Chapter 5 The Incarnate Saviour Footnotes 1-40

Home / Chapter 5 The Incarnate Saviour Footnotes 1-40

The Trinitarian Faith

“We have been considering the fact the great conviction expressed in the Church’s confession of the oneness of the Son with the Father arose out of the evangelical and doxological approach of the Nicene fathers. They found they had to make explicit, in exact and accurate ways, the relation of the Son in being and act to the Father, in order to conserve the very essence of the Gospel of God’s saving and redeeming work in Jesus Christ. But the consubstantial or homoousial relation of the Son to the Father was asserted to be between the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, and the Father. Both ends of the homoousion, the divine and the human, had to be secured. Everything would be emptied of evangelical and saving import if Jesus Christ were not fully, completely, entirely man, as well as God. I was to make this indubitably clear that clauses and expressions were added to the original Creed of Nicaea relating to the humanity of the Son. However, when we turn to consider the clauses of the Creed that speak of the incarnation we find that they are dominated by a soteriological concern, ‘for us men and for our salvation.’ The basic approach of these Church fathers at Nicaea and Constantinople was that of the worship of redeemed sinners who rejoiced in the message of the Gospel and who, like St Paul, believed in Christ as God and Saviour.”

Page 147

1. See the Epistle of Alexander on the Arian Controversy, preserved by Theodoret, Hist ecc., 1.3; and his homily De anima et corpore deque passione Domini, MPG, 18, 585-604.

2. John 10.33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

3. Athanasius, De decr., 1; cf Con Ar., 1.39fCon Apol., 2.7. This was evidently indebted to Alexander of Alexandria, De an et cor., 5 & 7. It was surely to this Athanasian question διατὶ σὺ θεὸς ὤν ἄνθρωπος γέγονας; that the Anselmian Cur Dues homo? must be traced.

4. Cf. Athanasius De inc., 1 & 12Con Ar., 1.62-4, etc.

Page 148

5. Athanasius De Decr., 1

6. E.g., Athanasius Con Ar., 2.55

Page 149

7. 1Tim 2.4-6. Cf. the stress of Augustine on Mediator inquantum hom conf., 10.68In Jn en., 82.4De Trin., 4.14, 19.

8. Athanasius Con Ar., 2.7ff, 16, 31, 71; 3.31f, 35, 38ff; 4.3Ad Ser., 2.7; cf. Gregory Nyss., Con Eun., 3.4.14, Jaeger, 2, p. 139

9. Athanasius Ad Epic., 5-9

10. Athanasius Con Ar., 3.32, 34f, 38ff, 46, 48, 57fAd Ant., 7, etc

11. See again the discussion by Athanasius in De syn., 51

Page 150

12. Athanasius Con Ar., 3.3offAd Ant., 7Ad Epic., 2Ad Max., 2 etc.; and see Cyril of Alexandria, Dial., 1, MPG, 75, 681A-CDe rect. fid., MPG, 76, 1228C. Cf. Theol. in Reconcil., 156f, 227f.

13. Athanasius De inc., 15Con Ar., 2.53f; 3.20, 30-35, 53Ad Epict., 7fAd Ant., 7Ad Ser., 2.7ff.

14. Basil Ep., 261.2-3; Hilary De Trin., 9.14f

15. Athanasius Con Ar.,1.41, 45; 2.35, 52, 71; 3.26ff, 31ff, 35, 37ff, 40, 43ff, 48, 51ff, 57f, 63; 4.6ff.

16. Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. ad Nest., MPG, 77.3 (N/A), 116BC; Adv. Nest., MPG, 76.1, 17B; 20D; 21AB; 28C; 35A, etc.; or Quod unus sit ChristusMPG, 75, 1257A 1272B; 1277C, etc. For further references see Theol. in Reconcil., 163ff.

17. This is very evident in the way that Athanasius in his later writings spoke of Christ’s body as his own personal instrument (ὅργανον) in effecting the restoration and sanctification of our nature in himself — Con. Ar., 2.30; 3.31, 35, 53. Cf. also Con. Apol., 1.2, 15; Gregory Naz., Ep., 102.

Page 151

18. Cf. Athanasius Con Ar., 2.70; 4.35Ad Epict., 7.

19. Athanasius Ad Epict., 2ff, 7f; cf. Ad Max., 3Con Ar., 2.70.

20. See especially Con Apol., 1 & 2, which are of Athanasian provenance and probably Athanasian authorship. The theory they were not written by Athanasius has not been subjected to a convincing critical examination by George Dragas, St Athanasius Contra Apollinarem, Athens, 1985.

Page 152

21. Cited by Athanasius in Con Apol., 1.2. The extant fragments of Apollinarus have been compiled by Hans Leitzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seiner Schule, Texte und Untersuchungen, 1904. See also Theol. in Reconcil., pp. 143-50.

22. Athanasius Ad Epict., 7

23. Athanasius Ad Ant., 7

24. Cf. Athanasius De inc., 4-10; Con Ar., 1.60ff; 2.7ff; 3.30ff; 4.6f. See also citations from Athanasius by Theodoret Dial., MPG, 83.177f.

Page 153

25. Basil Ep., 261.2

26. Gregory Nyss., Or. cat., 14

27. Gregory Naz., Or., 1.23 (2.23?); 30.5f; Hilary De Trin., 9.3-14; 10.7-15; 11.15ff

28. Cf. Alexander of Alexandria: ‘For they, retaining in their memory all that they can collect concerning the passion, his abasement, his κένωσις, and what they call his poverty, and in short all those things to which the Saviour submitted as Saviour for our sakes, bring them forward to refute his eternal existence and Godhead.’ Theodoret, Hist. eccl., 1.3.

29. Athanasius Con Ar., 1.8ff, but especially 37-64 

Page 154

30. Athanasius Con Ar., 1.49; 3.38.

31. Athanasius Con Ar., 1.64; 2.2, 7ff, 31ff, 56; 2.69ff; 3.22, 26ff, 31ff, 37ff, 45ff, 51ff, 58; 4.6ff.

32. Athanasius Con Ar., 4.6; also 2.7ff, 16, 31, 71; 3.31f, 38f; 43ff. For an earlier instance on this two-fold activity of God, see Irenaeus, Adv. haer., 3.19.6 (3.18.7), vol 2, p.100f; 4.34.5 & 7 (4.20.4), pp. 215f, 218; 5.17.1, p. 369

33. Cf. the attention given to Christ’s high-priestly redemption of mankind in the following passages: Con Ar., 1.41f, 59-60, 64; 2.7-9, 14, 55, 68-70, 75f; 3.31-35, 56-57; 4.6-7

34. Athanasius Con Ar., 2.14. See my essay ‘The Mind of Christ in Worship: the problem of Apollinarianism in the Liturgy,’ Theol. in Reconcil., ch. 4, pp. 139-214.

Page 155

35. See Athanasius Con Ar., 2.7ff; 3.35ffAd Ser., 2.7

36. Athanasius De inc., 9Con Ar., 1.41, 46-49; 2.47, 53, 56, 67; 3.22, 31ff, 53, 61f; 4.33Ad Ant., 7Ad Epict., 7.

Page 156

37. Athanasius De inc., 7-10. See the discerning exposition of these chapters by G. D. Dragas, op cit., pp. 228-242.

38. Athanasius De inc., 54.3

39. Irenaeus Adv. haer., 1.2.1 (1.10.1), vol 1, p. 90f; 2.33.2 (2.22.4), p. 330f; 3.11.1f (3.10.2), vol. 2 p. 35f; 3.11.10 (3.11.8), p. 47f; especially 3.17.6-3.24.2 (, pp. 87-133; 4.11.2 (4.6.2), p. 159; 4.18.1 (4.9.1), pp. 168f; 4.34.4f (4.20.4), pp. 215f; 4.62-63.2 (4.38.1ff), pp. 292ff; 5.1.1ff, pp.314ff; 5.2.1ff, pp. 317ff; 5.14.2ff, pp. 360ff; 5.16.1-17.1 (5.16.2ff), pp. 368ff; 5.19.1f , pp. 375f; 5.21.1f, pp. 380f; 5.23.2, p. 387f; Dem., 31ff.

40. Irenaeus Adv. Haer., 3.11.2 (3.10.3), vol. 2, p. 36; agnitio salutis erat agnitio Filli Dei, qui et Salus, et Salvator, et Salutare vere et dicitur et est. Cf. 3.19.3 (3.18.3), p. 97f

Chapter 5 Footnotes 41-80