Athanasius was unyielding in his insistence that Jesus was/is of the SAME substance as the Father, and not just a SIMILAR substance as the Father. He vehemently opposed Arius’ idea that Jesus (Logos) was a created being (creature) by arguing that Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father. This conception was absolutely essential for salvation by Athanasius’ reckoning: Jesus had to be God. If the creature is ruined (and because of sin, all of humanity is), then it can only be fixed by its creator. Therefore, if Jesus is not the same as God, then he has no power to reveal God or to save humanity. One of the keys for this is terminology: If a being is God, then calling it like God is a grave mistake, but if a being is only like God then calling it “God” is blasphemy. This is the difference between homoousios and homoiusios.
Hey Corb, I think Brunner might be looking for three bullet points on this one. Like so... 1. Metaphysical: If the Father is God, then the Son must be as well, otherwise the Father would have changed in becoming father. If there was a time when the son was not, then there was a time when the father was not a father. The son is begotten as “radiance of light”. 2. Soteriological: If the Son is not “truly God” in the same sense as the Father, then salvation as re-creation is not possible. Only God can undo sin and bring a creature to share in the divine nature. This follows the theosis model of salvation from Irenaeus. 3. Revelational: In order for Jesus Christ to be the true revelation of God and not merely another image or prophet as so many already were, he had to be God. Only God can truly reveal God. He had to be a self-revelation and not merely a messenger. -BV
Oh, I didn't mean written-out bullet points when we take the test, I mean that he is looking for 3 key ideas from Olson (168-171). Brunner seems to care a lot less about how we synthesize the information than how we remember the "bullet points" of what Olson is saying. I find that kind of anoying, but I'm not the only one.
Athanasius was unyielding in his insistence that Jesus was/is of the SAME substance as the Father, and not just a SIMILAR substance as the Father. He vehemently opposed Arius’ idea that Jesus (Logos) was a created being (creature) by arguing that Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father. This conception was absolutely essential for salvation by Athanasius’ reckoning: Jesus had to be God. If the creature is ruined (and because of sin, all of humanity is), then it can only be fixed by its creator. Therefore, if Jesus is not the same as God, then he has no power to reveal God or to save humanity. One of the keys for this is terminology: If a being is God, then calling it like God is a grave mistake, but if a being is only like God then calling it “God” is blasphemy. This is the difference between homoousios and homoiusios.
ReplyDelete-CL
Hey Corb, I think Brunner might be looking for three bullet points on this one. Like so...
ReplyDelete1. Metaphysical: If the Father is God, then the Son must be as well, otherwise the Father would have changed in becoming father. If there was a time when the son was not, then there was a time when the father was not a father. The son is begotten as “radiance of light”.
2. Soteriological: If the Son is not “truly God” in the same sense as the Father, then salvation as re-creation is not possible. Only God can undo sin and bring a creature to share in the divine nature. This follows the theosis model of salvation from Irenaeus.
3. Revelational: In order for Jesus Christ to be the true revelation of God and not merely another image or prophet as so many already were, he had to be God. Only God can truly reveal God. He had to be a self-revelation and not merely a messenger.
-BV
Oh, I didn't mean written-out bullet points when we take the test, I mean that he is looking for 3 key ideas from Olson (168-171). Brunner seems to care a lot less about how we synthesize the information than how we remember the "bullet points" of what Olson is saying. I find that kind of anoying, but I'm not the only one.
ReplyDelete