"Preserving the Christian Faith"

This is the first term paper of the year. If it would strike your fancy to do so, I would greatly appreciate feed back as to where it is weak, and specific sections that need clarification. I have lost perspective, and this paper is beyond me. God is merciful by allowing our hearts to fulfill their longings in Him. I pray that we may continue on in fellowship and contemplation. "Glory thy attributes confess, glorious and numberless"-- Charles Wesley. Isn’t it wonderful to look at a hymn and realize that you know the same God that he knew? How His attributes, His very being, His very nature infinitely transcends our human understanding. Yet let us seek on! Steady on weary soul!

God bless Christian, May we grow in grace and knowledge--may our faith become mature! May the Lord grant us hearts and minds that seek longingly humbly, fearfully, and prayerfully for truth. Excelsior! God Bless.

Christianity came into a world of thought dominated by Greek culture. All reputable education, within the civilized world has its foundation in Athens, and in addition Koine Greek, which was the universal language pervading the environment that Christianity came into, is a dialect that finds its pinnacle of influence in Plato (Reynolds 5). This classical Greek culture proceeding from the time of Alexander the Great is called Hellenism. Some theologians and historians believe there were no positive contributions made by Hellenism to Christianity. One group rejects all connection with Hellenism, considering it to be a pagan culture and void of any good. However others maintain that Christianity was influenced by Hellenism to a profound degree, and credit Athanasius with the prevention of any lasting influence which would have eclipsed sound Christian doctrine (Torrance 68). Despite their reluctance to associate themselves with Hellenism, “the very Greek language that the early Christian’s used to communicate their message was soaked in centuries of classical thought,” and so they could not escape their roots (Reynolds 5). It is impossible to separate the language from the thought forms or the thought forms from the language; simply by being written in Koine, the Gospel is perpetually attached to the thought forms as well as the language, which are vital to the understanding of the New Testament. Although some contest Hellenism’s contributions to Christianity during the early centuries of the Christian church, or condemn it as detrimental to the faith, I think the roots of Christianity found in Hellenism are vital in maintaining the body of Christ, because Hellenism provides a valid mode of expression, distinction, and conveyance for the truth that Christ imparted to the Apostles.

Some of those who reject the contributions of Hellenism to Christianity are expressed by communities that completely forsake any foreign associations and keep to themselves. The Greek culture was deemed pagan and thus had nothing beneficial to contribute to Christianity. However, such secluded thinking only bred faults of its own, and is exemplified by the Montanists, of which Tertullian is the most famous. Reynolds submits the sentiments of Tertullian as an example of one who firmly separates Greek education from Christian faith, “‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?’ thundered Tertullian” (5). The Montanists believe that private revelations amongst themselves supersede the Gospel proclaimed by the Apostles. They believe they are not merely inspired messengers, but rather that God possesses them and speaks through them directly, which leads to them saying such things as: “I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete,” in order to validate their claims over the words of the Apostles (Eusebius 159-167). In conclusion Reynolds states that, “Trying to pull Athens and Jerusalem apart usually led to inconsistency and heresy. Jerusalem without Athens becomes a weird place” (5). Without Hellenism, higher understanding of the written word of God is denied, because by being written in Koine the Gospel became inseparable from the logic of the Greeks, and is meant to be understood in the context of how it is presented to man by the Apostles (Reynolds 5).
The Hellenistic culture introduces apologetics to the Christian faith. From Christianity one receives truth, and from Hellenism, a valid mode to express that truth. Apologetics is argumentative discourse in defense of a doctrine; there can be no apologetics without specifics. One cannot fight by quoting verses if the fundamental discrepancy is in the interpretation of the text. Thus a source of a systematic language allowing for systematic thought is needed. This need is expressed prominently through the Arian incident, in which the Arians and non-Arians disagreed on the use of the term “begotten” in the Canon. Koine allowed for the defeat of Arianism, through specification between homoousios (of the same nature/substance/essence), proposed by the Nicene Fathers, and homoiousios (of a similar nature/substance/essence), which was the stance of Arius. It gave them a sure face to combat, exposing them to the subsequent judgment of their definite stance through words. The language allows for a clear sight of the inconsistency of such a theory with the full revelation of God through the sacred Scripture.

The second theory which holds that there was “a radical Hellenizing of Christianity, but it was largely due to Athanasius that a complete Hellenizing of Christianity was prevented,” is only half true (Torrance 68). Support for this statement lies with the heresies that developed when Hellenism retained primacy in the thought of Christians, rather than the Word of God shaping their thoughts. The Arian controversy is a pure expression of this. In it two theories as to how one ought to understand words and images, which greatly affect the interpretation of the Gospel and the person of Christ, battled for the title of orthodoxy. In Greek philosophy the “all pervading dualism,” which is the separation between the material and spiritual, the visible and the invisible, as well as many other categories, holds that God cannot enter into a state of “empirical actuality in space and time” (Torrance 47). This means that God cannot come into the material world and break the distinguishing bounds of dualism, a concept that is subtly at the core of Arianism, which denies the full Deity of Jesus Christ, maintaining that ‘once He was not’ and therefore He is a creation of God. Since they believe the Son to be a creation, the incarnation does not infringe upon their line of demarcation between creation and God, and thus maintains duality. (Torrance 48). To believe that Christians were influenced is historically accurate, because it affirms that sects such as the Arians were formed by heretical doctrine which resulted from Christians compromising with Hellenism, yet it neglects the most important feature of the fourth century: the Christianizing of Hellenism, which one can rightly attribute to Athanasius (Torrance 68).

Orthodox Christianity as a whole came out of this time uninfluenced and stronger in regards to its purpose of proclamation of the Gospel. Torrance states that “far from a radical Hellenisation having taken place, something very different happened, for in making use of Greek thought-forms Christian theology radically transformed them in making them vehicles of fundamental doctrines and ideas quite alien to Hellenism” (68). This adaptation of Hellenistic thought forms and language to Christianity is specifically expressed through Athanasius’ writings. He took common terms used by the Greeks, such as image, word, and activity, and adapted them to the revealed truth of God. These three terms are pivotal to understanding the difference between Greek and Christian thought (Torrance 68).

This adaptation can be seen throughout Athanasius’ work, On the Incarnation. In the incarnation Athanasius emphasizes that God accomplished two goals: He made salvation possible and He revealed Himself. Such is seen when he states, “By becoming Man [...] He banished death from us and made us anew; and invisible and imperceptible as in Himself He is, He became visible through His works and revealed Himself as the Word of the Father, the Ruler and King of the whole creation” (Athanasius 44-45). This smashes the dualistic mentality that the Greeks had grown accustom to, by affirming the Word’s deity, the restoration of the invisible Image of God to man, and by characterizing the act as God in man.

The difference between these two cultures can hardly be more crucial than in their understanding of image. Image refers to qualities, and modes of perceiving qualities. According to Torrance, Greek thought “gave primacy to the sense of sight over the other senses, and so developed an essentially optical model of thought, […]words or names were regarded as imaging in a real or conventional way what they signify or represent” (Torrance 69). Therefore, words such as ‘father’ and ‘son’ are interpreted in a visual, sensual way, and the human experience is projected mythologically into the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Understanding of God’s self-naming thus hinges upon human relations and experiences rather than the context within the word of God. In this way Arius argued that man is to understand such terms as ‘begotten’ in the human sense, and held that by Christ being the ‘only begotten Son’, He was the offspring of God, and subsequently once did not exist. However, Athanasius strongly opposes this theory and says that Image, in regards to God, is to be understood in the context of Himself as he has revealed himself through His incarnate Word (Torrance 70). By interpreting God’s words in such a way, man is exposed to the troubles of an anthropomorphic view of God, and ascribes a nature from creation to Creator, rather than through the revelation of the Creator to the creation.

The Athanasian view of image is taken from Hebraic thought, particularly from the second commandment of the Decalogue, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in any form of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath” (Exodus 20:4). These images include both the physical and mental, seeing that man can both worship a thing in thought or in action (Torrance 71). Since God is invisible and unperceivable, in being the Image of God, the Son does not portray any material qualities of God or picture Him since there is nothing to be pictured; rather he images the imageless Father. This means that man is not to look at Christ and see physical features such His face or stature, but rather invisible spiritual qualities of goodness, truth, and beauty. Words in this sense, rather than being the recollection of an experience, express relations and are to aid man in his spiritual relationship to the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. This does not mean that man’s experiences are null and void, but rather that he is to understand his experiences in light of the revelation of God through His Word, rather than imaging God by experiences; man is to see the imageless relation expressed by words and names without material images (Torrance 71-73).

The distinction that Athanasius makes between Hellenistic philosophy and Christian theology in regards to Word is one that is unheard of prior to the coming of Christ. Both worldviews affirm that the Word is the standard by which man is to understand what is seen, the means by which man is to interpret the image. In Hellenism this understanding is attained through thought and experience—“thinking of God from a center in the human self and its fantasies (mythologia)”; while in Christianity it is had through revelation—“thinking of God from a controlling center in His Word (theologia)” (Torrance 73). To the Greek, “The logos is an abstract cosmological principle” (Torrance 72). This is expounded upon by Reynolds when he states that “it is safest to say simply that ‘logos was the divine idea which held the universe together,’ in a cosmos of chance it gave order, pattern, and form to nature” (30). In contrast to Hellenism, Christianity personifies the Word, and upholds that He Himself is God as well as the unifying power of the universe. As Athanasius states, “The Word of the Father is Himself divine, [and is] the Source of life to all the universe,” and thus shares in the essence of the Father (25, 45).

The third essential Hellenistic concept that Athanasius adapts to Christianity is activity, which refers to the mode of revelation and intent behind the acts of God. Athanasius uses this term to refer to the incarnation as a whole, finding it to be the expression of the will of God and the enactment of that will. According to the Aristotelian view of God, “He is characterized by ‘an activity of immobility,’ and moves the world only as, ‘the object of the world’s desire’” (Trinitarian, Torrance 73). In this theory God only acts according to the will of the world, while remaining inactive in His inner being. The Greek idea of movement and existence is largely fundamental to this view, and consequently they do not believe God to be the Creator, but understand Him to be without a will or plan. This is expressed by “the [Greek] gods, starting with the most powerful Zeus, were neither creators nor good” (Reynolds 14). In strong contrast to the Greek idea of an idol God, Christianity strongly affirms that God is working mightily at all times to fulfill His unassailable will. Creation is accounted for by this theory as the result of a will, “He made all things out of nothing through His own Word,” and further more apart from the action of creation, God renews and redeems all creation through His activity once it has fallen (Athanasius 26, 28). Athanasius found the word philanthropia, which means love of man, to be the perfect expression of the relationship between God and man through His Activity, (Trinitarian, Torrance 74). God is profoundly expressed through His activity, and most fully through His Son’s incarnation.

The Hellenistic contribution to Christianity is one of the most important and features of Nicene theology. Though some may object, it is undeniable the contribution has been beneficial and enduring. Apologetics, consisting of logical systematic thought and forceful distinctions, play the role of defending, proclaiming, and persuading people of the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom to come. When a Christian believes that there is nothing that Hellenism has to contribute to Christianity and he rejects all that it has contributed, he is subject to ridiculous beliefs, such as Montanism, or more subtle errors as Arianism, because he has nothing to discern with between fault and sound Scriptural exegesis. Without the Hellenistic contribution one cannot talk about a doctrine even as fundamental and basic as the Trinity, or the Incarnation—for they would have to exclude fine distinctions made possible by Koine Greek. Similarly, without Christianity simple questions such as, “What is Good? What is True? What is Beautiful?” become impossible to answer (Reynolds 8). Reason preserves the faith, just as faith redeems reason. Man’s fallen state assures the continual need for the contributions of Hellenism, because as long as man is susceptible and prone to fault, heresy must be combated, and truth must be distinguished.