Deification through the Cross by Anatolios Khaled;

Author:Anatolios, Khaled;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Published: 2020-08-15T00:00:00+00:00

1. For a more detailed account of the doctrinal controversies that surrounded the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, see Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea. For other recent treatments, see R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 (New York: T&T Clark, 1988); John Behr, The Nicene Faith (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004); Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

2. Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh, Early Arianism: A View of Salvation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981). For a discussion of this proposal, see Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 47–52.

3. Athanasius, C. Ar. 2.30. See Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 48.

4. Rowan Williams, “Angels Unawares: Heavenly Liturgy and Earthly Theology in Alexandria,” in Studia Patristica, vol. 30, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 361.

5. Arius, Thalia (Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 103).

6. Arius, Thalia (Williams, 101–2).

7. On the dialectical presentation of Jesus’s humanity and divinity in Hebrews, Luke Timothy Johnson comments: “Chalcedon cannot simply be read off the pages of Hebrews, but the Chalcedonian understanding of the two natures in Christ can certainly be found in Hebrews. Hebrews demands of us some appreciation for the ontological dimensions of the story of Jesus.” Also: “Against this disjunctive and distorted set of Christologies, Hebrews demands taking Jesus as both fully God and fully human, if our profession is to be adequate to the mystery he reveals” (Hebrews, 55).

8. Alexander of Alexandria, Ep. Alex. (hē philarchos), in Theodoret, Hist. eccl. (Urk. 14:28; ET: NPNF2 3:37; altered). In this section, I speak of human “sonship,” as a literal rendering of the Greek huiotēs, in order to maintain the semantic link with huios (Son) as a christological title, just as Alexander himself does. Of course, there is no indication that Alexander understood such “sonship” as attainable only by males.

9. Alexander of Alexandria, Ep. Alex. 14.32 (NPNF2 3:38; altered).

10. Alexander of Alexandria, Ep. Alex. 14.4 (NPNF2 3:35; altered).

11. Alexander of Alexandria, Ep. Alex. 14.31 (NPNF2 3:38).

12. Athanasius, Syn. 51: “While all originated things have by participation the grace of God, He is the Father’s Wisdom and Word in whom all things participate. Consequently He who is the deifying and enlightening power of the Father, in whom all things are deified and enlivened, is not foreign in essence from the Father but coessential” (NPNF2 4:477; altered).

13. On the incomparability and imparticipability of the divine nature according to Arius, see R. Williams, Arius, esp. 215–29. On the dependence of arguments against Arius (particularly Athanasius’s) on the conception of salvation as deification, see Maurice Wiles, “In Defence of Arius,” Journal of Theological Studies 13, no. 2 (1962): 346.

14. Alexander of Alexandria, Ep. Alex. 14.48 (NPNF2 3:39).

15. Alexander of Alexandria, Ep. Alex. 14.52 (NPNF2 3:40).

16. Origen, Princ. 1.8.3.

17. For a more detailed exposition of Arius’s doctrine as a transposition of Origen’s teaching on Christ’s human soul, see R. Lorenz, Arius judaizans? Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen Einordnung des Arius, Forschungen zur Kirchen—und Dogmengeschichte 31 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), esp.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.