Connection between the 4

th
century and these texts:
What are these two guys doing which is the same as and different to what is going on in the NT?
On the Incarnation: pre or post Nicea, nothing about Arius maybe as early as 318/319 or late 320s
Rescued from death and how to know god? = incarnation
What about dilemas? Is god being surprised by this? Sounds like plan b when you read it originally
If God does plan this it suggests God is the author of sin?
The creaturely sphere gets itself in a mess for reasons that are not to do with God god is not put
off from the act of creating from the knowledge that it will slide into sin. God does not intend but
God has to keep the universe in existence or it will slide into annihilation, in Athanasius reasoning.
What is not going on is thyat the creator is angst ridden by the dilemma - traces stuff back into the
doctrine of God salvation takes the form it does because of gods character god creates himself
irrevocably to the creation, commits himself to contingency.
Logos en diathotos(mind)/proforotos(utterance) not speaking something into existenc but that
which is eternally happening predates origen, apologists
Just because the logos does something does not mean he has to be created to bring it about, nor is it
a pantheism
How do creatures get back to gOd? But not a god who has been bemused by something happening
the business of creating is teleologically ordered and that these beings are created for relationship
Process of decent from the divine purpose and
How is theosis in NT
This reaches over Israels story of how redemption happens rather than through
For athan this is bigger than the story of Israel these creatures are made in the image of God and
for fellowship and are created for something greater than the original creation the fall is not an
impediment to that plan, the climax is the incarnation
Is becoming devine a violation of nt logic?
Gods honour and his integrity is at stake (Anselm) if he does not redeem his character is at stake,
god has to act as god once he has created its far more than a rescue mission but the establishment
of a particular sort of fellowship so what you get in jesus Christ, a fellowship with divinity you get
nowhere else, ch 57 takes divine character for him to do what he does and bringing to teleological
fulfilment what he has started in some sense to be brought into the being of god a relational
ontology?
Paul: one flesh with the church? Participation, god is all in all, Paul grounds it in relational intent eph
5? The son elects to have this union he does not become more son in this process, he is not getting
something he lacks, he is gratuitously generous for the benefit of the other
Does he make the right or wrong argument: political images/kingship links to messiahship in the
nt, what are the circumstances of his writing doesnt do much exegesis but is envoking a biblical
historical narrative, logical exposition of the rule of faiths telling of redemption/salvation history
Fellowship with god does not obliterate your individuality very contemplative, epistemological
Does he stress the materiality of the new creation the new has ann organic connection to the old,
new creation is not an unqualified break
Christology the logos transcend the body simultaneous inhabits heaven and earth see ch 17, he
continues to uphold the universe the extra Calvinistic(Edward willis), problem if you are a Lutheran
kenotisist
The logos is steering the flesh there isnt a reductionism in the flesh he is present in the
redemptive he can be fully here and fully elsewhere, if hes the logos why could he not be able to
this but can god do the logically impossible
The fact that we cant articulate the how doesnt mean it isnt the case the appeal to mystery and
the obligation to worship kick in
Nt are less challenged by divinity and humanity together in one person, which philosophical debates
of later centuries
Intellectual challenges are there but the language used is part to the culture,
Kataphasis (positive speech) will one day stop, intellectual arguments are not the end game if you
appeal to apophasis too early is lazy we worship something we cant understand and we worship
him because of this

Arians an exegetical debate within an establishe d problem
More interested in the son than the logos, dont understand what is happening when you worship
the son, idolatrous stupidity
Acts 2 / proverbs context as an example of use of scripture
Athanasius says little about human development of jesus/psychology comes later in Alexandrian
theology, there is a quasi Docetism, not good moves
Word in an of his status is as word is impassible, in his existence he suffers in his fleshly form but
not a suffering divinity
Vital diff between arius idea of impassibility and Athanasius. For arius that means god cant be what
jesus is. Dont dissolve divinity in crude theologies of divine suffering, dont bother prayering to one
who says he suffers himself
Moltmann we know what love is and we will project it onto divine love, wrong starting point
Matters what line you draw between creaturely suffering and divine suffering you cant draw a
straight line or you dissolve divinity
Paul it costs god to be this loving ingredient is a certain amount of suffering, you should not talk
about divinities capacity to suffer per se, you find it in a certain place and a certain way not just
generally
Whoever god is there is only one of them, divine attributes are identical to the one who is singular
cant islote certain perfections and stop there Thomas Aquinas
Gregory
This applies to humanity and this to the divinity
Eunomians
God is ingenerate, even the son cannot know the ingenerate one.
Son is eternally begotten -
How do you know god is still the question, god gets you to know god by doing certain stuff that lets
you know him
Epistemology and reconciliation as a package
Consubstantiallity of son and spirit is essential as only god can give you the knowledge
Trying to articulate what theosis looks like more than Athanasius you can have genuine fellowhip
with the divine without dissolving the humanity through the son/jesus his union is paradigmatic
for what goes on in theosis, not just the basis a microcosm of theosis, you can have the intimacy as
a human in Jesus, destiny you were created for this ala irenaeus
1
st
oration tells you what good doctrine looks like and how to go about it that it is costly, the
pursuit of sound doct is not an end in itseld and detachable from discipleship, when the mind us at
full stretch, and conscience of this capacity, it is worshipping fully reasonable, not just about
smashing yoyur enemies about knowing god and that he will cost you everything
Reson is at its best when it is most aware of its limits