tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post3588981198901419213..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: John 14:28 and the three views of Athanasius, Augustine and CalvinDavid Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-32745309381695125502009-03-16T11:01:00.000-07:002009-03-16T11:01:00.000-07:00Hi Ryan,It is so good to hear that my little threa...Hi Ryan,<BR/><BR/>It is so good to hear that my little thread has been useful to you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-61197459181021356702009-03-15T21:27:00.000-07:002009-03-15T21:27:00.000-07:00Just wanted to thank you for posting this article....Just wanted to thank you for posting this article. I am writing a short paper on John 14:28 for my systematic class, and I found your discussion immensely helpful!<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>RyanAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01669308497126247231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-51218599639280069532008-11-07T10:27:00.000-08:002008-11-07T10:27:00.000-08:00Hi Filter Boy,Thanks for responding; you wrote:>...Hi Filter Boy,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for responding; you wrote:<BR/><BR/>>>Anyway, I tend toward St. Athanasius. In the context, we have to ask what why Jesus is going to the Father. "I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I". Which fits best?<BR/><BR/>God is the fount of divinity and while being equal in essence, sons are inferior in relation to fathers. This was something startlingly simple that anyone with little theological acumen could grasp. No one holds that children are made of an inferior substance, yet for that reason we cannot permit children to be disobedient to parents. It is an inferiority of relationship.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Exactly. I would add that the Bible is quite clear that the Son owes His existence to the father (e.g. John 1:18; 5:26; Heb. 1:3, etc.); that fact demonstrates (IMHO) a clear case of subordinationism.<BR/><BR/>>>(A problem with this view could be that some subordinationists would take this further and urge that there is essential inferiority because of the immaturity of children and attach it to the incarnate Christ. I do not admit this to be the case but will assume that no one here is interested in that path.)>><BR/><BR/>Me: To which I would say that if an infinite, perfect, God begets a Son in His very image, how could there be any taint of “immaturity”?<BR/><BR/>>>Do we think that when Jesus says after the Incarnation, that the Father is greater, He is giving an eternal truth, or is it only contingent on His humanity. Does He only obey the Father as a servant because of His Sacred Humanity? I suggest that the "Father is greater" is a non-contingent eternal truth and that before the Incarnation, even while it was not robbery to be equal, the the Father was greater.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Yet again, I agree. Certainly the Son throughout all eternity obeys the Father who gave Him life—before His incarnation, during His incarnation, after His resurrection to glory—the Father/Son relationship is an eternal one.<BR/><BR/>>>That said, I believe St. Augustine's position is an acceptable school of thought which I could not condemn. I admit that I am sometimes uncomfortable with the way Catholics dismiss apparent problems rather too blithely with this solution. However, there is no question that the distinction between "the form of a servant" and not thinking it robbery to be equal" are two of the most important keys to Biblical understanding.>><BR/><BR/>Me: IMHO, Augustine’s take is a bit too Nestorian. I think Athanasius’ view is a better fit for one who holds to a Chalcedonian Christology. (What do you think?)<BR/><BR/>>>I didn't really understand Calvin. You liked it?>><BR/>Me: I think there is a lot truth to what Calvin said; however, I would argue that the Son’s role as Mediator and Savior is directly related to His eternal relationship to the Father as His only-begotten Son. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-36467131816469738522008-11-06T12:44:00.000-08:002008-11-06T12:44:00.000-08:00Hey Dave,Texas Tech and Penn State? I am for old J...Hey Dave,<BR/><BR/>Texas Tech and Penn State? I am for old Joe Pa. Iowa this week. Fifty-six years he's been coaching there. I saw him on 60 Minutes years ago leading the team in the Our Father. Good man I think. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I tend toward St. Athanasius. In the context, we have to ask what why Jesus is going to the Father. "I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I". Which fits best?<BR/><BR/>God is the fount of divinity and while being equal in essence, sons are inferior in relation to fathers. This was something startlingly simple that anyone with little theological acumen could grasp. No one holds that children are made of an inferior substance, yet for that reason we cannot permit children to be disobedient to parents. It is an inferiority of relationship. <BR/><BR/>(A problem with this view could be that some subordinationists would take this further and urge that there is essential inferiority because of the immaturity of children and attach it to the incarnate Christ. I do not admit this to be the case but will assume that no one here is interested in that path.) <BR/><BR/>---This point could be corroborated in v.31, where Jesus emphasizes his role as a son to obey, "so that the world may know that I love the Father."<BR/><BR/>Do we think that when Jesus says after the Incarnation, that the Father is greater, He is giving an eternal truth, or is it only contingent on His humanity. Does He only obey the Father as a servant because of His Sacred Humanity? I suggest that the "Father is greater" is a non-contingent eternal truth and that before the Incarnation, even while it was not robbery to be equal, the the Father was greater.<BR/><BR/>That said, I believe St. Augustine's position is an acceptable school of thought which I could not condemn. I admit that I am sometimes uncomfortable with the way Catholics dismiss apparent problems rather too blithely with this solution. However, there is no question that the distinction between "the form of a servant" and not thinking it robbery to be equal" are two of the most important keys to Biblical understanding.<BR/><BR/>I didn't really understand Calvin. You liked it? <BR/><BR/>Filter Boy <BR/><BR/>PS: I can look later but I think St. Hilary followed Athanasius' position too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com