143. A further distinction between Arius and Athanasius was Arius’ dependence upon scriptural authority and Athanasius’ dependence upon paganistic philosophical reasonings and poor scriptural reasoning: “[Arius] had a sharply logical mind and appealed to biblical texts which apparently backed up his argument” - (p. 157). Athanasius insisted on non-biblical language and concepts whereas “Arius could agree to any statement using solely Biblical language.” - (p. 159). And “Athanasius .... used Scripture as inadequately as his contemporaries. He did not refute Arius by rejecting the relevance of Proverbs 8:22 and even quoted Psalm 110:3 (in the Septuagint) to prove [?] that the Son was not a created being.” - p. 165, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
Certainly not to be overlooked is Athanasius’ idea of the nature of God and man and their relationship! This man who almost single-handedly finally managed to cause the “Church” to accept a Jesus who was “True God” also taught: “He [Christ] was made man that we might be made God.” - p. 158, A History of Christianity, Latourette, 1953, Harper and Row.
Entire Study File
Post a Comment