Term
| Name three scripture passages that indicate a binitarian understanding of the Godhead. |
|
Definition
| 1)Romans 8:11 (The Spirit is also the Father and gives life to Jesus Christ), 2) 2 Corinthians 4:14 (he who raised Jesus will raise us too), 3) Galatians 1:1 (Paul is the messenger of Christ Jesus and God the Father), 4) 1 Tim 1:2 (same), 5) 1 Peter 1:21 (you have faith through Jesus Christ who was raised by the Father). |
|
|
Term
| Name three scripture passages that indicate a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead |
|
Definition
| 1) Matthew 28:19 (...baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit), 2) 1 Cor 6:11 (you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God), 3) 1 Peter 1:2 (Chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood). |
|
|
Term
| What is an Apostolic Father? |
|
Definition
| Writers or the anonymous authors of writers who lived and wrote around the year 100-150. They were thought to have known the apostles personally and were recipients of the teachings of the Apostles. About 10 of these are authors. ½ is epistles (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Pseudo-Barnabas), and ½ are doctrinal, parenetic, or disciplinary treatises (The Didache, the “Secundua Clementis”, the Shepherd of Hermas, Papias). |
|
|
Term
| What did the Apostolic Father’s say about the Trinity? |
|
Definition
| Little systematic theology at all. Most are pastoral meant to correct abuses and encourage faith in Jesus. Jesus is called “God”. Spirit is said to have inspired the prophets. Christ is assumed to have pre-existed creation and have a role in creation. No true doctrine of the Trinity, but the trinitarian formulae are there in their nascent form. |
|
|
Term
| Why are the most notable 2nd Century theologians called “apologists”? |
|
Definition
| They mostly tried to defend Christian beliefs to the unbelievers (Roman authorities, the Jews, and other pagans). They tried to refute the charge of atheism leveled against Christians by the Romans. Aristides, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian the Elder, Theophilus of Antioch. |
|
|
Term
| How and why did they use the term “logos?” |
|
Definition
| First of all, it was in the Prologue to the Gospel of John. It was begun by Justin Martyr, partially to show the Roman authorities that Christianity was completely consistent with Greek ideas and Judaism, both of which were allowed and/or embraced (former, latter) within the empire. They used this theology to show how Christ was pre existent to creation as the Father’s word or thought. They said that Jesus Christ was the expression of the Logos in time, showing how Christ could pre-exist creation as one with the Father, while being incarnate in time and space. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the Word dwelling with the Father for all eternity |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the Word spoken in creation as Jesus Christ. These two terms later became the foundation of Immanent theology (how God knows Himself) and Economic theology (How God expresses Himself in creation). |
|
|
Term
| Explain the important points of Logos Theology |
|
Definition
| it gave an account of how a transcendent, eternal, and unchanging, could be involved in a temporal world. The Logos functioned as the Father’s agent in creation and revealing truth. Justin Martyr thought that the Logos was distinct from the Father in name and in number, i.e., the Logos was the first of all creation. This is completely heretical. This was analogized to the utterance of human speech or the kindling of one flame by another. |
|
|
Term
| What was good about the apologists Trinitarian theology? Bad? |
|
Definition
Good: ?
Bad: they often sound like subordinationists or modalists. They often thought that creation marked the beginning of the Trinity, i.e. Economic Trinitarianists. |
|
|
Term
| Describe the Trinitarian theology of St. Irenaeus of Lyon |
|
Definition
| GOOD: Irenaeus said that the son existed before the expression of the Logos, said that God is ineffably one, but contained from eternity His Word and Wisdom. Speaks of the Son and Spirit as God’s two hands analogously. Said that the Logos in the flesh revealed God’s true nature to us, and that the Spirit makes it possible to receive this revelation. Says that the Son and Spirit are truly divine. It showed how the revealed Son and Spirit were also one from eternity with the Father. BAD: Only one personage, the Father, the Godhead Himself, not three persons. These distinctions are made real only in the Economy (false). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| it was done to preserve the unity of God. Said that there was no distinctions within the unity of the Godhead. It said that the Godhead was an absolute monad (monarchy). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Also called adoptionism because it said that Jesus was merely a man upon whom God bestowed divinity at baptism. Essentially, God possessed the man Jesus. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| said that Jesus was merely a man upon whom God bestowed divinity at baptism. Essentially, God possessed the man Jesus. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| One God, wearing different “personas” at different times, manifesting the same person in different “modes” i.e. Father and Son. No different persons within the Godhead. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This is modalism “all growed up”, saying that God was a monad, expressing itself in three operations. It said that the Father projected himself as the Son and as the Spirit. |
|
|
Term
| What did Tertullian contribute to Trinitarian theology? |
|
Definition
| The first Latin father, and the first to use the word Trinitas, recognizing the trinitarian distinction of the three persons. He said that God was absolutely one, existing in unique solitude eternally, but that He always had his Logos. Still, very little technical language to describe this one nature, three persons. |
|
|
Term
| What the hell was Arius’ problem? |
|
Definition
| Pride, most likely. He refused to obey his bishop, then the Ecumenical councils. He preached that Jesus was not truly God and that “there was a time when the Logos was not”. He said that Christ was the first among creatures, but denied that he was truly God. Arius said that Jesus was Deified in the way that the saints are deified, blurring the line between paganism and Christianity (i.e. myths where human heroes become gods). |
|
|
Term
Describe briefly the historical and theological events which immediately preceded the Council of Nicaea.
a. Arius
b. Alexander of Alexandria
c. Constantine
d. The Council of Antioch |
|
Definition
Arius---A priest in the diocese of Alexandria. He began preaching his heresy in Egypt and was smacked down by his bishop, the venerable, ancient, acetic, and meek Alexander of Alexandria.
Alexander of Alexandria---The Arius’s bishop in Egypt. Told Arius to desist and asserted the orthodox teaching on the divinity of Christ. Alexander believed that the Logos was co-eternal with the Father, that both were distinct hypostases (persons), and that God could not ever have been without His Reason (Logos). He exiled Arius, who then traveled around Asia minor gaining followers to his heresy.
Constantine---Emperor of the Roman Empire when he defeated Licinius. He converted to Christianity and legalized Christianity only to find out that Arius’ preaching was tearing the Church apart. He attempted to bring order to the Church by trying to mediate the dispute between Alexander of Alexandria and Arius, and then had his theological advisor call and preside over the council in Antioch. Antioch professed orthodox Christology, but Arius didn’t listen. This led to the council of Nicea in June of 325.
The Council of Antioch---The local council called in Antioch to reign in Arius. It affirmed the divinity of Christ. |
|
|
Term
The Council of Nicaea
a. major historical and theological points
b. Homoousios
i. What does this term mean in relation to the Nicene Council? |
|
Definition
major historical and theological points---325. Called by Constantine to settle the dispute. St. Athanatius was Alexandria’s theological representative. He made sure the council affirmed Homoousios vs. Homoiousios (same substance vs. like substanct). The term was mainly used to assert the fact that Jesus was truly God, not merely by way of “courtesy title” as Arius said. After the council, noone dared question the council because it had Constantine’s stamp of approval. Final conclusion: Christ was begotten, not made. All who said that the Son did not exist from all eternity with the Father, was subject to change, or was subordinate to the Father were anathematized.
Homoousios---literally meaning “same substance”. It was meant to assert that Jesus was God, not much more.
What exactly does this term mean in relation to the Nicene Council?---See above. |
|
|
Term
| Give Beothius’ definition of person (hypostasis) |
|
Definition
- A person is an incommunicable subsistence of a rational nature
- different rational natures: human, angelic, divine
- “incommunicable” - individual expression of a nature (human nature) and that person itself cannot become another and cannot be shared
- This definition gave us a way of discussing how there can be more than one subsistence to the divine nature. The one substance of the Godhead has three unique terminal substances.
i. Peter has a general substance, i.e. humanity
ii. Peter has a terminal substance, i.e. Peter-ness
But the question remains, how does their uniqueness not violate their oneness and simplicity? |
|
|
Term
Define Divine Substance
i. Omnipotent
ii. Omniscient
iii. Omnipresent, ubiquitous, immense
iv. Immutable
v. Utterly simple |
|
Definition
Define Divine Substance
Omnipotence---It is within God’s nature to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. God can do everything and can exhaust all possibilities.
Omniscience---Knows everything, not only all things that are, but even all things that are possible.
Omnipresent---Present everywhere. Fills all, transcends all, is immanent to all.
Ubiquitous---God cannot be circumscribed, “His center is everywhere and His circumference is nowhere”. He cannot be divided, circumscribed, etc.
Immense---God fills all things completely. There is nowhere where He is present less than in any other place.
Immutable---God is not subject to or capable of any internal change. This necessary follows from Divine eternity. If God exists in the Eternal Now, there can be no change as we know it. Change means difference with respect to time, but nothing internal to God is with respect to time.
Simple---God has no extension, no parts, no subdivision is possible. He has no composition because He is not composed of any constituent parts. He is unity, monad, one. All descriptions of God’s attributes are the same as His existence. |
|
|
Term
| b. What does this mean, "God is one substance, two processions, three persons, four relations, five notional acts. |
|
Definition
The Trinity (God) is 1 substance: one nature, one essence. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, and utterly simple (please see a. above for details).
2 processions: the Son - by generation and the Holy Spirit - by spiration.
3 persons: the Father, unoriginate, the logical principle. The Son, second person of the trinity, the Word, intellectual concept who proceeds from the Father as an intellectual procession. (analogous to that in which a concept is generated by the human mind in all acts of natural knowledge). This Procession of a Divine Person as the term of the act by which God knows His own nature is called generation - like generates like. The Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity. Proceeds from the Father as the term of the act of Divine will. Proceeds from the Father and the Son as the term of the love by which God loves himself. It is Hypostatic love. The H.S. is God’s affection and love for the Son himself and the H.S. is the means by which God desires and loves the Son. This is not a generation, it is spiration - it produces a love or desire, not a second son - H.S. is not begotten of the Father.
4 relations: The existence of relations in the Godhead may be inferred from the truth of Revelation and the doctrine of processions: ‘where there is a real procession, the principle and the term are really related.’ So, the generation of the Son and the procession of the H.S. both must involve real relations. Both processions must involve both a principle and a term, and so there must be four relations: Two origination: paternitas and spiratio. Two of procession: filiatio and passive spiration. These relations are what constitute the distinction between the Persons. The distinctions between the persons are in the relations alone. Four relations suppose Three Persons.
5 notional acts: These notional acts are “event-like” attributes that ground the relational identities of the three persons.
- The Father
-- Unoriginated (innascent)
-- Generative - vis-a-vis the Son
-- Breathing - vis-a-vis the Spirit
- The Son
-- Generated - from the Father
-- Breathing - passively spirating the H.S.
- The Spirit
-- Breathed - by the Father and the Son |
|
|
Term
| Discuss the Divine Missions |
|
Definition
Due to the ad extra axiom, how can we say that this or that person of the Trinity performs this of that function? How can we say that the Son was incarnated by the power of the H.S. or that it is the H.S. that sanctifies us?
- Actions ad extra are not done exclusively by one or the other person, but rather are done under the logical term of one or the other Person. - It’s for us and for our understanding.
The Incarnation was done under the power of all three persons. Consider God in his omnipresence and ubiquity. There is not a place where the entire Divine nature isn’t - even in Hell. So when we say the Word was made Flesh, we are saying that Jesus was sent to a place that, as God, he already was. He is simply there in a different mode, a different logical term.
When the Holy Spirit is said to enter our hearts, we cannot assume that he was not already there. He merely enters in another and more efficacious (effective, productive) way, for us and for our understanding. |
|
|
Term
| According to our theological anthropology lecture what four things are implied by our being made in the image and likeness of God. |
|
Definition
Human beings are created
That the human is created is self evident by virtue of his or her existence, but why was the human person created, what is the nature of his creature, and for what purpose does the human family participle in being? God made humanity as a sign of his eternal creation love.
CCC 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.
Furthermore, to be created by God means that human nature is essentially good, even though a propensity for sin is often manifested.
Human is the syntheses of Body and Spirit
The existence of the Body is evident for it is corporeal and can be perceived by the senses
But the soul is the inmost aspect of the person and is of the greatest value for it is here that the person most resembles God’s image and likeness.
furthermore it is the spiritual soul that is created by God and is immortal
it is because of this soul that the human person asks those theological uestoin for “the soul the seed of eternity we bear in ourselves irreducibly to the merely material it have its origin only in God.
Person is essentially a communal being
Just as God is a community unto himself, so man, made in the image and likeness of God, finds his greatest fruition by living in a community
as a result god didn’t create man a solitary being. From the beginning Male and female he created them
the partnership of man and women constitutes the first form of communion between persons
for by his innermost nature man is a social being and if he doesn’t enter into relations with others he cannot live nor develop his gifts.
this is integral for it is because of this that we establish government to ensure order and peace.
the human person possess dignity and freedom
Another essential element of the human person is that the individual is free, and because of this a dignity that cannot comprised in any way
The freedom we are given is pretty bad ass because it is given to us by our creator
It is only in freedom that we can turn to the good
Modern Humans hold freedom in a very high regard
It cannot be denied as a good thing but it doesn’t give an individual the right to do what he or she wishes.
Freedom is an essential attribute of God himself he cannot b e turned toward and evil and selfish end, much less have its existence terminated while still being identified as freedom.
This leads to conclusion: genuine freedom is outstanding manifestation of the divine image in man.
God willed that we should be left in the hand of our own counsel. |
|
|
Term
| What is V.B.’s methodological starting point to theological anthropology? |
|
Definition
First any attempt to identify human nature and personhood is fundamentally a theological task. Not a philosophical or sociological one.
The best example that we can look at, because God would not fundamentally change the nature of man and women is to look at the relationship between Mary and Jesus.
Another important thing is the idea of theolgoical drama, this is described later. |
|
|
Term
Explain the three tensions in the human person
a. Soul and body
b. Individual and Community
c. Man and woman |
|
Definition
Body and Soul
Mankind knows itself as a composite of physical and spiritual matter. As spirit, each person knows that he is not limited to space and time as the body perceives it, but as an embodied spirit. This struggle takes place on a sensate level (perceived through the senses).
Balthazar says: “man can be the ultimate blossum of nature... while at the same time, despite his bodily being, he remains profoundly alien to the time/space world of nature and strives to regain the lost original world.”
Balthazar also says that it is the good of mankind to preserve this tension because extreme spiritualization is as de-naturing to a person as extreme sensualization.
Individual and Community
The nature of mankind demands that each person must perfectly embody the concept of humanity as a whole, but part of that concept of humanity is that everyone is his own incommunicable instance of humanity.
A constant battle wages between the good of the individual and the good of the community; a dramatic tension that must be maintained for the good of the human family.
The good of the individual is very good, but the individual should want to give his good for the sake of the community.
Obedience enters this tension as two contrary movements.
The individual grows into the community and adopted into it in order to participate in its law and freedom to grow beyond the limitations of individuality.
The first of the two contrary movements are that the individual must be obedient to the laws of the polis (nation, city, country) in order to exercise the freedom of his mission, and he becomes a person of the community.
The other contrary movement is that the community exists for the good of the individual, but the individual must be a man of community to truly manifest his individuality. He can only be an individual by being obedient to the community which is other to him, but includes him.
Man and Woman
From the dawn of creation man & woman has stood beside each other and completed one another. “It is not good for man to be alone.” So God created Eve from Adam’s side, expressing the fundamental equality that man and woman have in relation to each other.
Eve’s creation was an act of God, not a natural process. This afforded it the miraculous character that the relationship must have if it is the create life.
If eve were taken from the dust just like Adam, then there would have been no internal unity and Adam could never have said “This one is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone.” This sigh of releif from Adam gives us a sense that she is more than just good company. Balthazar says it is because it is Eve who finally completes Adam. |
|
|
Term
Wort/antwort and Litz/antlitz
i. This one will require you to describe, at length, Adam and Eve's original state |
|
Definition
Adam exclaims “At last!” and it is only with this exclamation that his word (wort) is given a suitable response in Eve’s answer(antwort). This word attains fulfillment when it is understood, accepted and given back as word. The answer can only be received from the woman in their face-to-face encounter. She turns Adam from the man-who-sees (all animals, etc.) into the man-who-is-seen (by the woman).
The man (litz) is dependent on woman (antlitz) for his fulfillment. The woman who is both answer (antwort) and face (antlitz) is the security and help of man, his home and the vessel of fulfillment sepcially designed for him. Because each of their own fruitfulness is brought to fulfillment its own fruitful fulfillment within her person, she is the fruit-bearing principle in all creation. |
|
|
Term
Woman's irreducible binary ordering
i. i.e. her duality in contrast to man's singularity |
|
Definition
Man can only offer his word (seed) to unite it with woman. But woman shows the depth of word by uniting it t her answer and creating a third person equal in dignity to the man and the woman. She gives back to the man, not what she received from him, but something totally new. She gives him a twofold answer: a personal answer (antwort) and one that goes beyond the I-thou relationship into a more generic social dimension (child).
Man is ordered toward woman only, but woman is ordered to both man and child - she is both Bride and Mother. The mans mission is more of a straight line towards woman b/c he finds his completion in her. But woman is far more complex b/c her story and direction changes according to the needs of man and/or child. Man has no experience of this irreducible binary focus.
Von Balthazar bases this upon a prelapsarian (before the fall) relationship, where one cannot say what was the first manner of reproduction.
Von Balthazar also is speaking on a universal level where the man-woman relationship is ordainded by God and played out in the created order. This theological formulation, based on revelation, proceeds the opposition of man and woman is based upon the relationship between Mary and Christ, God and the Church, and the individual person and God. |
|
|
Term
| Clement of Rome's Christology |
|
Definition
His Epistle to the Corinthians asserts the pre-existence of the savior with God from all eternity.
He asserts the divinity and fleshly existence of Christ.
He may get the Holy Spirit mixed up with Christ when he says that the body of Christ is the Church and that the Spirit is the head of said Church. We can’t blame him because the Church didn’t even have the complete canon of the New Testament yet. |
|
|
Term
| Ignatius of Antioch's Christology |
|
Definition
Mostly anti-Docetic, that is, against the heresy of Docetism that says that Christ only appeared to take on human flesh, but wasn’t truly human. This is similar to John’s gospel and letters, which is also thought to be anti-Docetic. This makes sense, because Ignatius was a pupil of John.
Ignatius affirms that Jesus Christ was truly of the line of David, thereby asserting that Christ truly took on human flesh.
Maintains that Christ was truly God.
Ignatius NEVER addresses how or why this could take place--he never struggles with the mystery of the incarnation, but only asserts the truth of what happened. |
|
|
Term
| Justin Martyr's Christology |
|
Definition
Justin Martyr was an apologist, attempting to convince educated pagans of Christianity’s truth by trying to show how it has ancient roots in Judaism as well as how it matches with Platonic philosophy.
He even goes so far as to say that ancient Greeks were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Seems to err on the side of economic Trinitarianism because he says that the Logos was the Father’s way of communicating with creation. In short, the Logos served a particular purpose for the Father as a mediator with creation.
He interprets the Old Testament theophanies as necessarily being the action of the Logos. This is against Augustine’s later ad-extra axiom, which will say that in all action in creation by God, we cannot tell the difference between the actions of the different persons of the Trinity, and that their actions towards creatures are completely united.
In these regards, Justin got it wrong, but the Church hadn’t developed its Trinitarian theology yet, so we can’t blame him. |
|
|
Term
| Irenaeus of Antioch's Christology |
|
Definition
Christology is centered on Recapitulation, that is, the establishment of a new humanity under the new headship of Christ. Christ came to effect a second creation as the New Adam.
Human nature was created in order to enjoy this union with God; our natures were prepared from the beginning to be joined to the Logos in the incarnation.
Irenaeus never address the radical difference between God and man, nor does he attempt to explain how these two distinct natures can be united in the person of Christ. |
|
|
Term
Origen's Christology
i. Be sure to include an understanding of communicatio idiomata |
|
Definition
Origen has two tendencies when describing the relationship between the Father and the Son.
The first tendency emphasizes the divinity and eternity of the Son, and of making him equal to the Father.
He believed that 1)to suppose that there was a time when the Son did not exist would be also to say that there was a time when the Father did not exist; 2)although the Son was born of the Father and derives everything that he is from the Father, this happened without beginning; 3)the Son is divine according to the essence of the Father and not through participation.
The second tendency emphasizes the distinction between the Father and the Son. He believed that 1)although there the difference between the Father and the Son was not because of a limitation of the Son, that God limited himself in order to make himself known to us (pro nobis); 2)in the Incarnation Christ was united to an unfallen intellect; 3)Christ's two natures are united in such a way that one nature can attribute to the first actions and conditions that correspond to the latter and vice versa (communicatio idiomata) |
|
|
Term
| Tertullian's Christology i. What do the following terms indicate a. Pre-partum b. In partu c. Post partum |
|
Definition
| Anti-docetic (like Ignatius of Antioch and John the Evangelist) Introduces the terms Substance and Person into Christology--these names have stuck ever since. Tertullian correctly says that the properties of both natures are fully present in Christ. Emphasizes that Jesus was born of a Virgin. What do the following terms indicate Pre-partum: “before giving birth” in partu: “while giving birth” post partum: “after giving birth” These terms indicate the assertion that Mary was a virgin at all stages of her life; before, during, and after bearing Christ. |
|
|
Term
| Describe the development made in Christology in the Council of Nicea |
|
Definition
Trinitarian in focus
Defined the Son’s equality with the Father
Said that Christ was homoousious (of the same substance) with the father
St. Athanasius of Alexandria was a huge player in this council, writing Apologia Contra Arianos, “Apology agains the Arians”. However, he seemed to presuppose that Christ did not have an rational human soul (and that his divine nature “displaced” the human soul in governing and unifying his person), making him a “crypto-Apollinarian”. This led to Apollinarius concluding that Christ had no human soul. |
|
|
Term
| Describe the development made in Christology in Constantinople I Council |
|
Definition
Called to correct the Apollinarian Heresy.
Apollinarian heresy said that Christ had no human soul; the Logos functioned in place of a human soul.
The council affirmed that Christ had a fully human nature and therefore a fully human soul. |
|
|
Term
| Describe the development made in Christology in the Council of Ephesus |
|
Definition
Refutes the Nestorian Heresy, which claimed that Jesus Christ had two persons, one human and one divine.
The teaching of the council was given via St. Clement of Alexandria |
|
|
Term
| Describe the development made in Christology in the Council of Chalcedon |
|
Definition
This council specified, regarding the one person and two natures, that the “'one and same Christ, Son, Lord, and Only Begotten,' had been made fully known in these two natures which, without detriment to their full characteristics, continue to exist 'without blending or change and without division or separation'," while belonging to only one person and not two persons.
The phrase "without division or separation," addressed the Nestorian heresy. |
|
|
Term
| What is St. Anselm's Satisfaction theory? |
|
Definition
| Anslems Satisfaction theory is based of the cast system that was around in the time of Anslem. he states that Mankind has offended God’s honor by attempting to thwart the created order. This offense could only be repaid by a God man, and that is Jesus Christ. A human committed the offense but the offended party was god. No individual human could make the satisfaction to God, only god could. So it required Jesus. |
|
|
Term
| Thomas Aquinas and Christ’s three forms of human knowledge |
|
Definition
Beatific Vision
Jesus human mind was credited with the beatific vision of god
Infused or prophetic knowledge
Chirst had special infused knowledge in a similar manner to the angles and a prophet
Experiential knowledge
Aquinas believed that Christ learned everything on his own, he wasn’t taught it. |
|
|
Term
| Explain the Phrase Pro nobis as regards to Christology |
|
Definition
| It means “for us” in Latin, and Deitrich Bonhoeffer recognized the pro nobis structure of christological confession. It could well be the case that we only know Jesus as Lord and Savior because the reality of his saving grace and love actually changes concrete situation in human life and community. |
|
|
