Discourse III. - www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-60.htm#P6491_2577885
Discourse I. - www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-57.htm#P5255_2056234

quote:

---

III.38.3-4
For though He had no need, nevertheless He is said to have received what He received humanly, that on the other hand, inasmuch as the Lord has received, and the grant is lodged with Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere man receives, he is liable to lose again (as was shewn in the case of Adam, for he received and he lost), but that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure by men, therefore He Himself appropriates the gift; and He says that He has received power, as man, which He ever had as God, and He says, `Glorify Me,' who glorifies others, to shew that He hath a flesh which has need of these things. Wherefore, when the flesh receives, since that which receives is in Him, and by taking it He hath become man, therefore He is said Himself to have received.

---

quote:

---

Gospel speaks is never the mechanical destruction of evil, but a cure, and Christ “has conquered death by death”. As long as the last human being has not freely participated in this victory, evil will continue to condition history. God could take our place in order to suffer and to die, but he cannot do so for our acts of freedom, of choice and of love. Liberty frees only the one who desires it. (From Paul Evdokimov's "Struggle with God", top, page ten jbburnett.com/resources/evdokimov_strugglewGod1966.pdf

---

quote:

---

I.50.6-8
Through whom then and from whom behoved it that the Spirit should be given but through the Son, whose also the Spirit is? and when were we enabled to receive It, except when the Word became man? and,as the passage of the Apostle shews, that we had not been redeemed and highly exalted,, had not He who exists in form od God taken a servant's form, so David also shews, that no otherwise should we have partaken the Spirit and been sanctified, but that the Giver of the Spirit, the Word Himself, hast spoken of Himself as anointed with the Spirit for us. And therefore have we securely received it, He being said to i he anointed in the flesh; for the flesh being first sanctified in Him, and He being said, as man, to have received for its sake, we have the sequel of the Spirit grace, receiving `out of His fulness.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sometimesisquint

...like the standout opponents before me...

---

quote:

---

For though He had no need, nevertheless He is said to have received what He received humanly, that on the other hand, inasmuch as the Lord has received, and the grant is lodged with Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere man receives, he is liable to lose again (as was shewn in the case of Adam, for he received and he lost), but that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure by men, therefore He Himself appropriates the gift; and He says that He has received power, as man, which He ever had as God, and He says, `Glorify Me,' who glorifies others, to shew that He hath a flesh which has need of these things. Wherefore, when the flesh receives, since that which receives is in Him, and by taking it He hath become man, therefore He is said Himself to have received.

---

The unity of the subject is thus understood by Athanasias to imply that the immutability of Jesus Christ as the Word of God is manifest even in his being human. So whereas the preservation of the gift given by God to all (note: in the garden) depended upon their inherently unstable, because creaturely, response to him, that Jesus Christ himself, "the same yesterday today and forever," is the recipient as well as the bestower, renders the gift fully secure. Christ thus not only "appropriates" a body, but in doing so "appropriates the gift," or as Anatolios puts it, "the unsurpassable gift of the Incarnation is that we were given the very reception of the gift. Christ is not only the one who has wrought all of this, but is now, for us, "an image and tyupe of virtue." (Arians I.51.2)

quote:

---

31.
Of old time He was wont to come to the Saints individually, and to hallow those who rightly received Him; but neither, when they were begotten was it said that He had become man, nor, when they suffered, was it said that He Himself suffered. But when He came among us from Mary once at the end of the ages for the abolition of sin (for so it was pleasing to the Father, to send His own Son `made of a woman, made under the Law'), then it is said, that He took flesh and became man, and in that flesh He suffered for us (as Peter says, `Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh,' that it might be shewn, and that all might believe, that whereas He was ever God, and hallowed those to whom He came, and ordered all things according to the Father's will, afterwards for our sakes He became man, and `bodily,' as the Apostle says, the Godhead dwelt in the flesh; as much as to say, `Being God, He had His own body, and using this as an instrument, He became man for our sakes.' And on account of this, the properties of the flesh are said to be His, since He was in it, such as to hunger, to thirst, to suffer, to weary, and the like, of which the flesh is capable; while on the other hand the works proper to the Word Himself, such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to cure the woman with an issue of blood, He did through His own body. And the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the body was God's. And well has the Prophet said `carried;' and has not said, `He remedied our infirmities,' lest, as being external to the body, and only healing it, as He has always done, He should leave men subject still to death; but He carries our infirmities, and He Himself bears our sins, that it might be shewn that He has become man for us, and that the body which in Him bore them, was His own body; and, while He received no hurt Himself by `bearing our sins in His body on the tree,' as Peter speaks, we men were redeemed from our own affections, and were filled with the righteousness of the Word.

---

quote:

---

34.

And that one may attain to a more exact knowledge of the impassibility of the Word's nature and of the infirmities ascribed to Him because of the flesh, it will be well to listen to the blessed Peter; for he will be a trustworthy witness concerning the Saviour. He writes then in his Epistle thus; `Christ then having suffered for us in the flesh.' Therefore also when He is said to hunger and thirst and to toil and not to know, and to sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee, and to be born, and to deprecate the cup, and in a word to undergo all that belongs to the flesh, let it be said, as is congruous, in each case `Christ then hungering and thirsting "for us in the flesh;"' and saying `He did not know, and being buffeted, and toiling "for us in the flesh;"' and `being exalted too, and born, and growing "in the flesh;"' and `fearing and hiding "in the flesh;"' and `saying, "If it be possible let this cup pass from Me," and being beaten, and receiving, "for us in the flesh;"' and in a word all such things `for us in the flesh.' For on this account has the Apostle himself said, `Christ then having suffered,' not in His Godhead, but `for us in the flesh,' that these affections may be acknowledged as, not proper to the very Word by nature, but proper by nature to the very flesh.

Let no one then stumble at what belongs to man, but rather let a man know that in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of that flesh which He put on, these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Saviour. And while He Himself, being impassible in nature, remains as He is, not harmed by these affections, but rather obliterating and destroying them, men, their passions as if changed and abolished in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves also impassible and free from them for ever, as John taught, saying, `And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin.' And this being so, no heretic shall object, `Wherefore rises the flesh, being by nature mortal? and if it rises, why not hunger too and thirst, and suffer, and remain mortal? for it came from the earth, and how can its natural condition pass from it?' since the flesh is able now to make answer to this so contentious heretic,`I am from earth, being by nature mortal, but afterwards I have become the Word's flesh,' and He `carried' my affections, though He is without them; and so I became free from them, being no more abandoned to their service because of the Lord who has made me free from them. For if you object to my being rid of that corruption which is by nature, see that you object not to God's Word having taken my form of servitude; for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh, and henceforward inherit life `everlasting.'

---

quote:

---

Let no one then stumble at what belongs to man,
but rather let a man know that in nature the
Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of
that flesh which He put on, these things are
ascribed to Him, since they are proper to the
flesh, and the body itself is proper to the
Saviour. And while He Himself, being impassible
in nature, remains as He is, not harmed by these
affections, but rather obliterating and
destroying them, men, their passions as if
changed and abolished in the Impassible,
henceforth become themselves also impassible
and free from them for ever, as John taught,
saying, `And ye know that He was manifested
to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin.'

---

Dear ataraxia,

thank you for any lee-way you excersize in my direction. I'm using the board to RESEARCH a topic of Athanasias' emphasis on the CROSS. On the Incarnation, Life of Anthony, and certain discourses and letters have been part of my reading of late. Athanasias focus is not on the 'composition' of Christ, but on the outworking of salvation for us men and our salvation (as the nicence creed puts it). I am, in this thread, interested in the Christian faith; and not in discussion unless anyone wants to keep step with what I'm doing. I don't control the pace: I just try to grasp what Athanasias was dealing with so early in the history of Christian theology.

Thanks,

PoW

quote:

---

And while He Himself, being impassible
in nature, remains as He is, not harmed
by these affections, but rather
obliterating and destroying them, men,
their passions as if changed and abolished
in the Impassible, henceforth become
themselves also impassible
and free from them for ever...

---

Charles Wesley: "Arise, my soul, arise; shake off thy...
Canon of S. Andrew of Crete: My soul, my soul, arise! Why are you sleeping?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

quote:

---

And while He Himself, being impassible
in nature, remains as He is, not harmed
by these affections, but rather
obliterating and destroying them, men,
their passions as if changed and abolished
in the Impassible, henceforth become
themselves also impassible
and free from them for ever...

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Feelinhole and John Earp? Anything to add, about this I mean?

---

quote:

---

I know some people who get all nervous when someone remarks about the possibility of not sinning. On another thread recently that was the issue.

Any thoughts on that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Earp

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Feelinhole and John Earp? Anything to add, about this I mean?

---

It has often been observed by scholars that Wesley was strongly influenced by some of the Desert Fathers of Eastern Orthodoxy. As far as I recall, Wesley was influenced by the Eastern Patristic writers in the areas of:

1. Salvation as "soul therapy/healing."

2. Salvation as process/journey.

3. Salvation as restoration of the image of God in fallen humanity.

4. Freedom of the human will to choose for or against God.

5. Predestination according to foreknowledge (not monergism/determinism, but rather God's foresight as to who would accept his call and consequent election of those so foreseen by Him).

6. A tendency to asceticism.

There are no doubt other similarities simply due to the fact that both Wesleyanism and Eastern Orthodoxy are Christian movements, but off the top of me head right now I can't think of any.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Earp

Cutting through all the smoke and mirrors, let's just ask ourselves the question, "Does the SCRIPTURE reveal whether God is able to suffer?" I know of several passages in the Old Testament alone which indicate that God does indeed suffer pain, have emotions, and does indeed have passion. To say Christ was incapable of feeling pain or of suffering just leaves me with my head scratching. Are we reading the same Bible?

---

Nestorius asserted unqualified divine impassibility.

Cyril, in contrast, held a qualified view of the divine impassibility and maintained that neither divinity suffered alone, apart from humanity (in which case the assumption of humanity would be superfluous), nor humanity suffered alone, apart from and in sharp contrast to the impassible divinity (in which casethe reality of divine involvement in the incarnation would be put at risk).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

PoW, this topic is about the logic of impassible suffering. Let me refresh your memory.

quote:

---

When Christians (like St. Athanasias did) say that Christ "SUFFERED IMPASSIBLY" they are not spouting nonsense!

---

The first words of the topic. When someone writes what I feel to be a false statement on the discussion board, I don't think it's unreasonable (or unpretty) to respond to that specific statement.

---

quote:

---

When Christians (like St. Athanasias did) say that Christ "SUFFERED IMPASSIBLY" they are not spouting nonsense!

They are affirming, first, that Christ suffered. How mightily important.

The other thing that statement affirms is that Christs suffering was not a "passive" act. That is, the suffering did not happen to him by surprise, or by force beyond his ability to handle it. It was not a rollercoaster that zoomed out of control. Christ was not "passive" in his suffering. He chose to die for you and me.

And, HISTORICALLY, that is what the statement Athanasias and the others made means when it says that Christ "SUFFERED IMPASSIBLY."

Pithy statement. Produces a 'double take' -- doesn't it. But BOTH of these aspects, that he condescended to suffer in the flesh and that as God he was Lord of All are so very important and central to our faith.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

---

G.K. Chesterton -- Traditionalism is the dead faith of living people; tradition is the living faith of dead saints (something like that).

Jaroslav Pelikan -- "The only alternative to tradition is bad tradition."

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Earp

quote:

---

I know some people who get all nervous when someone remarks about the possibility of not sinning. On another thread recently that was the issue.

Any thoughts on that?

---

How else can we be truly blameworthy for our sins if we "can't help it?"

---

quote:

---

and we know that while `in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' now that He has become also man for our salvation we worship Him, not as though He had come in the body equalising Himself with it, but as Master, assuming the form of the servant, and Maker and Creator coming in a creature in order that, in it delivering all things, He might bring the world nigh to the Father, and make all things to be at peace, things in heaven and things on the earth. (Adelphius 8.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

SOMETHING ESLE VERY GOOD FROM ATHANASIAS:

quote:

---

and we know that while `in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,' now that He has become also man for our salvation we worship Him, not as though He had come in the body equalising Himself with it, but as Master, assuming the form of the servant, and Maker and Creator coming in a creature in order that, in it delivering all things, He might bring the world nigh to the Father, and make all things to be at peace, things in heaven and things on the earth. (Adelphius 8.)

---

---

Becoming man, therefore, Christ does not simply lower himself to our estate, but raises us up to his stuature. As Athanasius puts it in his letter to Adelphius (ABOVE).

There is no time, as it were, when he is merely like us: when he comes in the body he does not equalize himself to it, but, rather, in taking a body, he transformes all that belongs to human nature, in particular all those things to which human nature is subjected, which human beings now "suffer" or endure, such as fear, ignorance, humger, and death. It is important to recall what we have seen when examining how Athanasius speaks of the Lord's coming in his body, that this is not something that can be reduced solely to his birth from Mary. He does not preemptively transform all the human passibilities simply by taking a body, by being born, for otherwise he would not actually have undergone them. Rather, the "incarnation," the "coming" of the Lord or his "parousia." encoumpasses his whole life, so that, for Athanasius, Christ really did grow in wisdom, suffer hunger and fear, and ultimately die on the Cross. Christ really does appropriate the suffering that belongs to the human nature which has become his own; he suffers, as Athanasius repeatedly states, while also insisting that Christ appropriation of this suffering is simultaneously its reversal, transforming suffering into impassibility. It is the perspective of the scriptural account of christ, where what is narrated of Christ is related in terms of the victory already addomplished, that accounts for the simulaneity of the transformation. That is, Athanasius does not treat the Godpels as a modern biography of the human Jesus , but as an account of the economy, grounded in theology, of the Word of God, the crucified and exalted Christ Jesus.

(pp.224-5, The Nicene Faith, Part 1, John Behr, SVS Press, Creastwood, NY)