Replies

[Presumably quoting from +Athanasius:] "How could men be reasonable beings if they had no knowledge of the Word and Reason of the Father, through Whom they had received their being?

A great question. We couldn't be. So, I will add +Athanasius to my side of the discussion. :) And thanks for the links to chap. 2 & 3 of "On the Incarnation".

[From chap. 2:] ... but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption.

Whoops, that's not a good start. :) But maybe it's just a syntax problem.

[Ibid.] For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are.

Very true. The loving Word was all over the OT.

[Ibid.] He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt.

VERY un-Apostolic, but I'll take it in a heartbeat. :)

[Ibid.] For the human race would have perished utterly had not the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, come among us to put an end to death.

Yes, nobody gets into Heaven but for Christ. But this does not mean that no one was saved until Christ died and rose within time. That's a side issue, though.

[Ibid.] Thus by His own power He restored the whole nature of man.

I'm not sure what he means by this. From his scripture quotes it sort of sounds like he means universal salvation, but I don't know. ........ While Christ's sacrifice certainly had a huge effect on the elect, what difference did it make for the reprobate? I mean, were OT reprobate somehow different from the reprobate of today?

Overall, I'd say I agree with 80-90% of chapter 2. A good read. :)

>[From chap. 3:] ... Why? Simply in order that through this gift of Godlikeness in themselves they may be able to perceive the Image Absolute, that is the Word Himself, and through Him to apprehend the Father; which knowledge of their Maker is for men the only really happy and blessed life.

OK, this seems to say that we can't know "God" but for Christ. I am fine with that as long as everyone agrees that Christ was all over the OT. :) The OT righteous DID know God.

[Ibid.] Three ways thus lay open to them, by which they might obtain the knowledge of God. They could look up into the immensity of heaven, and by pondering the harmony of creation come to know its Ruler, the Word of the Father, Whose all-ruling providence makes known the Father to all. Or, if this was beyond them, they could converse with holy men, and through them learn to know God, the Artificer of all things, the Father of Christ, and to recognize the worship of idols as the negation of the truth and full of all impiety. Or else, in the third place, they could cease from lukewarmness and lead a good life merely by knowing the law. ....

I have to TOTALLY disagree with this one, for it has man coming to God by his own independent decisions and acts. The Bible just doesn't teach this. I mean, this says one way to salvation was by leading a good life and knowing the Law. Nobody was ever saved that way.

[Ibid.] Again, things being as they were, what was the use of their ever having had the knowledge of God? Surely it would have been better for God never to have bestowed it, than that men should subsequently be found unworthy to receive it. Similarly, what possible profit could it be to God Himself, Who made men, if when made they did not worship Him, but regarded others as their makers? This would be tantamount to His having made them for others and not for Himself.

I really like this approach throughout both chapters. It looks like God cares and is willing to do something about it. Unfortunately, the Church will allow Christ to begin negotiating the deal, but they won't let Him close. :)

Overall, another pretty good read. I'd say 75-85% agreement.

Kolo quoting +Athanasius: He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt.

FK: VERY un-Apostolic, but I'll take it in a heartbeat

How is that un-Apostolic? You mean unBiblical?

Yes, nobody gets into Heaven but for Christ. But this does not mean that no one was saved until Christ died and rose within time. That's a side issue, though.

There is no redemption before Christ. If you believe people were saved before his sacrifice on the cross, then his sacrifice on the cross was not necessary.

His sacrifice made it possible for mankind to be saved by freeing people from enslavement of death to which everyone was subject. (and no, Elijah never died...)

[Ibid.] Thus by His own power He restored the whole nature of man.

That's because your theology is in conflict with the theology of the early Church. The atonement taught by your theology is not the atonement understood by those who walked with the Apostles.

OK, this seems to say that we can't know "God" but for Christ. I am fine with that as long as everyone agrees that Christ was all over the OT

You keep saying that. Please show me where is Christ in the OT!

More conflict with the original Christianity. It shows that the Bible was not the way (it isn't even now, for the faith GIVEN). It had a lot to do with how you lived and not what you preached. Preaching is just words. You can make yourself holier than though with words and lead a completely different lifestyle. In other words, words are cheap. We know what we are by what we do. And God judges us by what we do, not what we preach.