Through Creation Redemption to 4

th
cent Chritology
Logics of patristic theology what are the basic questions that continue to occupy these guys have
they lost sight of the primitive stuff and playing metaphysics
Not true they are in elementary soteriological stuff
If one god has arrived in Jesus and resurrected and in him all has been summed how do we tell this
salvation stories , that god has come in jesus
This is not a departure from the basic confessional faith
Can god be and do these things
Rule of faith, jesus assimilated into the identituy of Yahweh and his , not part human and part divine
vhe both of these things all the time, cant separate these things there are not humsn moments
and rhen divine moments in the gospel narrative
Psilanthropy (mere) only a man ebionitism?
Docetism
Both cut us off from Jesus, as does Gnosticism according to Athanasisu
Logos christologies seem to say something musch better divine mediation at work, presence of god
to us enfleshed but this can undergird the divine agency and leave some problems eg origen the
word is eternally begotten and not quite what the father is Arius is left wing originist pushes the
transcendence of the father to the exclusion of the eternal generation of the son. Arius is a
conservative, sees Jesus is treptos, vulnerable in the mire and muck of this world and all the texts of
thhe arian heresy are concerning this the son is subordinate to the father, which is what the jewish
scriptures have attested all along. Jesus is a special agent, a demigod as youve never met but not
god
For athan, everything unravels if you say this because he cant give you what Christian faith has said
he does- the presence of god.
Arius is not interested in cosmology but soteriology has an exemparist soteriology, he cant
revolutionise your condition from the inside he can be moving to watch but cant get you out of the
condition you are in
We have met god in jesus we have the life of god in him and if we havent got that we are back
where we started there is no good news
On the incarnation is at an early stage of his reasoning poss predates nicea, not talking same
substance but that only the creator can redeem, the one whoi brings it into being has rto redeem. If
Jesus is not god, he is no use to us
Jesus is not plan b, execution of the primordial desire of the creator to have fellowship with
creatures not a strategum for the problem of the fall, ie redemption Irenaeus also, remarkable
argument theodicy.
Redemption is part of what god wanted to do in the first place
Against arians: spells out soteriology does not work if jesus is not god we are but idolotars
Epistemology and soteriology you get to know god in jesus how can you get to know god only if
god wills this if jesus is not the material content of the willed knowledge then you dont have god
If the son is not on the same level as the father you do not have knowledge of god
The theology of nicea has little effect at the time it is not till a generation later that Nicene
Christology comes to the fore against what is called arianism by Athanasius. Nicene even in its
plurifomity what does homousioos mean? But still atands aginst these various heresies
Presupposes a type of soteriology a widely shared seyt of assumptions :
Creatures have drifted away from god in some fundamental sense in gods image but rely upon
divine upholding to live out their intention and due totheir own self willing have moved away from
this
Athanasius wants to say the arius has not taken sin seriously enough - it seems arius has a big
account of sin as he cant take god being in the world in the mire, but the solution is merely to follow
and an example and we are ok hea a pelagian
Moralising of this sort will not do not evangelical in the end live out your life as the sermon on
the mount and youll be ok this is not good news circling around something elementary#
We find that he changes us who must he be in order to do that experience
Some who are not arians betray these elementals in the political mileau that ensued
John 1.14 taks sraks and in taking it changes it - a permanent irrevocable change to the sunstance
assumed moral status, not zapped but a process- a living out of the life, transformation of flesh
from within, healing in Alexandria
Antiochene way of thinking Theodore on the nature of the incarnation not word flesh but word
man interested in humanity of Jesus, Alexandrian cant say enough about the lived life and
obedience of jesus, not the word taking flesh but the word taking a man to himself a conjunction
synpheia these two things concur into a single being
2 strategies are caricatured in textbooks and techniues exegetically allegory vs literal
Both are anti arian and dont want anything that is not nicean, both want divine and both want
human stressed - Alexandrian extreme was that the word is so in contrl that there is some aspect of
the human psychology missing apollinarius is an example friend of Arius stresses the subjecthood
of the divine word, the sin is from the mind, nous, so the word (Jesus) does not have the human
nous if true he is truncated, the unassumed is the unhealed greg of naz, against apollinarianism
hunaity eclipsed
Early 5
th
cent nestorianism synapheia, how do explain the basis of their unity? Cyril of alex nest
has a schizo jeus , divine son and human being a third being neither one or another monosyphite,
reason these ways the word transforms the flesh takes over the flesh
Chalcedonian Christology is an attempt to say you cant do your soter this way he is one subject
about which 2 things can be said at all times - the gospel narratives show this
This one is acknowledged in 2 natures truly god and truly human homousios working both ways
human and divine and they are genuinely united without confusion and change Alexandrian
extremists are wrong a confusion, not a bit missing
Without division or separation against extreme antiochenes god living as human gd can enact his
being this way this is pretty mysterious marking off what it doesnt mean, not a subject with 2
parts
Chalcedon does not solve anything but causes problems it is a major and unparalled benchmark in
Christology Jesus can be this and this without detriment to either
Does this represent a diff semantic account of shared concerns - the metaphysics are apart but are
the sotwriologies what is the development and the continuity in the elementary preoccupation in
the Christian community
Cyril the first monophysite? so determined to be against the schizo Christ, but also a lot of clever
stuff, neither Platonist or aristotelaean heirs to various philosophies and mediators of them
Ways of dscribing what it means to be divine and human you will not exhaust this
325 to 381 is a massive theological journey reh=gards the spirit connects us to the life of god in the
son only god can give you god soteriology drives this
Justin martyr spirit and word blurred, irenaeus more demarcated leading to nicea
Exegetical battleground se arguments over prov 8.22 in 4
th
cent
Bad exegesis conflicts with your own Christian experience - Athanasius repeats this
What we find too be happening when we meet in the presence of the living one