tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post9169017714362404389..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: Dr. Stephen J. Nichols' new book..thumbs down.David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-50316691485729518212010-09-18T08:20:47.855-07:002010-09-18T08:20:47.855-07:00I am writing a book for children about Athanasius ...I am writing a book for children about Athanasius and I could really use your input! Could you email me at simonettacc@hotmail.com?<br />Thank you,<br /><br />Simonettasimonettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03921188625260900900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-54930478269140128212007-09-04T14:09:00.000-07:002007-09-04T14:09:00.000-07:00Hi Ken,You posted:>>Where does Athanisius actually...Hi Ken,<BR/><BR/>You posted:<BR/><BR/>>>Where does Athanisius actually say, I am quoting from Arius' work, Thalia ? <BR/><BR/>Both references are from De Synodis 15<BR/>Did I miss something?>><BR/><BR/><BR/>Me: My bad, the long quotation from Athanasius is section 41 not 15 (though I got the NPNF page right [grin]). Thanks much for pointing this out; it has been corrected.<BR/><BR/>As for Athanasius stating that he was using Arius’ <I>Thalia</I>, that is from the beginning of section 15. Here is the entire section from pages 457, 468 as found in Eerdmans edition (volume 4) of the NPNF series:<BR/><BR/>>>15. Arius and those with him thought and professed thus: 'God made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son;' 'The Word of God is one of the creatures;' and 'Once He was not;' and 'He is alterable; capable, when it is His Will, of altering.' Accordingly they were expelled from the Church by the blessed Alexander. However, after his expulsion, when he was with Eusebius and his fellows, he drew up his heresy upon paper, and imitating in the Thalia no grave writer, but the Egyptian Sotades, in the dissolute tone of his metre, he writes at great length, for instance as follows:—<BR/><BR/><I>Blasphemies of Arius</I>.<BR/><BR/>God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men. Equal or like Himself He alone has none, or one in glory. And Ingenerate we call Him, because of Him who is generate by nature. We praise Him as without beginning because of Him who has a beginning. And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who in time has come to be. The Unbegun made the Son a beginning of things originated; and advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption. He has nothing proper to God in proper subsistence. For He is not equal, no, nor one in essence with Him. Wise is God, for He is the teacher of Wisdom. There is full proof that God is invisible to all beings; both to things which are through the Son, and to the Son He is invisible. I will say it expressly, how by the Son is seen the Invisible; by that power by which God sees, and in His own measure, the Son endures to see the Father, as is lawful. Thus there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Not intermingling with each other are their subsistences. One more glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity. Foreign from the Son in essence is the Father, for He is without beginning. Understand that the Monad was; but the Dyad was not, before it was in existence. It follows at once that, though the Son was not, the Father was God. Hence the Son, not being (for He existed at the will of the Father), is God Only-begotten, and He is alien from either. Wisdom existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God. Hence He is conceived in numberless conceptions: Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God's glory, Truth, Image, and Word. Understand that He is conceived to be Radiance and Light. One equal to the Son, the Superior is able to beget; but one more excellent, or superior, or greater, He is not able. At God's will the Son is what and whatsoever He is. And when and since He was, from that time He has subsisted from God. He, being a strong God, praises in His degree the Superior. To speak in brief, God is ineffable to His Son. For He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable. So that nothing which is called comprehensible does the Son know to speak about; for it is impossible for Him to investigate the Father, who is by Himself. For the Son does not know His own essence, For, being Son, He really existed, at the will of the Father. What argument then allows, that He who is from the Father should know His own parent by comprehension? For it is plain that for that which has a beginning to conceive how the Unbegun is, or to grasp the idea, is not possible.>> <BR/><BR/>Also available online at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2817.htm .)<BR/><BR/>Once again, sorry about the typo; thank you so much for catching it!<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-64143974002357167182007-09-04T13:14:00.000-07:002007-09-04T13:14:00.000-07:00...and not from other subsistence,. . . Is this wh...<I> ...and not from other subsistence,. . . </I><BR/><BR/>Is this where Athanasius quotes from Arius' writing Thalia, and uses "alien substance" ??<BR/><BR/>Where does Athanisius actually say, I am quoting from Arius' work, Thalia ? <BR/><BR/>Both references are from De Synodis 15<BR/>Did I miss something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-79906690355095203622007-09-04T13:07:00.000-07:002007-09-04T13:07:00.000-07:00Seems he was right on the final outcome, but did n...Seems he was right on the final outcome, but did not research the details of exactly what Arius taught - but he was right about Arius believing that Jesus<BR/> was created out of nothing -- there was a time when the Son did not exist.<BR/><BR/>But he left out the 3 media views that resulted from Arius' controversy. (the 2 Eusebius', etc. homoiousians, etc.)<BR/><BR/>Your writing is clear and very helpful for those of us who have not had time to delve that deeply into the details.<BR/><BR/>Kind of like the often repeated mistake in history books and church history books that "Constantine made Christianity the official state religion". He did not. That was later, under Theodosius in 380 AD. Constantine made it no longer illegal and no longer persecuted; in other words, tolerated, and even favored later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-45865975250970246922007-09-02T09:59:00.000-07:002007-09-02T09:59:00.000-07:00Hello life,You posted:>>How does a writer bring hi...Hello life,<BR/><BR/>You posted:<BR/><BR/>>>How does a writer bring himself to write something with absolutely no evidence behind it? From whence the argument to begin with?>><BR/><BR/>Me: To be honest, I don’t know exactly why. But, if I can be allowed to speculate, I would advance the idea that it might be due to a reliance on generalizations based on highly biased polemical treatments of Arianism by “apologists” with little, or no training in Patristics.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-90200927448053382692007-09-01T12:08:00.000-07:002007-09-01T12:08:00.000-07:00How does a writer bring himself to write something...How does a writer bring himself to write something with absolutely no evidence behind it? From whence the argument to begin with?BHodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01751807169882645742noreply@blogger.com