Matt Capps Christianity, Philosophy, Religion

Church History Teasers (Part 2): Athanasius ‘On the Incarnation’

Brief Outline of ‘On the Incarnation’ by Athanasius

Reason for Writing: ‘On the Incarnation’ is addressed to Macarius as an offering that provides a foundation with must be proven ‘its truth by the study of the Scriptures’.

Chapter 1: Creation and the Fall

Chapter 2: The Divine Dilemma and Its Solution in the Incarnation

Chapter 3: The Divine Dilemma and Its Solution in the Incarnation- continued

Chapter 4: The Death of Christ

Chapter 5: The Resurrection

Chapter 6: Refutation of the Jews

Chapter 7: Refutation of the Gentiles

Chapter 8: Refutation of the Gentiles- continued

Chapter 9: Conclusion

Key Points of Interest

“He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men…upon them…impress his own image.”

“Through the transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again…For he alone, being Word of the Father…was able to recreate all…suffer on behalf of all…and be an ambassador for all with the father…by the offering of His own body He abolished the death which they had incurred and corrected their neglect by his own teaching.”

“There were thus two things which the savior did for us by becoming man. He banished death from us and made us anew…There is a paradox…As man he was living a human life, and as Word He was sustaining the life of the universe, and as Son He was in constant union with the Father.”

“The supreme object of His coming was to bring about the resurrection of the body…the cross of the Lord is a monument to His victory. But the resurrection of the body to immortality…is more effectively proved by facts.”

Athanasius’ Argument

In the famous document ‘On the Incarnation’ it seems that Athanasius has provided a feasible defense of the incarnation in the face of ‘Arianism’. Knowing that this document was written in response to the ‘Arian’ controversy (the idea that ‘Christ was less than God’), Athanasius clearly emphasized the truth that Christ was fully divine, this seems to be the documents central purpose, to explain, illustrate, and state the implications of the incarnation.

Athanasius properly began at the creation and the fall of mankind, providing the framework of biblical theology while dealing with the divine nature of Christ. Illustrating Christ as the one who created, yet also recreates men who place faith in Him. He talks of the process of corruption, dominion of death, and the returning to non-existence as the ‘plight of men’. Athanasius then, correctly, turns the readers attention towards God’s redemptive nature. “He [Christ] alone being Word of the Father…was able to recreate all…suffer on behalf of all…be an ambassador for all with the Father”, these roles provide an explicit example of the implications of God incarnate.

The incarnation was the means by which an uncreated God was able to enter the created order. Athanasius rightly emphasizes the incarnation as a means of salvation. Through the incarnation Christ united us with God, replacing death for life. He then argues that without the incarnation, humans “owing to the limitation of their nature, could not of themselves have any knowledge” of God beyond the natural revelation which is insufficient for salvation.

Athanasius evidences a feasible defense for the incarnation also in the mysteries of the faith. Where there is mystery, he acknowledges; for example, the great paradox that “as Man He was living a human life, and as Word He was sustaining life.” While Christ existed in a ‘real human body’ He was God. In fact, Athanasius argues that “the supreme object of His coming was to bring about the resurrection of the body”, and “the cross [and empty grave] of the Lord is a monument to His victory.”

Athanasius provides a great example of contextualization dealing these truths, particularly in the application towards Jews and Greeks. To the Jews he uses the ancient Scriptures, attesting that ‘the scriptures are not silent’ regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Arguing to the Jews, surly you “cannot fight against these plain facts.” In the case of Gentiles Athanasius asks ‘why Christian beliefs seem unfitting or ridiculous’. For man has been the only being in creation that ‘erred from the path God purposed for it’, therefore Christ ‘exposed’ mans mortality, and confounded the wisdom of the Greeks, “assuming humanity that we might become God  [become god’s?].” To bring the argument to a close He states the truth that all human things will cease, but that which remains is Christ, the very Son of God.

If Athanasius is accurately, or should we say correctly, representing the misgivings of his opponents, then ‘On the Incarnation’ is a fair defense of the Christian doctrine. With that said, the writer is undoubtedly working under the ‘great mass of common assumptions’, as Lewis put it in the introduction.

Part 1: Tertullian’s Apology

Matt Capps Christianity, Culture, Religion

Francis Chan at Catalyst Conference on the Church

Matt Capps Christianity, Culture, Life, Religion, Thoughts

Panel Discussion at Queens University on the film “For the Bible Tells Me So”

Last night I attended a panel discussion at Queens University of Charlotte. During this event the documentary “For the Bible Tells Me So” was shown, and after the film a panel of ‘Christian’ thinkers dialoged about the film and the issues surrounding homosexuality and the church.

The panelists illustrated a wide range of viewpoints under the banner of ‘Christianity’,

Mike Deal (Cross & Crown Lutheran), Chris Ayers (Wedgewood Baptist Church) Catherine Houchins (Metropolitan Community Church), and Roberta Dunn (Charlotte Gender Alliance).

On the more conservative end;

Dr. Michael Brown (Line of Fire Ministries), Michael A. Stevens (University City Church of God in Christ), and Derek Radney (Calvary Baptist Church).

My Initial Thoughts

This film has an agenda, namely to illustrate the incompatibility of Historic Orthodox Evangelical Christian beliefs with those who claim to be Christian’s and continue in the homosexual lifestyle. But, this film unfairly characterizes Christian’s as always responding inappropriately to this issue. While it is true that many people of homosexual orientation are hurt by the unloving responses of their Churched loved ones when the issue surfaces, this is no reason to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. The church is full of sinful people.

As a Christian, I believe that we are all sinful beings. We all need salvation from our destructive nature. This is the reason God sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to live a perfect life (upholding God’s law) and die (as a substitution for you and I, consuming God’s wrath against sin). When Christ rose again on the third day he defeated sin and death for all who would have faith in Him. This is the Gospel! The church is full of imperfect people who must rely on the grace of God, and exhibit that grace to others.

Often times Christians illustrate this sinful nature in our treatment of others. When it comes to the more emotionally heightened issues, the effects can be disastrous. While I acknowledge that many have been hurt in this capacity, I also acknowledge that ‘within the church’ we are called to gather around God’s truth and confess it as true, even when it hurts. God’s word calls us to a standard of living!

Last night I head several of the panelists (who are pastor’s) say things like;

“The Bible is not a manual for human sexuality, but the story of God’s love for humanity”

“At our church we do not care about who you are or where you come from, we understand the concept of God’s inclusive love”

To this I would respond, yes God is a God of love, but He is also just! We cannot minimize the reality of sin because it is not compatible with our sentiment. God’s love is inclusive in the sense that all who place their faith in Jesus will be saved. But its not inclusive in the sense that ‘all will be saved regardless of their beliefs and lives’. All who are truly saved will show it by their lives– in a desire to live according to God’s word. Just as we saw last night, Christians will not always be understood or even liked! But as sinful human beings, Christians should desire to live according to God’s word. This means that a Christian cannot continue in sin without repentance.

I pray that we as Christian’s would exhibit God’s love to those who are confused and desire to seek help with their struggles. We are all sinners in desperate need of the Gospel! We cannot minimize God’s truth on the issue of homosexuality, and we must “speak the truth in love“. One panelist eloquently said, “in this film we see many people speaking the truth, but not in love. On the other hand, we see many people speaking love, but not in truth.”

Here are a few informative resources on the issue of homosexuality;

1. Dr. Albert Mohler (A Proper Christian Perspective On the Cultural Issues of Homosexuality)

2. Dr. John Piper (A Pastoral Perspective on Relating to Homosexual’s in a Christian Manner…scroll down past sermons)

3. J.I. Packer (On Homosexuality in the Anglican Church)

4. Robert Gagnon (Scholarly Defender of the Church’s Historic Understanding of Homosexuality as Revealed in the Bible)

5. David Powlison (A Perspective on Biological Tendencies and Homosexuality)

Matt Capps Christianity, Faith, Life, Philosophy, Religion, Thoughts

How to talk about ‘God being Good’

Christian’s often affirm that ‘God is good’. But, we often confuse the sense in which this sentence is applied to life situations.

As a Christian, one must acknowledge the foundational truth that God is good  intrinsically (Deut. 32:4; Nah. 1:2,7; Jas. 1:13), namely, in Him ‘there is no variation or shadow due to change’ (Jas. 1:13). God’s goodness is never contingent on any event within created order (good or evil). One must acknowledge that it is different to speak of God being good, and something being good in the sense that it is favorable, a type of prescriptive good, which can be relative to the evaluator (for a good discussion see Bruce Little, A Creation Order Theodicy).

Also, while this distinction exists, it is important to note that nothing within this world can be prescriptively good without a necessary being, God, who is intrinsically good. This distinction is often blurred when dealing with the more difficult situations of life, leading some to conclude that God’s benevolence towards creation should be questioned since experience attests to the horrible realities of evil and suffering. Some would be tempted to conclude, based on the experiences of life that ‘God is not good’, a notion that the Christian must reject (Deut. 7:7-8; Jn. 15:9-17; 1 Jn. 4:10; Ps. 145:16).

God’s goodness is closely related to different aspects of His nature, “among them love, mercy, patience, and grace” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology), and must be treated together in unity. God is the final standard of good, for He himself is good.