Athanasius Shows Reformed Imputation Theology to be Arian
April 11, 2010 16 Comments
Calvinistic Dramatist Fraud, Paul Washer, Teaches This Goofy Doctrine
St. Athanasius Uses theosis, the Theotokos, the Real Presence and the Single Subject Argument to Refute the Same Errors the Calvinists Preach:
[Prior to the battle of St. Cyril of Alexandria with Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus (431), St. Cyril's predecessor on the throne of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, had already defended the Theotokos and the orthodox doctrine of a single personal subject in the Incarnational economy--the divine Person of the Word. On top of that, he also defended this, like St. Cyril, by an appeal to the Real Presence. Here, St. Athanasius rebukes the Proto-Nestorians and by extension, their modern day re-incarnation, the Calvinists. So, we now officially have five well-known Calvinists who have made pro-Nestorian statements: A.A. Hodge, R.J. Rushdoony, Eric Svendson, Turretinfan and John W. Robbins co-author, Sean Gerety. According to these men (not even understanding what is meant by a "single subject"), our view is heretical. So, now, let's call on them to be consistent and damn St. Athanasius, whom they inconsistently laud. -Jay]
Letter 61 to Maximus. (Written about 371 a.d.)
To our beloved and most truly longed-for son, Maximus , philosopher, Athanasius greeting in the Lord.
Having read the letter now come from you, I approve your piety: but, marvelling at the rashness of those ‘who understand neither what they say nor whereof they confidently affirm 1 Timothy 1:7,’ I had really decided to say nothing. For to reply upon matters which are so plain and which are clearer than light, is simply to give an excuse for shamelessness to such lawless men. And this we have learned from the Saviour. For when Pilate had washed his hands, and acquiesced in the false accusation of the Jews of that day, the Lord answered him no more, but rather warned his wife in a dream, so that He that was being judged might be believed to be God not in word, but in power.
While after vouchsafing Caiaphas no reply to his folly, He Himself by his promise brought all over to knowledge. Accordingly for some time I delayed, and have reluctantly yielded to your zeal for the truth, in view of the argumentativeness of men without shame. And I have dictated nothing beyond what your letter contains, in order that the adversary may from henceforth be convinced on the points to which he has objected, and may ‘keep his tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no guile .’ And would that they would no longer join the Jews who passed by of old in reproaching Him that hung upon the Tree: ‘If you be the Son of God save Yourself Matthew 27:40; Luke 28:37.’ But if even after this they will not give in, yet do you remember the apostolic injunction, and ‘a man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse, knowing that such an one is perverted and sins being self-condemned Titus 3:10-11.’ For if they are Gentiles, or of the Judaisers, who are thus daring, let them, as Jews, think the Cross of Christ a stumbling-block, or as Gentiles, foolishness 1 Corinthians 1:23 . But if they pretend to be Christians let them learn that the crucified Christ is at once Lord of Glory, and the Power of God and Wisdom of God.
2. But if they are in doubt whether He is God at all, let them reverence Thomas, who handled the Crucified and pronounced Him Lord and God John 20:28 . Or let them fear the Lord Himself, who said, after washing the feet of the disciples: ‘You call Me Lord and Master , and you say well, for so I am.’ But in the same body in which He was when he washed their feet, He also carried up our sins to the Tree 1 Peter 2:24 . And He was witnessed to as Master of Creation, in that the Sun withdrew his beams and the earth trembled and the rocks were rent, and the executioners recognised that the Crucified was truly Son of God. For the Body they beheld was not that of some man, but of God, being in which, even when being crucified, He raised the dead. Accordingly it is no good venture of theirs to say that the Word of God came into a certain holy man; for this was true of each of the prophets and of the other saints, and on that assumption He would clearly be born and die in the case of each one of them. But this is not so, far be the thought. But once for all ‘at the consummation of the ages Hebrews 9:26, to put away sin’ ‘the Word was made flesh John 1:14 ‘ and proceeded forth from Mary the Virgin, Man after our likeness, as also He said to the Jews, ‘Wherefore do you seek to kill Me, a man that has told you the truth ?’ And we are deified not by partaking of the body of some man, but by receiving the Body of the Word Himself.
3. And at this also I am much surprised, how they have ventured to entertain such an idea as that the Word became man in consequence of His Nature. For if this were so, the commemoration of Mary would be superfluous. For neither does Nature know of a Virgin bearing apart from a man. Whence by the good pleasure of the Father, being true God, and Word and Wisdom of the Father by nature, He became man in the body for our salvation, in order that having somewhat to offer for us He might save us all, ‘as many as through fear of death were all their life-time subject to bondage. ‘ For it was not some man that gave Himself up for us; since every man is under sentence of death, according to what was said to all in Adam, ‘earth you are and unto earth you shall return. ‘ Nor yet was it any other of the creatures, since every creature is liable to change. But the Word Himself offered His own Body on our behalf that our faith and hope might not be in man, but that we might have our faith in God the Word Himself. Why, even now that He is become man we behold His Glory, ‘glory as of one only-begotten of His Father— full of grace and truth. ‘ For what He endured by means of the Body, He magnified as God. And while He hungered in the flesh, as God He fed the hungry. And if anyone is offended by reason of the bodily conditions, let him believe by reason of what God works. For humanly He enquires where Lazarus is laid, but raises him up divinely. Let none then laugh, calling Him a child, and citing His age, His growth, His eating, drinking and suffering, lest while denying what is proper for the body, he deny utterly also His sojourn among us. And just as He has not become Man in consequence of His nature, in like manner it was consistent that when He had taken a body He should exhibit what was proper to it, lest the imaginary theory of Manichæus should prevail. Again it was consistent that when He went about in the body, He should not hide what belonged to the Godhead, lest he of Samosata should find an excuse to call Him man, as distinct in person from God the Word.
4. Let then the unbelievers perceive this, and learn that while as a Babe He lay in a manger, He subjected the Magi and was worshipped by them; and while as a Child He came down to Egypt, He brought to nought the hand-made objects of its idolatry : and crucified in the flesh, He raised the dead long since turned to corruption. And it has been made plain to all that not for His own sake but for ours He underwent all things, that we by His sufferings might put on freedom from suffering and incorruption 1 Corinthians 15:53, and abide unto life eternal.
5. This then I have concisely dictated, following, as I said above, the lines of your own letter, without working out any point any further but only mentioning what relates to the Holy Cross in order that the despisers may be taught better upon the points where they were offended, and may worship the Crucified. But do you thoroughly persuade the unbelievers; perhaps somehow they may come from ignorance to knowledge, and believe aright. And even though what your own letter contains is sufficient, yet it is as well to have added what I have for the sake of reminder in view of contentious persons; not so much in order that being refuted in their venturesome statements they may be put to shame, as that being reminded they may not forget the truth. For let what was confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa prevail. For it is correct, and enough to overthrow every heresy however impious, and especially that of the Arians which speaks against the Word of God, and as a logical consequence profanes His Holy Spirit. Greet all who hold aright. All that are with us greet you.
Jay,
I enjoyed reading Athanasius very much, but I disagree with your conclusions about Reformed understandings of the atonement, as I did, you may recall, way back when we last interacted at NiceneTruth. I think I understand your single subject argument, but I still don’t quite see how Athanasius convicts us Reformed folk of Nestorianism and/or Arianism. What is your view or theory of the atonement?
Wesley
Because, as discussed before, the reformed position requires one of two options: 1) that one divine hypostasis pours out wrathful penalty due us on another divine hypostasis. The is problematic for several reasons, for example, the idea that the Trinity can be divided up and one Person damned by another – what happens to the indwelling? Does the Father and Spirit cease indwelling the Son? Does the communion of love between the Persons also cease? It has to to be damned. Further, all accepted classical Trinitarian theology affirms that God has one will and operation. Thus the Father cannot, in a certain operation act differently and apart from, the Son, which is clearly what this would require. Numerous other variations of this problem could also be listed. The other option 2) would be to have the Godhead damn the man Jesus. But this would require Jesus to be a specifically separate human person/subject. But that is Nestorian/Arian and what Athanasius is writing against.
I don’t misunderstand reformed theology. I ate, slept and breathed it for years, and mastered all it’s masters. I understand it all too well.
“I don’t misunderstand reformed theology. I ate, slept and breathed it for years, and mastered all it’s masters. I understand it all too well.”
I get this all of the time. I hear it at least once a week. I knew Calvin’s I felt, better than most. I remember talking to reformed pastors all of the time, and quoting Calvin, and they would reply “he said that?”. Not to brag or anything. I just find it weak when people claim I had no clue as to what reformed theology actually teaches.
As to the blog. How do you understand this:
“And at this also I am much surprised, how they have ventured to entertain such an idea as that the Word became man in consequence of His Nature. For if this were so, the commemoration of Mary would be superfluous.”
Is he saying, that if Jesus was just man, that honor of Mary would suffice? If so, is he concluding the holiness of Mary?
The Word is not a demi-god creature who turned into a man (the Arian view) I think is what he means in that section.
“For it was not some man that gave Himself up for us; since every man is under sentence of death, according to what was said to all in Adam, ‘earth you are and unto earth you shall return.”
We wouldn’t honor the Theotokos if He were some mere man – some human person.
Jay,
I have never doubted, called into question, or disputed your knowledge of Reformed theology. I found you to be well-read, sharp, and intelligent. I understand your above arguments, and I certainly appreciate your interaction. I have noticed via Facebook news feeds (gotta love those things! lol) that you have endured some personally upsetting and difficult experiences with Calvinists and other Protestants before. I am sorry about that. I have no desire to treat you badly in any way.
That being said, I have two questions: (1) Do you use the same arguments against all Protestants (Arminians included) who hold to a penal substitutionary or penal satisfaction view? And (2) What is your view or theory of the atonement? I’ve seen you argue against other views, but I do not recall ever reading a positive presentation of your own view of the atonement.
Wesley
Yes, this argument would hold for any view based on an Anselmian atonement view (all classical Protestantism).
There is a sense in which penal substitution is correct. But it cannot be the case, given anyone’s Trinitarian theology, that one divne Person damns another one. What happened in the crucifixion was the human nature absorbing death, the penalty of sin, and He was able to do so precisely because He was the Son of God. As the Eastern Fathers all say, his divinity absorbed death (figuratively speaking) and destroyed it. It’s not God the Father cutting off His Son. He takes the penalty and power of sin, death, in His flesh/humanity, and destroys it by His divinity. Such is the constant New Testament and patristic refrain.
Jay,
So the atonement, in your view, is penal substitution in the sense that the penalty of sin is death, and Jesus died in our behalf and in our place? The penalty for our sins is death, and Jesus died our death, thus conquering sin and death and opening unto us eternal life.
But the power of sin is not death; the power of sin is the law according to St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15:56. Death is swallowed up in victory because Jesus triumphed over sin (the sting of death) and the law (the power of sin), and he did this for our salvation. How would you say Jesus triumphed over the law? And how does this triumph over the law work to accomplish our salvation?
Another question I have is what place propitiation and expiation have in your view? As you know, expiation pertains to our sin and guilt, and propitiation pertains to the appeasement of divine wrath. What place do these things have in your view? From which texts do you derive, support, and substantiate your view?
For St. Paul, sin is death and death is sin. It’s used interchangeably. The condemnation of the Law is also synomomous. It is this that Jesus conqeured in His flesh.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Rom. 8.2
“How would you say Jesus triumphed over the law?”
Law isn’t the problem. The Law is good, holy and just, as Paul says. The condemnation of the Law – death – is what held us in bondage. Jesus came to destroy death and give us a participation again in divine life – theosis.
I’ll address the question of expiation in a bit…
What were you gonna say about expiation and propitiation?
“Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism have a substantively different soteriology; this is sometimes cited as the core difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. Salvation is not seen as legal release, but transformation of the human nature itself in the Son taking on human nature. In contrast to other forms of Christianity, the Orthodox tend to use the word “expiation” with regard to what is accomplished in the sacrificial act. In Orthodox theology, expiation is an act of offering that seeks to change the one making the offering. The Greek word that is translated both into propitiation and expiation is “hilasmos” which means “to make acceptable and enable one to draw close to God”. Thus the Orthodox emphasis would be that Christ died, not to appease an angry and vindictive Father, or to avert the wrath of God, but to change people so that they may become more like God.” -Fr. Bernstein
Good article:
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/02/sacrifice-of-christ-as-expiation.html
And here is Lossky on it – pg 113 on:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xL1Vn_LLJ3sC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=expiation+in+orthodox+theology&source=bl&ots=gc4RszDRoY&sig=o2lZ8wtCH8MOLbw4sQvtt8ebOrM&hl=en&ei=GWLFS5HFD4y29QTYjYWmDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
Jay,
Thanks for the quotation and the links. I read three articles from that guy, John’s, blog. I must say, the “wrathless God until the final judgment” position I am sensing from Eastern Orthodoxy strikes me as being oblivious to the Old Testament. And the “instead of being just, God was loving” position I am also sensing is quite disturbing. If God is just, he cannot let sin go unpunished and unaccounted for. Inflexible holiness, perfect goodness, and unflinching justice and righteousness must deal appropriately with sin. It would be unjust for God simply to forgive our crimes against his name, his will, his standards, and his law.
But God is love and rich in mercy. And his love and mercy and grace overflow his wrath and anger, and in much patience and with much compassion he provides salvation for all who would repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, for the sake of his name and unto the praise of his glorious grace.
In order that God might be both just and the justifier of the one who believes, Jesus stood condemned in my place, the just for the unjust, and he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, being made sin and becoming a curse for us, that he might bring us to God, and that we might die to sin and live for righteousness. God condemned my sin in his Son on the cross, for he was crushed for my iniquities, since the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. It pleased the Lord to bruise and crush him so that we might be saved from the wrath to come.
And Jesus, the eternal Son of God, was a willing and obedient sacrifice, for it was God’s will that he die for our sins; thus he laid down his life freely, for no one could take it from him except he go willingly to death and lay it down of his own accord as a ransom for many. And God was pleased with his Son’s sacrificial offering of himself, and has accepted the sacrifice in behalf of his people, those whom he has chosen, who draw near to him through repentance and faith. And in vindication of his Son, God raised him from the dead and exalted him to the highest place as Lord of all.
This is the consistent, plain teaching of Scripture regarding what our great High Priest has done for us and in our place. This indeed is the good news. All who do not work but believe in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness, i.e. he receives the blessedness of having his sin covered and forgiven, and righteousness imputed as a free gift apart from works. What a truly amazing gospel! Praise God and glory to his name for ever and ever! Amen.
Fr. Bernstein was an Orthodox Jew. And it’s more or less the Catholic view as well. What you think is the plain meaning of the Bible is your Protestant presupposition, and it’s a misunderstanding.
“56. But they ought, when they hear ‘I and the Father are one,’ to see in Him the oneness of the Godhead and the propriety of the Father’s Essence; and again when they hear, ‘He wept’ and the like, to say that these are proper to the body; especially since on each side they have an intelligible ground, viz. that this is written as of God and that with reference to His manhood. For in the incorporeal, the properties of body had not been, unless He had taken a body corruptible and mortal ; for mortal was Holy Mary, from whom was His body. Wherefore of necessity when He was in a body suffering, and weeping, and toiling, these things which are proper to the flesh, are ascribed to Him together with the body. If then He wept and was troubled, it was not the Word, considered as the Word, who wept and was troubled, but it was proper to the flesh; and if too He besought that the cup might pass away, it was not the Godhead that was in terror, but this affection too was proper to the manhood. And that the words ‘Why have You forsaken Me?’ are His, according to the foregoing explanations (though He suffered nothing, for the Word was impassible), is notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became man, and these things are done and said as from a man, that He might Himself lighten these very sufferings of the flesh, and free it from them. Whence neither can the Lord be forsaken by the Father, who is ever in the Father, both before He spoke, and when He uttered this cry. Nor is it lawful to say that the Lord was in terror, at whom the keepers of hell’s gates shuddered and set open hell, and the graves did gape, and many bodies of the saints arose and appeared to their own people. Therefore be every heretic dumb, nor dare to ascribe terror to the Lord whom death, as a serpent, flees, at whom demons tremble, and the sea is in alarm; for whom the heavens are rent and all the powers are shaken. For behold when He says, ‘Why have You forsaken Me?’ the Father showed that He was ever and even then in Him; for the earth knowing its Lord who spoke, straightway trembled, and the veil was rent, and the sun was hidden, and the rocks were torn asunder, and the graves, as I have said, did gape, and the dead in them arose; and, what is wonderful, they who were then present and had before denied Him, then seeing these signs, confessed that ‘truly He was the Son of God. “
Do you not see how it’s Arian?
-St. Athanasius
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm
Jay,
I didn’t say Jesus was forsaken by the Father in the sense Athanasius is talking about there. I don’t think the “cry of dereliction” means the Son was “cut off” by the Father in the sense of being split off from the Trinity. Athanasius appears to be saying the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father; the Father and the Son are one, and so they cannot be separated from one another, including when Jesus shouts the cry of dereliction from the cross.
I agree with that. They didn’t cease being one, nor did they cease being in one another when Jesus said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?!” And yet Scripture explicitly and in no uncertain terms says the Jesus was delivered up by God for our trespasses and became a curse for us. So I don’t think my position, which I outlined above in my previous post, is Arian at all, at least not based on the Athanasius quotation you provided.
Besides, unless you are willing to say all heretics are wrong about everything and have no true doctrinal beliefs at all, then it is frivolous to point out some similarity between different systems that has nothing to do with the distinctive, defining doctrines and beliefs of those systems respectively.
What I mean is this: It is possible for one to hold a true premise among others premises and draw a false conclusion. So if the Arians believed that Jesus was punished by God in the place of sinners for their salvation, then I would have to say they were correct since I believe that doctrine is taught in and derived from Scripture.
I’m not sure if the Arians did believe that, but so what if they did? That doctrine is in no way whatsoever one of the distinctive, defining doctrines of Arianism. Therefore, to say Protestants believe something the Arians believed, when it is merely a trivial similarity, is fallacious argumentation. At the least it is poisoning the well and/or guilt by association. I’m sure Pelagius believed we ought to worship Jesus, and you believe that too. So that makes you Pelagian, but only trivially Pelagian. It is a frivolous similarity.
Now the majority of my previous post was a list of direct quotations from across the Bible strung together to make one unified point. The quotations are quite plain in my opinion. What “Protestant presupposition” are you detecting? What is my misunderstanding?