. First, Athanasius begins with distinguishing between partaking and entire participation within the Godhead. If the Son partakes of the Father's deity, then he is not a true Son at all. The Son must entirely participate in the Father nature (physis or ousia) in order for the Son to be divine and thus save humanity. In other words, the Son participates by nature in the Godhead. He is naturally God just like the Father.
He then argues that if the Son was not eternally a Son, then the Father was at one time a one, then a two and then three. Now, it was not important to Arianism to uphold a trinitarian understanding, but what would have been important was upholding the Father as ineffable, immutable and unchangeable. So, for the Father to at one time not be a father and at another time be a father would be impossible, since this would imply an imperfection and change in God (the Father). In other words, if there was ever a time when God had no Son, then he was not always Father. Moreover, if God were not always a Father, then what could one say about a time when God would stop being a trinity? Perhaps either adding or subtracting another.
But Athanasius must address the Scriptural teaching that the Son was begotten by the Father. While Arius claimed that if the Son was begotten then he was created, Athanasius made a distinction between divine and human begetting. Human beings become fathers and sons temporarily, but the Father produces or becomes a father eternally.
Athanasius proves to be one of Christianity's most able defenders of orthodoxy as it relates to our beliefs about how Jesus is. Well done Athanasius...well done.
Nick - this class is great. Thanks for the summary.
ReplyDeleteI know that Origen, in Peri Archon, views the Son as divine, but still created. I thought that Arius was explicitly making that argument as well - that the Son is God, but of a lower order of some sort as He is created. It's been awhile, however, since I read the Athanasius text. Do you remember where it mentions that Arius didn't affirm the deity of the Son?
Nick - after our conversation, I think it was these two sentences that tripped me up:
ReplyDelete"In other words, Arianism pushes the subordination of the Son to a logical conclusion (which Origen might have already implicitly stated) and explicitly denies the Son's deity. The Son is a creature whom the Father has created out of nothing, and is only God in the sense that he has been given the dignity of deity."
The second sentence seems to correctly represent my understanding of Arius' position, but the first sentence does not.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. The two statements you quote were confusing to me as well so let's explain them a bit more fully.
Quickly, I’m not for sure about the location of a quote from Athanasius, but Arius (in his Letter to Alexander of Alexandria) at least seems to suggest that the Son is not the same type of deity as God the Father. He says “We know one God- alone begotten, alone everlasting, alone without beginning, alone true, alone possessing immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone master, judge of all, manager, director, immutable and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law, Prophets and New Testament.” This God (the Father) “begot an only begotten Son before eternal times, through whom he made the ages and everything. But he begot him not in appearance but in truth, having submitted him to his own will, an immutable and unchangeable perfect creature of God.”
Therefore, the Son is the “perfect creature of God” and yes in a way a deity or divine, but not in the same way that God the Father is a deity or divine.