[OPEN] Athanasius Reloaded

[Macrina]

Haha, you beat me to posting that quote!

It's certainly a quote which has perplexed me. Taken at a black-and-white level, it sounds, quite frankly, blasphemous. It sounds like the sort of thing the Mormons say when they talk about their belief that they will one day get to be gods of their own planets. BUT. But we know that this can't be what Athanasius means, not in that sense. Athanasius is Mr. Orthodoxy, pretty much, so he wouldn't actually be talking about the literal deification of a human being.

The way I read it, in the context of the series of oppositions Athanasius sets up, is that Christ became like us so as to make us like him. So as to allow us to be adopted by the Father. To turn upside-down ideas of meek and powerful and bring us into the kingdom with honor, all through his dishonor.

The first time I heard the quote, without the context, I was disturbed by it. But having read it in context, I see that Athanasius isn't talking about setting ourselves up as gods, he's talking about the restoration of God's image within us.

 

[a_ntv]

The way I read it, in the context of the series of oppositions Athanasius sets up, is that Christ became like us so as to make us like him. So as to allow us to be adopted by the Father. To turn upside-down ideas of meek and powerful and bring us into the kingdom with honor, all through his dishonor..

Well it is something more...

St Athanasius stated the Christ made possible to:
1) to restore the situation before the fall, that is to recover to image and likeness of God (he say to clean the corruption)
2) to move the man to a better situation

So it is not only that we could be bringed into the kingdom with honor, but in that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

 

[Macrina]

I agree; that's a great way to put it.

 

[BrendanMark]

The closest English equivalent of theōsis is “deification.” In Christian theology, theōsis refers to the transformation of believers into the likeness of God. Of course, Christian monotheism goes against any literal “god making” of believers. Rather, the NT speaks of a transformation of mind, a metamorphosis of character, a redefinition of selfhood, and an imitation of God. Most of these passages are tantalizingly brief, and none spells out the concept in detail.
Finlan, Steven – Theōsis [Pickwick, 2006, p. 1]

Many of the Fathers discuss theosis, and make it the basis for their theology. Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity is based upon it, for if Christ was not True God from True God, then the Incarnation could not sacralize human life and death.

That the Christian may live a divinized life is a truth universally acknowledged from the fourth century onwards; it is not, however, a purely speculative and abstract truth, but a profound conviction, a key idea which was perhaps the most powerful motivating force of Christian piety of the time. And the proof of this is that, in the christological and Trinitarian struggles, that fathers start from this commonly received fact in order to defend dogma.

And this is the way, in order to confound the Arians, that Saint Athanasius sets against these deniers of the divinity of the Logos the fact of the deification of the Christian. For, he says, if the Savior was not God, He would not be able to divinize us.

Against the Apollinarists, who deny a human soul to Christ, the Cappadocians, Gregory of Nazianzus in the lead, resort to an analogous argument. The Christian, they argue, is divinized entirely. But this divinization presupposes, besides the divinity of the Savior, His perfect humanity, including a body and a soul, by virtue of the soteriological principle, that only what is assumed by the Word is healed.
Gross, Jules – The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers [A&C 1938, Onica, Paul A trans. 2002; p. 268]

 

[Macrina]

Thanks, BrendanMark, and welcome to CF.

 

[BrendanMark]

Thanks, BrendanMark, and welcome to CF.

Thank you. Hope I didn't come across like I think I'm an expert or something, I just happened to have read Finlan and Gross' books recently, in prepartion for Norman Russell's The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition.

Bit of a bookworm re Patristics, I'm afraid, since discovering the expensive but wonderful Oxford Early Christian Studies monograph series, but no expert myself.

Thanks again for the welcome. Great board!

 

[a_ntv]

I agree; that's a great way to put it.

I said that St Athanasius stated the Christ made possible to:
1) to restore the situation before the fall
2) to move the man to a better situation

This can be a good away to understand the diffeence between our Church/Denominations
Both of this aims are comon to all the Christians, but:
- most protstants usually are focused more on the first aim (to restore the situation before the fall): ad instance they speak always of salvation as if it were the center of the christian life.
- catholics and orthodox usually are more focused on the second aim (that ad the end is the total deification), and from here the huge importance of the saints, shown us to prove that this aim is possible and we shall never stop in this long path

 

[a_ntv]

The closest English equivalent of theōsis is “deification.” In Christian theology, theōsis refers to the transformation of believers into the likeness of God. Of course, Christian monotheism goes against any literal “god making” of believers. Rather, the NT speaks of a transformation of mind, a metamorphosis of character, a redefinition of selfhood, and an imitation of God. Most of these passages are tantalizingly brief, and none spells out the concept in detail.
Finlan, Steven – Theōsis [Pickwick, 2006, p. 1]

Many of the Fathers discuss theosis, and make it the basis for their theology. Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity is based upon it, for if Christ was not True God from True God, then the Incarnation could not sacralize human life and death.

That the Christian may live a divinized life is a truth universally acknowledged from the fourth century onwards; it is not, however, a purely speculative and abstract truth, but a profound conviction, a key idea which was perhaps the most powerful motivating force of Christian piety of the time. And the proof of this is that, in the christological and Trinitarian struggles, that fathers start from this commonly received fact in order to defend dogma.

And this is the way, in order to confound the Arians, that Saint Athanasius sets against these deniers of the divinity of the Logos the fact of the deification of the Christian. For, he says, if the Savior was not God, He would not be able to divinize us.

Against the Apollinarists, who deny a human soul to Christ, the Cappadocians, Gregory of Nazianzus in the lead, resort to an analogous argument. The Christian, they argue, is divinized entirely. But this divinization presupposes, besides the divinity of the Savior, His perfect humanity, including a body and a soul, by virtue of the soteriological principle, that only what is assumed by the Word is healed.
Gross, Jules – The Divinization of the Christian According to the Greek Fathers [A&C 1938, Onica, Paul A trans. 2002; p. 268]

A little point:

Noone, never said that the theosis is the imitation of Christ-True-God: ad instance the theosis does not teach how to create or how to do miracle. These aspect of Christ are not at all object of the theosis

The theosis is to became like (to became into) Christ-True-Man.
Remember that the man is 100% man when he is "in Image and Likeness of God": a very strong sentence!

So the best ways to reach the theosis are three: the sacraments (His material help), the prayer (Jesus always said us to pray a lot) and the more important: the charity (our heart to be full of love and compassion as Christ's heart)

To deny Christ-True-God does not cancel the object of the imitation, but simply deny that Him can help us opening the way

 

[BrendanMark]

I thought the quote from Finlan covered that. But in the Patristic period, theosis/blessed transformation did give the monk/saint the power of miracles, often after death. The monks in Palestine and Egypt relied on miracles to find water for their ceonobia and laurae, for healing, for food, for rain, and so forth according their own accounts, such as Cyril of Scythiopolis (sp). It did not make the saint into God, of course.

Well, that's how I read it, anyway.

 

[a_ntv]

I thought the quote from Finlan covered that. But in the Patristic period, theosis/blessed transformation did give the monk/saint the power of miracles, often after death. The monks in Palestine and Egypt relied on miracles to find water for their ceonobia and laurae, for healing, for food, for rain, and so forth according their own accounts, such as Cyril of Scythiopolis (sp). It did not make the saint into God, of course.

Well, that's how I read it, anyway.

No saint has 'the power of miracle'
Possible miracles are cames only from God.
If a saint is near God, God can more easily lissen the prayers of the saint, and so do the miracle.
So a 'miracle' is simply the external sign that the saint is near to God, but noone and never said that a saint has 'the power of miracle' by himself
(and it is not necessary to go back to the Patristic Period...miracles happan also nowaday)

 

[Macrina]

I said that St Athanasius stated the Christ made possible to:
1) to restore the situation before the fall
2) to move the man to a better situation

This can be a good away to understand the diffeence between our Church/Denominations
Both of this aims are comon to all the Christians, but:
- most protstants usually are focused more on the first aim (to restore the situation before the fall): ad instance they speak always of salvation as if it were the center of the christian life.
- catholics and orthodox usually are more focused on the second aim (that ad the end is the total deification), and from here the huge importance of the saints, shown us to prove that this aim is possible and we shall never stop in this long path

Yes, much of evangelical protestantism focuses on conversion almost to the exclusion of continual spiritual development. I would point out, however, that there is significant diversity within the tradition, so you will find many a protestant who shares your emphasis on the journey, not just the starting point.

As for me, I think I place about equal emphasis on the two. Coming to faith is crucial, but so is living out that faith continually. Ministry-wise, this means I see evangelism and discipleship as two sides of the same coin, equally important and both necessary. It's very easy to emphasize one over the other, though, and I see both within protestantism. I can't speak for your tradition, though.

 

[Willtor]

Yes, much of evangelical protestantism focuses on conversion almost to the exclusion of continual spiritual development. I would point out, however, that there is significant diversity within the tradition, so you will find many a protestant who shares your emphasis on the journey, not just the starting point.

As for me, I think I place about equal emphasis on the two. Coming to faith is crucial, but so is living out that faith continually. Ministry-wise, this means I see evangelism and discipleship as two sides of the same coin, equally important and both necessary. It's very easy to emphasize one over the other, though, and I see both within protestantism. I can't speak for your tradition, though.

QFT.

For better or for worse, there isn't one "Protestantism." Where this relates to Athansius, some of us read and heed patristic theology.

 

[a_ntv]

Yes, much of evangelical protestantism focuses on conversion almost to the exclusion of continual spiritual development. I would point out, however, that there is significant diversity within the tradition, so you will find many a protestant who shares your emphasis on the journey, not just the starting point.

As for me, I think I place about equal emphasis on the two. Coming to faith is crucial, but so is living out that faith continually. Ministry-wise, this means I see evangelism and discipleship as two sides of the same coin, equally important and both necessary. It's very easy to emphasize one over the other, though, and I see both within protestantism. I can't speak for your tradition, though.

Yes, I said that both of these aims are common to all the Christians.
It is simply that a spirituality underlines more one aspect, and the other spiritituality underlines more the other aspect. To underline more an aspect doesnt mean to forget the opposite aspect.
Into certain limits, that is even positive

 

[BrendanMark]

No saint has 'the power of miracle'
Possible miracles are cames only from God.
If a saint is near God, God can more easily lissen the prayers of the saint, and so do the miracle.
So a 'miracle' is simply the external sign that the saint is near to God, but noone and never said that a saint has 'the power of miracle' by himself
(and it is not necessary to go back to the Patristic Period...miracles happan also nowaday)

In the period under discussion, the association with saints and miracles, with the saint directly interceding on behalf of the community to God, was very close indeed. Athanasius wrote The Life of Antony to describe such a saint, and the stories of the miracles Antony performed, thanks to the power of God, are legion. Nature miracles, healings, excorcisms and the like were considered by the faithful of the day as an aspect of sainthood - indeed, I think the requirement for sainthood today still involves miracles. Relics and bones were treasured and traded as much for their miraculous powers as for their spiritual associations.

Ancient folk thought very differently than we do today. Athanasius was a man of his times, and his doctrine of divinization is most fully realized in his hagiography of Antony, miracles and all.

At no point did any of the faithful think the monk or saint could be transformed into divinity itself. But the imago dei was not considered entirely powerless or ineffectual either, in their beliefs, at least as far as I can tell.

 

[Knowledge3]

I have 1st century quotes of Athanasius exegetical works.

It seems that Orthodoxy was championed in the discourses against the Arians who held the Son of God to be a creature among created beings and their use of philosophy is what led to heresy, which no doubt exists today.

 

[Macrina]

Off-topic, somewhat:

I've been giving some thought to what to read next... I'm thinking either one of the Apostolic Fathers or Justin Martyr. Would anyone be interested in joining me?

 

[Willtor]

Off-topic, somewhat:

I've been giving some thought to what to read next... I'm thinking either one of the Apostolic Fathers or Justin Martyr. Would anyone be interested in joining me?

I've only read a little Justin Martyr, so I'd definitely be into that. But after a couple weeks.

 

[a_ntv]

I'll be in Jerusalem for a week of vacation...
For me it is ok to read whichever book
I can suggest to read the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html)

It is strictly a Apostolic Father book (80-140), and it is particulary appropiate to see how were menaged in such a time the divisions in a local Church

 

[Macrina]

I'll be in Jerusalem for a week of vacation...
For me it is ok to read whichever book
I can suggest to read the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html)

It is strictly a Apostolic Father book (80-140), and it is particulary appropiate to see how were menaged in such a time the divisions in a local Church

Thanks for the suggestion.

I hope you'll tell me all about Jerusalem when you get back from your trip!

 

[Sojourner<><]

Hey guys!

Does St. Anathasius go into any detail about Christ's eternal nature... i.e. the Logos?