A History of Christian Theology

Class Notes #3 – October 11, 2006

1. Our Father in heaven, who hast sent thy beloved Son to be unto us the Way the Truth and the Life; Grant that we, looking unto him, may set forward the teaching power of thy Church, to the nurture of thy people, the increase of thy Kingdom and the glory of thy Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, we thee and the Holy Ghost, art One God, World without end. Amen.
   
   
2. Recap last class – October 4, 2006
   
   
3. Chapter 5
1. Earlier we asserted that, compared to other religions, Christianity is unusually prone to heresy.
   
   John Calvin: “All errors that have existed in the Christian Church from the beginning, proceed from this source, that in some persons, ambition, and in others, covetousness, extinguished the true fear of God. A bad conscience is, therefore, the mother of all heresies…” (Commentary on 1 Tim 1:19). As + FitzSimmons Allison says, “unless guided by the Church’s creeds and Councils, I believe I would produce the most virulent heretical distortions of scripture”.
   
   
2. Christianity has been unusually good at adapting to new cultures. Early Christians had to synthesize Hebrew, Greek and Latin cultures in order to have a world view that “made sense”.

                                                               i.      The impact of Greek philosophy was felt very early. – was God the up close and personal (and angry!) God of the Jews or the distant, unchanging divine principal of the Greeks? Christians said “Both”!

3. In what way can we rightly claim Greek, Hebrew or any other system as a precursor or foundation for Christianity?

                                                               i.      All truth is God’s truth – even those parts which are incomplete or which are otherwise found in a non-Christian framework.

                                                             ii.      Christians must be careful not to dogmatically assert more truth than they have been given! (Science, for example)

4. The Apologists – “Defender”. Areas where Christians needed “defending”:

                                                               i.      Cannibalism

                                                             ii.      “Love fests”

                                                            iii.      Atheists

                                                           iv.      Pacifists

                                                             v.      Disloyal to the empire

                                                           vi.      Superstitious

                                                          vii.      Not apocalyptic (ie., did not wish a destructive end to the world)

5. Use of Philosophy

                                                               i.      Tertullian – read pp 45 (Reader) Apology, Chapter 21:

6. Argument against heretics

                                                               i.      Tertullian – read pp 46 (Reader) On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 5:

7. Callustis (according to Hippolytus – a rival both personally and to Callustis’ pontificate:

                                                               i.      Callustis and his liberal church policy can be summed up as follows:

1.      he extended the privilege of repentance and emphasized the forgiving grace of God and the all-embracing charity of the Church to include carnal sin;

2.      he condoned second marriages among the clergy and allowed those already ordained to marry;

3.      he permitted marriages between Christian noblewomen and freed men or slaves contrary to Roman civil law;

4.      he allowed second baptisms (possibly a reference to the re-baptism of those who had been previously baptized in a heretical sect).

4. Chapter 6 – Truly Human, Truly Divine

1. Key heresies

                                                               i.      Christological

1.      Gnostics and Docetics believed Jesus was not, truly, human (docetism – to appear).

2.      Others believed Jesus was not truly divine – Arians, Adoptionists. Also Apollianarianism (Christ had no human spirit) and Monothelitism (Christ had no human will).

                                                             ii.      Trinitarian

1.      And then there was Sabellianism – God is one in three (or more) modes of operation – like water, steam and ice.

2. Three key principals (pp 69)

                                                               i.      Do not contradict the bible

                                                             ii.      Do not interfere with the liturgy

                                                            iii.      Do not threaten means of salvation (see Irenaeus)

3. Pp 77 – Homoousia and hypostaseis

                                                               i.      God as a special case – pp 78

4. Pp 78 – Language proved to be particularly difficult and limiting in working with these questions.
   
   

4. Summary – pp 85
   
   
5. Next week – Chapters 7 & 8

Readings

Tertullian: Apology

Chapter 21. . . . We have already asserted that God made the world, and all which it contains, by His Word, and Reason, and Power. It is abundantly plain that your philosophers, too, regard the Logos-that is, the Word and Reason-as the Creator of the universe. For Zeno lays it down that he is the creator, having made all things according to a determinate plan; that his name is Fate, and God, and the soul of Jupiter, and the necessity of all things. Cleanthes ascribes all this to spirit, which he maintains pervades the universe. And we, in like manner, hold that the Word, and Reason, and Power, by which we have said God made all, have spirit as their proper and essential substratum, in which the Word has inbeing to give forth utterances, and reason abides to dispose and arrange, and power is over all to execute. We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun-there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence-in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united. The flesh formed by the Spirit is nourished, grows up to manhood, speaks, teaches, works, and is the Christ.

Tertullian: From On the Flesh of Christ

Tertullian wrote this treatise to criticize Marcion's claim that Christ had not had a true human body. The chapter just before this selection insists on the human reality of Christ's birth in the face of Marcion's discomfort at associating the divinity with the physical details of a human birth.

Chapter 5. There are, to be sure, other things also quite as foolish (as the birth of Christ), which have reference to the humiliations and sufferings of God. Or else, let them call a crucified God "wisdom." But Marcion will apply the knife to this doctrine also, and even with greater reason. For which is more unworthy of God, which is more likely to raise a blush of shame, that God should be born, or that He should die? that He should bear the flesh, or the cross? be circum­cised, or be crucified? be cradled, or be coffined? be laid in a manger, or in a tomb? Talk of "wisdom"! You will show more of that if you refuse to believe this also. But, after all, you will not be "wise" unless you become a "fool" to the world, by believing "the foolish things of God." Have you, then, cut away all sufferings from Christ, on the ground that, as a mere phantom, He was incapable of experiencing them? We have said above that He might possibly have undergone the unreal mockeries of an imaginary birth and infancy. But answer me at once, you that murder truth: Was not God really crucified? And, having been really crucified, did He not really die? And, having indeed really died, did He not really rise again? Falsely did Paul "determine to know nothing amongst us but Jesus and him cruci­fied" [1 Cor. 2:2]; falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also. And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom. O thou most infamous of men, who acquittest of all guilt the murder­ers of God! For nothing did Christ suffer from them, if He really suffered nothing at all. Spare the whole world's one only hope, thou who art destroying the indispensable dishonor of our faith. Whatso­ever is unworthy of God, is of gain to me. I am safe, if I am not ashamed of my Lord. "Whosoever," says He, "shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed" [Matt. 10:33; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26]. Other matters for shame find I none which can prove me to be shameless in a good sense, and foolish in a happy one, by my own contempt of shame. The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible. But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true-if He really had not in himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again?

Irenaeus on the "Ransom"" Theory of the Atonement

In this extract from adversus haereses ("Against the Heresies"), written in the second half of the second century, Irenaeus argues that the death of Christ is to be regarded as a ransom, by which God justly liberated humanity from satanic captivity. Irenaeus avoids any suggestion that the redemption of humanity took place by force, insisting that only persuasion was used. Note: the Latin terms such as "redimens" and "redemptio" here have the more technical sense of "ransom" rather than "redemption," and I have translated them as such to bring out this point clearly. See also 5.4; 5.6; 5.7; 5.8.

Source: adversus haereses, V.i.l; in Sources Chretiennes, vol. 153, ed. A. Rousseau, L. Doutreleau, and C. Mercier (Paris: Cerf, 1979), 18.19-20.20.

Thus the powerful Word and true human being, ransoming us by his own blood in a rational manner, gave himself as a ransom for those who have been led into captivity. The apostate one unjustly held sway over us, and though we were by nature the possession of Almighty God, we had been alienated from our proper nature, making us instead his own disciples. Therefore the almighty Word of God, who did not lack justice, acted justly even in the encounter with the apostate one, ransoming from him the things which were his own, not by force, in the way in which [the apostate one] secured his dominion over us at the beginning, by greedily snatching what was not his own. Rather, it was appropriate that God should obtain what he wished through persuasion, not by the use of force, so that the principles of justice might not be infringed, and, at the same time, that God'"s original creation might not perish. The Lord therefore ransomed us by his own blood, and gave his life for our life, his flesh for our flesh; and he poured out the Spirit of the Father to bring about the union and fellowship of God and humanity, bringing God down to humanity through the Spirit while raising humanity to God through his incarnation, and in his coming surely and truly giving us incorruption through the fellowship which we have with him.

Irenaeus on "'Recapitulation" in Christ

Irenaeus explores his distinctive idea of "recapitulation." For Irenaeus, this term means something like "going over again." Christ "recapitulates" the history of Adam, except he succeeds at every point at which Adam failed. Thus Adam's disobedience is matched by Christ's obedience. Thus the salvation of humanity, which was lost in Adam, was regained in Christ.

Source: adversus haereses , Ill.xviii.1; in Sources Chretiennes, vol. 211, ed. A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau (Paris: Cerf, 1974), 342.1-344.13.

Now it has been clearly shown that the Word which exists from the begin­ning with God, through whom all things were made, who was also always present with the human race, has in these last times, according to the time appointed by the Father, been united to his own creation and has been made a human being capable of suffering (passibilem hominem factum). This disposes of the objection of those who say, "If he was born at that time, it follows that Christ did not exist before then." For we have shown that the Son of God did not begin to exist at that point, because he had always existed with the Father. But when he was incarnate and became a human being, he recapitulated in himself (in seipso recapitulavit) the long history of the human race, obtaining salvation for us, so that we might regain in Jesus Christ what we had lost in Adam, that is, being in the image and likeness of God (secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei).