podcast 171 – Assessing Athanasius and his Arguments

February 6, 2017

What should we think of Athanasius’s ferocious condemnations of those he termed “Arians”?

And what should we think of his theological claims and arguments in his On the Nicene Council? Does he show that the creed of 325 simply defended and rephrased what Christians had always believed about God and Jesus, which moreover is plainly taught in the Bible? And what about his speculations about salvation, atonement, and deification?

In this episode, I assess both the man and his arguments, using scripture and reason.

Links for this episode:

Dale
Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

One thought on “podcast 171 – Assessing Athanasius and his Arguments”

  1. Even Peter was called Satan by Jesus. Both behavior and doctrine are important. (Podcast 171)

    Ancient Israelites were Henotheists not Monotheists. Both late Judaism and nascent Christianity adopted Monotheism. The unity of essence is what determines the monotheistic feature of Athanasius’ argument, the essence of the Son being the same essence the Father had is what Athanasius and his contemporary Homoousian argue. The Homoousian doctrine was completely warranted by the meaning found in the Bible ?? ?? ????? ???? ??????? (Phil 2:6a). morphe = ousia (Podcast 171)

    The salvific value of Christ’s divine status is undeniable even in Unitarian rationale (All authority have been given to me Mt 28:18). Of course, divinization of Christ and Christians aren’t the same. Scripture does distinguish the two ??? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ????????? (Col 2:9). pleres pleroma theotetos = fully divine (Podcast 171)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
30 ⁄ 5 =


You May Also Like...