[OPEN] Athanasius Reloaded

[Macrina]

I have been the most delinquent member of our reading group, but I'm back on track. Thanks for being patient with me, all.

Let's continue discussing The Incarnation of the Word of God (Athanasius). Bring in thoughts from any part of the work that you would like.

 

[Willtor]

I think it was in "Mere Christianity" where C.S. Lewis argues against total depravity (or "deep depravity" if you're right about the strawman). If it wasn't, I don't recall.

 

[Macrina]

I think it was in "Mere Christianity" where C.S. Lewis argues against total depravity (or "deep depravity" if you're right about the strawman). If it wasn't, I don't recall.

Hmm... I've read that, but it's been years, since I was a fairly new Christian.

I do think a lot of this boils down to using different analogies to describe the same thing. And I think there's scriptural precedent for that -- salvation as washing/cleansing, dying and rising, returning home, being forgiven a debt... all of these things get at it without being the exclusive way to explain it. I think the same can be said about how we explain original sin and our need for redemption.

 

[Macrina]

Hmm, I was going to comment on how this is rather a tangent from Athanasius, but then I remembered the introduction written by C.S. Lewis -- so maybe we can squeeze it in the side door.

 

[Willtor]

Hmm, I was going to comment on how this is rather a tangent from Athanasius, but then I remembered the introduction written by C.S. Lewis -- so maybe we can squeeze it in the side door.

I think it's pretty close to the topic, anyway, precisely because the topic isn't directly addressed by Athanasius where one would expect it to be addressed.

 

[Macrina]

More random musings (you'll have to forgive me for being in a tangential mood as I look things over):

I'm fascinated by early Christian martyrdom, so I make note of how Athanasius uses the willingness of Christians to face death as proof of the Christ's defeat of death through the resurrection. Athansius talks about how children and "even women" (pfft) will not only stop fearing death, but actually run into its embrace because of what they have learned through faith.

I don't have a particular point here, I suppose, other than the fact that this (IMHO) is a particularly potent argument in favor of faith. The Resurrection so fundamentally turns around our concept of mortality that we no longer see death as the end of life but as the beginning of our own resurrection.

This being the season of Easter, I'm doing a lot of reflection on the implications of the Resurrection for Christian life. It's... it's everything, really. The witness of the martyrs shows us this, that the Resurrection turns our world upside-down (or rather, rights our wrong perception of it?). The entire end (as in "goal", not just "completion") of our discipleship is determined by the resurrection of the Incarnate Word. This is why the witness of the martyrs is so powerful.

 

[Willtor]

"For when one sees men, weak by nature, leaping forward to death, and not fearing its corruption nor frightened of the descent into Hades, but with eager soul challenging it; and not flinching from torture, but on the contrary, for Christ’s sake electing to rush upon death in preference to life upon earth, or even if one be an eye-witness of men and females and young children rushing and leaping upon death for the sake of Christ’s religion; who is so silly, or who is so incredulous, or who so maimed in his mind, as not to see and infer that Christ, to Whom the people witness, Himself supplies and gives to each the victory over death, depriving him of all his power in each one of them that hold His faith and bear the sign of the Cross."
(section 29)

The first and second century fathers are full of this sort of thing. Ignatius of Antioch has an epistle almost entirely devoted to persuading people of the truth of the gospel by his eagerness to be martyred.

 

[Macrina]

"For when one sees men, weak by nature, leaping forward to death, and not fearing its corruption nor frightened of the descent into Hades, but with eager soul challenging it; and not flinching from torture, but on the contrary, for Christ’s sake electing to rush upon death in preference to life upon earth, or even if one be an eye-witness of men and females and young children rushing and leaping upon death for the sake of Christ’s religion; who is so silly, or who is so incredulous, or who so maimed in his mind, as not to see and infer that Christ, to Whom the people witness, Himself supplies and gives to each the victory over death, depriving him of all his power in each one of them that hold His faith and bear the sign of the Cross."
(section 29)

The first and second century fathers are full of this sort of thing. Ignatius of Antioch has an epistle almost entirely devoted to persuading people of the truth of the gospel by his eagerness to be martyred.

Right. Martyrdom was considered a special honor -- a privilege, of sorts. From our modern perspective, we might look back at some of these cases and wonder at the wisdom of the person who decided to pursue an "unnecessary" death. Reading early works like this is sort of a window into how Christians used to view such things, and a lot of it challenges the modern Christian's notion of "common sense."

I'm not saying we should all go out and get martyred, mind you. Although I am deeply moved by the stories of martyrs, in some writings, there's a thirst for it which is hard for me to understand and even a little disturbing.

BUT. But if I look at the world through the eyes of Athanasius (or Ignatius, or Polycarp, or Paul, or...), our own norms look a little different. What would Athanasius, who suffered exile multiple times, say to the modern church? Would he bemoan our softness? Our failure to cling to the core doctrine of the Incarnation? Our lack of passion? I wonder. Perhaps it's good for me to be disturbed.

 

[a_ntv]

I wonder if perhaps we are using different words to describe the same thing?

I'm happy that we are using different words to describe the same ting, about total depravity.

I, as catholic, of course cannot read the original books of the reforemers about the total depravity, so I shall use the definition of it more widely stated, that perhaps (and hopefully) is a strawman.
Ad instance form wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity):
The doctrine of total depravity teaches that people are by nature not inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, as he requires...
Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition.
We can see that this definition is not the St Athaniasus one, who state that a clean is enough to restore the situation in the Garden.

 

[Macrina]

Could "no mere refinement of natural capacities" mean that there is nothing natural (i.e. human) by which human sin may be overcome? The refining/cleaning/healing must come from God? I don't know what the wiki person meant, but that's one thought that I have.

I do believe that God reaches out to us before we are capable of reaching back for him. Until then, we are groping in the darkness for something we do not understand -- we feel a yearning for something, but until the Lord reaches out to us, we cannot pinpoint the appropriate direction for that yearning. In this sense, we are totally dependent on God to initiate salvation. You could say, then, that although we may seek something of the divine while we are still lost, we're incapable of discovering Him until he reaches out to us. That's what I mean when I talk about grace, and it ties in with total depravity. Total depravity, to me, means that there is no aspect of me as a human being (my mind, my heart, etc) which is completely pure and able to reach the destination (rightness with God) completely on my own. It's the divine initiative which makes it possible for me to seek him rightly.

 

[a_ntv]

I'm fascinated by early Christian martyrdom, so I make note of how Athanasius uses the willingness of Christians to face death as proof of the Christ's defeat of death through the resurrection. Athansius talks about how children and "even women" (pfft) will not only stop fearing death, but actually run into its embrace because of what they have learned through faith.

When I read the reference of St Athanasius to the martyrs, I remembered the liturgies that dates the age of St Athanasius:

Roman Canon:
In union with the whole Church we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor ... the apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; we honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian and all the saints. May their merits and prayers gain us your constant help and protection, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Anaphora of Addai and Mari:
Pray for the memorial of our fathers, the catholicoi and bishops, and all presbyters, deacons, young men, and virgins; all those who have departed and gone from this world in the true faith; all our fathers and brothers; all our sons and daughters; all faithful, Christ-loving kings; all prophets and apostles; and all martyrs and confessors, here and everywhere, that God may crown them at the resurrection from the dead, and give us a good hope and portion with them, and an inheritance and life in the kingdom of heaven. - And may this oblation be accepted with confidence.

And I remember you that still now the OO Coptic Church (the Church of St Athanasius) starts his calendar not since the birth of Christ, but since the 284, when the Emperator Diocletian got the power, in remembrance of the huge persecutions under him: it is called "age of Martyrs".
And St Athasius (296-373) is near in time to this huge persecution

 

[a_ntv]

Could "no mere refinement of natural capacities" mean that there is nothing natural (i.e. human) by which human sin may be overcome? The refining/cleaning/healing must come from God? I don't know what the wiki person meant, but that's one thought that I have.

Oh yes, about the fact that the refining/cleaning/healing shall came from God only, I think that there is aperfect and total agreement between catholics and protestants (Sola Gratia rules!)

I do believe that God reaches out to us before we are capable of reaching back for him. Until then, we are groping in the darkness for something we do not understand -- we feel a yearning for something, but until the Lord reaches out to us, we cannot pinpoint the appropriate direction for that yearning. In this sense, we are totally dependent on God to initiate salvation. You could say, then, that although we may seek something of the divine while we are still lost, we're incapable of discovering Him until he reaches out to us. That's what I mean when I talk about grace, and it ties in with total depravity.

The catholics agree at 100% with this your definition
The only thing that we point out is that the man has always, in any condition, the chance to accept or to reject the appropriate direction for that yearning given by the Lord.
Of course the man cannot be saved without God, but he is perfectly able by himself alone to reject the direction given by God.

But perhaps we are going slightly off topic.

 

[Macrina]

Oh yes, about the fact that the refining/cleaning/healing shall came from God only, I think that there is aperfect and total agreement between catholics and protestants (Sola Gratia rules!)

The catholics agree at 100% with this your definition
The only thing that we point out is that the man has always, in any condition, the chance to accept or to reject the appropriate direction for that yearning given by the Lord.
Of course the man cannot be saved without God, but he is perfectly able by himself alone to reject the direction given by God.

But perhaps we are going slightly off topic.

I think we have much more agreement than disagreement. The way I look at these doctrines is this: We know that God does the saving, but the exact HOW he does the saving is beyond our comprehension. That's why different Christians explain it in different ways -- there are no human words adequate to explain the mysteries of God. And yet, in his wisdom, the part that we need to understand in order to be saved? That can be understood by the simplest child.

Praise God for revealing to us all that we need to know. This doesn't stop me from trying to fathom as much as I can, of course, but at the end of the day I take great comfort in knowing that the language I use to communicate theological nuances isn't what saves me.

 

[Macrina]

When I read the reference of St Athanasius to the martyrs, I remembered the liturgies that dates the age of St Athanasius:

Roman Canon:
In union with the whole Church we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor ... the apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; we honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian and all the saints. May their merits and prayers gain us your constant help and protection, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Anaphora of Addai and Mari:
Pray for the memorial of our fathers, the catholicoi and bishops, and all presbyters, deacons, young men, and virgins; all those who have departed and gone from this world in the true faith; all our fathers and brothers; all our sons and daughters; all faithful, Christ-loving kings; all prophets and apostles; and all martyrs and confessors, here and everywhere, that God may crown them at the resurrection from the dead, and give us a good hope and portion with them, and an inheritance and life in the kingdom of heaven. - And may this oblation be accepted with confidence.

And I remember you that still now the OO Coptic Church (the Church of St Athanasius) starts his calendar not since the birth of Christ, but since the 284, when the Emperator Diocletian got the power, in remembrance of the huge persecutions under him: it is called "age of Martyrs".
And St Athasius (296-373) is near in time to this huge persecution

I did not know about the Coptic Church's calendar. That's fascinating.


An important element of the church is, I believe, unity with believers of every generation. Presbyterians emphasize this especially on All Saint's Day and every time we celebrate communion (the Great Prayer of Thanksgiving offers thanks for "all the faithful of every time and place" and a prayer that we may be united with them at the Table).

Recognizing that the church is more than just the current generation, I'm more and more interested in other generations, their perspective and their witness. I guess that's a big part of why I wanted to start this reading group -- so that we could get together and see things through the eyes of those who are far removed from us in history, yet one with us through Christ.

 

[a_ntv]

To understand the mind of the early Christians as St Athanasius, I go on in listing ancient liturgies, that is how they prayed:

Here the preface of the anaphora of St James (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.ii.html), where the Martyrs and the Saints are placed in the heaven Jerusalem with the angels to sing the 'Sanctus':
Verily it is becoming and right, proper and due to praise Thee, to sing of Thee, to bless Thee, to worship Thee, to glorify Thee, to give Thee thanks, Maker of every creature visible and invisible, the treasure of eternal good things, the fountain of life and immortality, God and Lord of all:
Whom the heavens of heavens praise, and all the host of them; the sun, and the moon, and all the choir of the stars; earth, sea, and all that is in them; Jerusalem, the heavenly assembly, and church of the first-born that are written in heaven; spirits of just men and of prophets; souls of martyrs and of apostles; angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities, and dread powers; and the many-eyed cherubim, and the six-winged seraphim, which cover their faces with two wings, their feet with two, and with two they fly, crying one to another with unresting lips, with unceasing praises: ..Holy, holy, holy...
I think that this prayer best shows what we call 'the communion of saints'

Here an exemple from the ancient liturgy of St Mark, probably used by the same Athanasius: (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.iii.html): O Lord our God, give peace to the souls of our fathers and brethren who have fallen asleep in Jesus, remembering our forefathers of old, our fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, and the souls of all the holy and just men who have died in the Lord.

Here from the liturgy of the blessed apostoles (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.iv.html): O Lord God Almighty, accept this oblation for the whole Holy Catholic Church, and for all the pious and righteous fathers who have been pleasing to Thee, and for all the prophets and apostles, and for all the martyrs and confessors, and for all that mourn, that are in straits, and are sick, and for all that are under difficulties and trials, and for all the weak and the oppressed, and for all the dead that have gone from amongst us; then for all that ask a prayer from our weakness, and for me, a degraded and feeble sinner.

It is extremly difficoult to find an ancient eucharistic prayer without the reference to the saints or to the martyrs

 

[Willtor]

I like that liturgy. As Macrina said, it places the speaker in the context of the Church throughout the ages, and not just among our contemporaries.

 

[Macrina]

The Didache might be a good thing to read next, if y'all are up to more after Athanasius (and I won't go MIA again!). I had been thinking of reading Justin Martyr's First and Second Apologies, but the Didache would be interesting, too.

And now back to your regularly-scheduled Athanasius.

 

[Macrina]

You know, it's interesting: When Athanasius and the other ECFs defended the faith, they were defending it against other forms of theism. It wasn't a matter of whether or not to believe in anything, but rather in what or whom one should believe. That's one area in which it can be difficult to translate works like this into the modern context; although there is much that speaks directly to us, some of his refutations against the Gentiles don't speak to the doubt many of us encounter today.

 

[a_ntv]

You know, it's interesting: When Athanasius and the other ECFs defended the faith, they were defending it against other forms of theism. It wasn't a matter of whether or not to believe in anything, but rather in what or whom one should believe. That's one area in which it can be difficult to translate works like this into the modern context; although there is much that speaks directly to us, some of his refutations against the Gentiles don't speak to the doubt many of us encounter today.

Well, also now most of the not-believing people is not 100% atheist: they simply choose what they believe, building a religion as they like.
Also in the worse case, the pure atheists, they adore as god the richness, or the carrier, or the heath...
But for sure most of the apologetic of the father is no more actual, because the world where they lived is different.

About the didaché, I think that all of us have read it many times...

 

[a_ntv]

§54: He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God.

Or using prhaps a better translation: For He was made man that we might became divine

This is for sure the more famous sentence of this book.

Your ideas?