The Fathers on Philippians 2:6

I was combing through some of my notes for patristics, and Philippians 2:5-11 is a fun passage to see them wrestle with. This is no way to suggest that all Fathers thought the same things about Jesus, but I found these to be most interesting. So here are some interesting quotes:

Epiphanius, Ancoratus 4.4:

"You see that he reveals Christ to be a man but not merely so, since he is the mediator of God and humanity... He is trueborn God by nature with respect to his Father, but with respect to humanity he is Mary's trueborn son by nature, begotten without the seed of a man."

Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus Against Apollinarius:

"He did not say "having a nature like that of God," as would be said of [a man] who was made in the image of God. Rather Paul says being in the very form of God. All that is the Father's is in the Son."

Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on John 20:18:

"First one may contemplate him existing in his primary form, that of God, before he emptied himself. One will then see the Son of God not yet having come forth from him, the [incarnate] Lord not yet having proceeded from his place. But then compare the preexistent state of the Son with that which resulted from his assuming the form of a slave when he emptied himself. You will then understand how the Son of God came forth and came to us and as it were became distinguishable from the One who sent him. Yet in another way the Father did not simply let him go but is with him and is in the Son as the Son is in the Father."

Augustine, On Faith and the Creed 5:

"God who is eternally wise has with him his eternal Wisdom [the Son]. He is not in any way unequal to the Father. He is not in any respect inferior. For the apostle too says who, when he was in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God."

Lucifer of Cagliari, On Dying for the Son of God 12.16:

"It was he who was and is and always shall be in the form of the Father, the true Son, immutable and unchangeable because he is God and the all-powerful Son of the Almighty, who nonetheless deigned to lower himself for our salvation, so that he might cause us to rise even as we lay prostrate."

Ambrosiaster, Epistle to the Philippians 2.6:

"Knowing that he is in the form of God, he committed no theft .... Rightly, then, he equaled himself with God. For the one who thinks robbery is the one who makes himself equal to another whose inferior he is."

Eusebius of Vercelli, On the Trinity 3.4, 7:

"You must choose one of two paths. Either there is a single inequality in the two [divine Father and divine Son or there is a single equality in the glory of divinity itself. For no one is either greater or less than his own form...This singular equality is seen not only in the concord of their willing together. It is rather in their very deity, since the form of equality is in no way divided into parts. Where there is one equality there is no discord. Where there is one equality neither is prior to the other. Neither is posterior nor subordinate, since there is no distinction in the united equality, which is the fullness of divinity."

These can all be found in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Paul's epistle to the Philippians.

NQ

Allah, a review

OPENING:

According to the back cover of the book, "do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?" Volf's personal answer (as he had nothing to do with the book flap and quote) is far more nuanced. But the question remains:

Do these two vast and prolific religions share and claim the same God?

PROS:

The potentially volatile nature of this project is immediately upended by Volf's keen sensitivity and distinct attention to historical detail. Beginning in the present with 9/11 looming over the nature of religious extremism, Volf begins to trace back the historicity of this conflict, moving through centuries of bloody political conflict. He compellingly paints a picture of how we worship and view God, and how this in turn cashes in on the way we act about our God.

If our God is violent, are we not to be violent?

Volf's conclusions are highly nuanced, but revolve around the ideas expressed in the Qur'an and Scripture about the similar nature of God's sovereignty, His desire for worship, the love of neighbor and others; he builds his case around this, contending that both religions have 'sufficiently similar' views about God to warrant belief in a sufficiently similar deity. With both Islam and Christianity being the world's two largest faiths, bridging the gaps could indeed prove fruitful. Volf's end goal is political (not religious) pluralism.

Volf interacts with both the Bible and the Qur'an in respectful ways, though the strength of his case is philosophical.

CONS:

There are instances where it appears Volf is indeed stretching it. His discussions on the Trinity, though firmly and robustly orthodox, do not fully combine the Muslim understanding with that of the Christian church's idea of Trinity. This is perhaps the biggest difference between both faiths. Our perception of God is trinity, and Muslims seem to believe this instead to be polytheistic. This is a core difference, and it effects our views about God and Jesus.

Though Volf doesn't gloss over differences (and I do not have enough space to give this more attention), he does stress to a fault that Muslims are close enough. However, it should be noted that Volf doesn't ever compromise Christian Doctrine, nor is he interested in reducing both faith's to a watered-down version of their former glory.

CONCLUSION:

This book was a challenge. I went in expecting unbound pluralism and weak exegesis, and was pleasantly surprised. Volf is as orthodox a Christian as one can be, and his measured tone and desire for political unity is to be commended. This is thoughtful and strong material that must be wrestled with.

Though I am not to be numbered amongst his converted, Volf has written a powerful and incisive book that deserves your attention.

4 out of 5 stars.

--Nick

Allah: A Christian Response; Introduction

SETTING THE STAGE

For my birthday, (thanks Noel) I was given a book by Miroslav Volf, a theologian from Yale who studied under Jurgen Moltmann (a personal hero of mine). The book is entitled "Allah: A Christian Response." Thanks mostly in part to Scot McKnight, I became intrigued by the notion put forth by Volf, in that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Volf does not claim to be a pluralist, and he appears to embrace the trinity in it's orthodox formation. In fact, based on his past, I see very little that doesn't fall under the label "evangelical," which I admit to me is a broad term.

So I cannot instantly dismiss the book, as it appears to be coming from a sharp and articulate evangelical scholar. One who has his pulse on world religions,conflict and reconciliation. Whether or not he is correct, I find that the books that challenge me the most are the one's I always love.

These books are "The Evangelical Universalist" by Robin Parry, "The Coming of God" by Jurgen Moltmann, and "The God of the Possible" by Gregory Boyd. The list is sure to expand. 

GENERAL STREAM OF THOUGHT

Allah came out around the same time as Rob Bell's Love Wins. Rob Bell flirted with Universalism and I do not think he embraced the doctrine. You can read my thoughts here. What I find interesting is that Rob Bell's book, which challenges an evangelical tennant, namely the "born again" experience, drew a firestorm. Volf's Allah didn't. And Volf's book challenges the very exclusive nature of the Christian faith, including the "born again" experience, but also the very concept of who God is and the truth about his revelation to us. This is powerful material and a true paradigm shift of the Christian faith is Volf is correct.

it could be the it is dangerous to talk/write about Islam, but as Bell showed us, tampering with much of anything beyond classic Christian restrictivism pretty much leads to a theological witch hunt.

"Will God save everybody?" is not the same as the question below.

"Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?"

That is the question posed on the back cover of Allah. Quite provocative. With endorsements from Brian McLaren and Mona Siddiqui, including some kind words from Scot McKnight (whose endorsement is not on the book, but he spoke highly of it in a lecture about Rob Bell's Love Wins).

THE ONE GOD AND THE GREAT CHASM; AN INTRODUCTION

"My interest here is the proper Christian stance toward the God of the Qu'ran and what that stance means for Christians' and Muslims' ability to live together well in a single and endangered world." (pg1).

To again quote Volf, "the stakes are high." For him, this is a universal problem. A cursory glance over the chapter titles includes references to extremism and reconciliation. Muslims and Christians combined constitute over one half of the earth's population, and if these two religions are involved in a war of escalations (so to speak) then we have a problem that involves everybody. Volf doesn't see much of the conflict, in it's current state, going away. Especially in regards to natural resources and population.

At this point, I don't necessarily disagree with anything Volf has written. One slight glance at a news channel or a headline will attest to the current instability of a majority of the world's regions. 

Volf's past is briefly visited. He was born in a country that "no longer exists." Yugoslavia. Though brief, this does set the stage for Volf's thinking, and he is writing primarily to a Christian audience.

CONCLUSION

I'm frankly not convinced by his thesis, but I am eager to see what Volf has in store for us. Quite well-written, and quite interested in reconciliation. If Volf is indeed right, that changes some very foundational aspects of orthodoxy.

We should probably listen and see what Volf says.