Way back in the 4th century an issue developed which became known as the Arian controversy. A man by the name of Arian began to question the pure divinity of Jesus. Could Jesus be divine in the same sense that God the Father was divine? He posited that there was a time when Christ was not, even if that was a time before time as we properly understand it began. The ultimate end of Arius' arguement is that Christ was in some sense a created eeing, even though he went out of his way to stress that Christ was divine in some sense.
The great theologian and church leader Athanasius would have none of this and made carefully reasoned and nuanced arguments that Christ was every bit as divine as God the Father was. He chose his words carefully to refute what became known also as the Arian heresy.
What does such an ancient discussion and debate have to do with us in 2008? Several things. The first is that we need to be careful how we speak of God. What words do we use and what terminology do we employ to describe and talk about God?
The second is that it is difficult to wholly compare God the Father to human fathers. One of the mistakes that Arius made is using human, natural terminology to describe that which cannot be described. Our human fathers are fallible, sinful and in some cases are just bad fathers. To compare our human definition of a father to God does a disservice to God becausw we are describing different things. For someone who has had a difficult time with their own human father we need to stress that God the Father does not act like their human father.
Sometimes it is easier to say what we do not mean when talking about God than to talk about what we do mean. For those who have had poor experiences with fathers, our God does not act like that. The ideal view of a father, one who loves and protects is what is in view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
*Had to make a correction*
I would like to suggest that the problem with 'bad fathers' can be aided by a more proper understanding of God's Fatherhood. That is, first that God revealed Himself as "Father" not the other way around.
Of course, we are created in His image not Him in ours. So then it should be no surprise that it is a mistake to think that the Biblical description of God as a "Father" is merely our finite, human way of describing God. (This is how we normally think of it though). By simply reversing the equation, we can gain powerful insight I think.
God's Fatherhood was not projected onto Him by us, what we call "father" humanly speaking is a mere shadow or image of true Fatherhood - that is: God's. If we are real fathers on earth, how much more is God the true Father.
In the same way, as I needn't tell you, Jesus was not just like us men - and He wasn't even just a man, He was or rather IS: true Man.
Nice discussion.
Post a Comment