- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
In his treatise on incarnation Athanasius wrote
“For whereas the Lord says to the Jews196196 Matt. xix. 4, &c. : “Have ye not read that from the beginning He which created them made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall become one flesh?” and then, referring to the Creator, says, “What, therefore, God hath joined together let not man put asunder:” how come these men to assert that the creation is independent of the Father? Or if, in the words of John, who says, making no exception, “All things197197 John i. 3. were made by Him,” and “without Him was not anything made,” how could the artificer be another, distinct from the Father of Christ?”and
“Thus do they vainly speculate. But the godly teaching and the faith according to Christ brands their foolish language as godlessness. For it knows that it was not spontaneously, because forethought is not absent; nor of existing matter, because God is not weak; but that out of nothing, and without its having any previous existence, God made the universe to exist through His word, as He says firstly through Moses: “In198198 Gen. i. 1. the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;”and
” he says, “By200200 Heb. xi. 3. faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the Word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which do appear.” 3. For God is good, or rather is essentially the source of goodness: nor201201 c. Gent. xli. and Plato, Timæus 29 E. could one that is good be niggardly of anything: whence, grudging existence to none, He has made all things out of nothing by His own Word, Jesus Christ our Lord.”Yet so many of his followers here prefer that Christ himself is the creator God.
Hi Tim2,
You said in another thread
“Athanasius said that the Word is God. “
True but he drew a distinction between the Word of God and God.He drew a distinction between God the Word and God the Father, the same distinction the Nicene Creed that he supported makes. Do you agree with him?
Hi Tim2,
Why add all that humanly derived baggage? The teacher show us directly from the Word of truth.Quote (Tim2 @ May 31 2007,12:49) He drew a distinction between God the Word and God the Father, the same distinction the Nicene Creed that he supported makes. Do you agree with him?
Yes. This is a wonderful point of how folks here like Nick (and David) read the fathers JUST LIKE they read the Bible. They practice eisegesis. They are so busy searching for what they WANT to be there, they READ INTO the text something that is NOT there, but that they WISH WAS THERE.This is what the heretics have always done.
Hi CA,
Thank you for the compliment-we do seek truth but you take yours predigested by Rome?
You quote Tim2 not us.There is no GOD THE WORD or GOD THE SON in the bible.
Do you worship the God of The Jews?
AC…………I wrote a post on the MAN OF SIN, would like you to read it and commit on it. Who is This Man of SIN, Spoken of in 2Ths2?
peace and love……………………gene
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 17 2006,14:54) The Athanasian Creed follows, taken from Schaff's work: 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith.
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. But this is the catholic faith: That we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father: another of the Son: another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father is uncreated: the Son is uncreated: the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
9. The Father is immeasurable: the Son is immeasurable: the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
10. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet there are not three eternals; but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated: nor three immeasurable: but one uncreated, and one immeasurable.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty: the Son almighty: and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet there are not three almighties: but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Spirit is God.
16. And yet there are not three Gods; but one God.
17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.
18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none; neither created; nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone: not made; nor created; but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son: not made; neither created; nor begotten; but proceeding.
24. Thus there is one father, not three Fathers: one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is before or after another: none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.
28. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that we believe also rightly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. Now the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
31. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God: perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead: inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.
34. And although He be God and Man; yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance; but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ.
38. Who suffered for our salvation: descended into Hades: rose again the third day from the dead.
39. He ascended into heaven. He sits on the right hand of God, the Father almighty:
40. From whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men must rise again with their bodies;
42. And shall give account for their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; but they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Actually the Athanasian Creed was probably not written by the great Athanasius. It is very possible that it was written by a local priest or some person unknown to us.But since it summarizes orthodox belief it is fully accepted by the Church.
If you think it wise to defy the universal Church speaking with one voice in every generation, I probably can't help you.
Nick said:
Quote There is no GOD THE WORD or GOD THE SON in the bible. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD.”
It was literally written, “And God was the Word.” Yet you say there is no God the Word.
If you want scripture over traditions as you claim, then believe the scripture above or your claim is false.
thinker
Taken from http://catholic-saints.suite101.com/article….TXPBvPs
St. Athanasius became known as the Father of Orthodoxy when he attended the First Council of the Catholic Church, the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. He became highly regarded for defending the dogma regarding Christ’s divinity with vigor and fury against the heresy of Arianism which purported that God was ‘uncreated’ and, therefore, eternal, but Christ, the Son was created, and therefore, not eternal. It was also well-known that St. Athanasius had a profound devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Taken from'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_AlexandriaRecent Opinions
There are at present two completely opposite views about the personality of Athanasius. While some scholars praise him as an orthodox saint with great character, others see him as a power-hungry politician who employed questionable ecclesiastical tactics.
Critics of Athanasius
Richard Rubenstein and Timothy Barnes have painted a less than flattering picture of the saint. They argue that his ascension to the station of Bishop in Alexandria occurred under questionable circumstances. Upon the death of his predecessor Alexander, in 328 C.E., more than fifty bishops gathered to confer a new leader to the Alexandrian see. While Alexander had been priming Athanasius to assume the bishopric after his death, it is said, he was not unanimously supported, and questions of his age (the minimum age to become a bishop was thirty, and questions remain to this day if he was yet that old), as well as less than overwhelming support, did not help his candidacy. According to recent academics, Athanasius, growing impatient, took a small number of bishops who supported his claim, and held a private consecration making him bishop. [18]
Throughout most of his career, Athanasius had many detractors. There were allegations of defiling an altar, selling Church grain that had been meant to feed the poor for his own personal gain, and for suppressing dissent through violence and murder.[19] It cannot be claimed, beyond all doubt, whether any or all of these specific allegations were true, but Rubenstein suggests that Athanasius employed a level of force when it suited his cause or personal interests,[20].
Supporters of Athanasius
However, there are also many modern historians who object to this view and point out that such hostile attitude towards Athanasius is based on an unfair judgment of historical sources.[21] Many Christian denominations revere Athanasius as a saint, teacher, and father. They cite his defense of the Christology described in the first chapter of the Gospel of John (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1,2) and his significant theological works (C.S Lewis calls his De Incarnatione a “masterpiece”) as evidence of his righteousness. They also emphasize his close relationship with Saint Anthony, who is almost universally revered throughout Christendom.
St. Gregory Nazianzen,330-390, begins Or. 21 with: “When I praise Athanasius, vertue itself is my theme: for I name every vertue as often as I mention him who was possessed of all vertues. He was the true pillar of the church. His life and conduct were the rule of bishops, and his doctrine the rule of the orthodox faith.”
St Pius X, said in a letter to philosopher-friend and correspondent in the closing years of his life, (Epist. lxxi, ad Max.): “Let what was confessed by the fathers of Nicaea prevail”.
Anti-Arianism
Athanasius presented his opponents, the Arians, as a cohesive group that backed Ariusâ views and followed him as a leader. It is now accepted by most scholars that the Arian Party were not a monolithic group,[22] holding drastically different theological views that spanned the early Christian theological spectrum.[23][24][25] They supported the tenets of Origenist thought and theology,[26] but had little else in common. The term Arian was first coined by Athanasius to describe both followers of Arius, and followers of ideas that he deemed as bad as Arius'. Athanasius used the term Arian to describe many of his opponents, except for Meletians.[27] He used the term in a derogatory fashion to chide Ariusâ supporters[28] who did not see themselves as followers of Arius.[29] As stated by Timothy Barnes; Athanasius used âinvented dialogue to ridicule his adversariesâ, and used âsuppression and distortionâ to serve his own means.[30] He often blamed charges and accusations leveled at him on âArian madmenâ who he claimed conspired to destroy him and Christianity.[citation needed]The Arian party, as described by Athanasius, may not have existed in the form he portrayed it in his writings. Some argue that the view of Arianism that exists to this day among most Christians would not have existed were it not for Athanasius. However, others point to the Council of Nicaea as proof in and of itself that Arianism was a real theological ideology. While Athanasius may have affected the general perception of Arianism, they say, his portrayal was polemical, not creative.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
