Tag Archives: Theophilus of Antioch

Why Eve was Made From Adam’s Rib

18 Tuesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Theophilus gives two reasons: Theological, to prove that Adam and Eve were not created by different gods. Anthropological: increase their affection:

And Adam having been cast out of Paradise, in this condition knew Eve his wife, whom God had formed into a wife for him out of his rib. And this He did, not as if He were unable to make his wife separately, but God foreknew that man would call upon a number of gods. And having this prescience, and knowing that through the serpent error would introduce a number of gods which had no existence,—for there being but one God, even then error was striving to disseminate a multitude of gods, saying, “Ye shall be as gods; ”—lest, then, it should be supposed that one God made the man and another the woman, therefore He made them both; and God made the woman together with the man, not only that thus the mystery of God’s sole government might be exhibited, but also that their mutual affection might be greater.

Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 105.

Theophilus of Antioch, on the Creation Accounts

14 Friday Jul 2017

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Anthropology, Creation, Creation, Image of God, imago dei, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Theophilus next commences with a  long discussion of the Creation. It is interesting that he takes Creation as the great distinction between the pagan and Christian worldviews. Interestingly, Peter Jones makes exactly the same distinction as the “bedrock” for the difference between Christianity and other positions:

In either case, here we reach rock bottom. Either the transcendent Creator— one God in the unending interpersonal life and love of the Trinity— is at the origin of everything created and sustains it all, or the universe itself, in all its seeming variety, is all there is. And in either case, whether we worship nature or the Maker of nature, we are dealing with a statement of faith and an expression of worship. We cannot step out of the universe to find an objective point of view. We must make a faith decision between these two alternatives— and there are only two. If God and nature make up reality, then all is two, and everything is either Creator or creature. On the other hand, if the universe is all there is, then all is one.

This choice is exemplified in the stark separation between two points of perspective: that of the Bible, and that of Camille Paglia, a contemporary philosopher. The Bible begins by saying: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth [i.e., nature]” (Gen 1: 1). Paglia begins her book Sexual Personae very differently: “In the beginning was Nature.” [footnote] These two views of reality have always existed, but because we have lived for centuries in a Christian environment, the reemerging conflict startles us. Paglia wrote what she did in conscious opposition to the perspective on the world put forth in Genesis. Christian thinking starts not with Paglia’s view of existence but with that of the Bible.

Robert Sokolowski, a professor of philosophy at the Catholic University of America, puts it this way:

Christian theology is differentiated from pagan religious and philosophical reflections primarily by the introduction of a new distinction, the distinction between the world, understood as possibly not having existed, and God, understood as possibly being all that there is, with no diminution of goodness or greatness.

Jones, Peter (2015-06-24). The Other Worldview: Exposing Christianity’s Greatest Threat (Kindle Locations 252-267). Kirkdale Press. Kindle Edition.

In making this argument, Theophilus relies heavily upon the text of Scripture, quoting out long sections of Genesis as argument. A few observations about Theophilus’ rendition of the creation account. First, he gives the rationale for the creation of human beings:

And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing.

Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 97–98.

Second, he does engage in some allegorizing of the text. This is not in contrast to the “literal” meaning, which he takes as a given, but as an additional layer of meaning. For example:

And we say that the world resembles the sea. For as the sea, if it had not had the influx and supply of the rivers and fountains to nourish it, would long since have been parched by reason of its saltness; so also the world, if it had not had the law of God and the prophets flowing and welling up sweetness, and compassion, and righteousness, and the doctrine of the holy commandments of God, would long ere now have come to ruin, by reason of the wickedness and sin which abound in it. And as in the sea there are islands, some of them habitable, and well-watered, and fruitful, with havens and harbours in which the storm-tossed may find refuge,—so God has given to the world which is driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies6—we mean holy churches7—in which survive the doctrines of the truth, as in the island-harbours of good anchorage; and into these run those who desire to be saved, being lovers of the truth, and wishing to escape the wrath and judgment of God. And as, again, there are other islands, rocky and without water, and barren, and infested by wild beasts, and uninhabitable, and serving only to injure navigators and the storm-tossed, on which ships are wrecked, and those driven among them perish,—so there are doctrines of error—I mean heresies8word of truth; but as pirates, when they have filled their vessels,9 drive them on the fore-mentioned places, that they may spoil them: so also it happens in the case of those who err from the truth, that they are all totally ruined by their error.

Theophilus of Antioch,  100. He also sees the period of testing in Paradise as analogous to a Father raising a child:

The tree of knowledge itself was good, and its fruit was good. For it was not the tree, as some think, but the disobedience, which had death in it. For there was nothing else in the fruit than only knowledge; but knowledge is good when one uses it discreetly. But Adam, being yet an infant in age, was on this account as yet unable to receive knowledge worthily. For now, also, when a child is born it is not at once able to eat bread, but is nourished first with milk, and then, with the increment of years, it advances to solid food. Thus, too, would it have been with Adam; for not as one who grudged him, as some suppose, did God command him not to eat of knowledge. But He wished also to make proof of him, whether he was submissive to His commandment. And at the same time He wished man, infant as he was,4 to remain for some time longer simple and sincere. For this is holy, not only with God, but also with men, that in simplicity and guilelessness subjection be yielded to parents. But if it is right that children be subject to parents, how much more to the God and Father of all things? Besides, it is unseemly that children in infancy be wise beyond their years; for as in stature one increases in an orderly progress, so also in wisdom. But as when a law has commanded abstinence from anything, and some one has not obeyed, it is obviously not the law which causes punishment, but the disobedience and transgression;—for a father sometimes enjoins on his own child abstinence from certain things, and when he does not obey the paternal order, he is flogged and punished on account of the disobedience; and in this case the actions themselves are not the [cause of] stripes, but the disobedience procures punishment for him who disobeys;—so also for the first man, disobedience procured his expulsion from Paradise. Not, therefore, as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from his disobedience did man draw, as from a fountain, labour, pain, grief, and at last fall a prey to death.

Theophilus of Antioch,  104. This probationary period could have resulted in immortality from the beginning, had Adam kept the law of God:

But some one will say to us, Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power over himself.1 That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him.2 For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption.

Theophilus of Antioch, 105.

Theophilus of Antioch: Inspired by Demons

12 Wednesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Bibliology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Theophilus then proceeds to speak of the difference between the biblical and pagan understanding of the world: their inspiration:

And without meaning to do so, they acknowledge that they know not the truth; but being inspired by demons and puffed up by them, they spoke at their instance whatever they said. For indeed the poets,—Homer, to wit, and Hesiod, being, as they say, inspired by the Muses,—spoke from a deceptive fancy, and not with a pure but an erring spirit.

Now this is without question impolitic in contemporary culture: these poets spoke by demons or “deceptive fancy”.  It is interesting that we, at least in educated society do not believe in such things. And yet Shamans, Astrology, and any number of other such things are believes.  Unabashedly demonic merchandise and imagery is very common.  The culture is frankly gnostic.  A scientist on staff at an internationally known institution and respected institution told me, “My colleagues are quite superstitious”.

Theophilous contrasts this with the prophets:

But men of God carrying in them a holy spirit and becoming prophets, being inspired and made wise by God, became God-taught, and holy, and righteous. Wherefore they were also deemed worthy of receiving this reward, that they should become instruments of God, and contain the wisdom that is from Him, through which wisdom they uttered both what regarded the creation of the world and all other things. For they predicted also pestilences, and famines, and wars.

And they not only predicated, but their predications have come true:

and they all have spoken things consistent and harmonious with each other, both what happened before them and what happened in their own time, and what things are now being fulfilled in our own day: wherefore we are persuaded also concerning the future things that they will fall out, as also the first have been accomplished.

Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 97.

Theophilus of Antioch, How do you think the world began?

11 Tuesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Apologetics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The previous post on the Apology of Theophilus may be found here

In chapters V, VI & VII, Theophilus takes his pagan reader to task by listing out all the various things the poets have said about the beginning of the gods and the world, and all the strange and confused genealogies.  He quickly shows that the origin stories are wildly incoherent. As such, it would be easy to disregard this section of his apology (who believes in Greek myths any more?). But then he makes this argument which is salient:

And saying this, he has not yet explained by whom all this was made. For if chaos existed in the beginning, and matter of some sort, being uncreated, was previously existing, who was it that effected the change on its condition, and gave it a different order and shape? Did matter itself alter its own form and arrange itself into a world (for Jupiter was born, not only long after matter, but long after the world and many men; and so, too, was his father Saturn), or was there some ruling power which made it; I mean, of course, God, who also fashioned it into a world? Besides, he is found in every way to talk nonsense, and to contradict himself.

Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 96.

In the end, modern creation accounts differ little from pagan creation accounts: In the beginning was the world and the world made itself. There was some original state of stuff which somehow changed itself: but how?

To argue that in the beginning was a singularity may make for  “god” with a name more amenable to our ears, but is that really much of an advance?  Where did this singularity come from? Where did the rules which gave rise to control this singularity come from — that is information which is capable of molding matter and energy. It certainly has profound powers.

The names are different, the mechanism by which the formation takes place is different, but the basic story is the same.

Theophilus of Antioch: Our God is in the Heavens, He does whatever He pleases

08 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Apologetics, Baal, Psalms

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

It is a comfort to see how little things have changed in thousands of years. Theophilus of Antioch, having worked his way through numerous objections and religions turns to philosophy. Here a great deal of words have been exhausted but in some important ways little new has taken place. 

First there are the atheists and deists and Freud:
Some of the philosophers of the Porch say that there is no God at all; or, if there is, they say that He cares for none but Himself; and these views the folly of Epicurus and Chrysippus has set forth at large. And others say that all things are produced without external agency, and that the world is uncreated, and that nature is eternal; and have dared to give out that there is no providence of God at all, but maintain that God is only each man’s conscience. 

For these God is somewhere between a delusion and non-existence. It is interesting that Theophilus doesn’t even take the time to prove God’s existence:
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 

Romans 1:19-23. To deny God’s existence is to deny the sun shining at noon. 
Now others, a la Spinoza and Hegel, admit to a God who is inhabits and is subsumed by all the universe. There is no real creation, only an extension of God:
And others again maintain that the spirit which pervades all things is God. 
Next, Theophilus turns to Plato and a Creator who doesn’t actually create. Before the Big Bang became the default cosmology there was the Steady State theory which held that the universe was eternal and somehow creating continuously. I have an astronomy book from the 1960s which puts out both theories as possibilities. 

Theophilus holds up this God for examination and finds he is not really much of a God after all:

But Plato and those of his school acknowledge indeed that God is uncreated, and the Father and Maker of all things; but then they maintain that matter as well as God is uncreated, and aver that it is coeval with God. But if God is uncreated and matter uncreated, God is no longer, according to the Platonists, the Creator of all things, nor, so far as their opinions hold, is the monarchy of God established. And further, as God, because He is uncreated, is also unalterable; so if matter, too, were uncreated, it also would be unalterable, and equal to God; for that which is created is mutable and alterable, but that which is uncreated is immutable and unalterable. And what great thing is it if God made the world out of existent materials? For even a human artist, when he gets material from some one, makes of it what he pleases.

Theophilus ends this section of his argument not by “proving” the truth of his thesis by drawing out every inconsistency in the rejected views. Rather, he makes an argument which seem more at home in evangelism and presuppositional apologetics. 

Theophilus without apology asserts God as God is. Theophilus does not defend God: God needs no defense. In this, Theophilus reminds me of Gideon’s father, when Gideon tore down the idol in the night:28 When the men of the town rose early in the morning, behold, the altar of Baal was broken down, and the Asherah beside it was cut down, and the second bull was offered on the altar that had been built.

29 And they said to one another, “Who has done this thing?” And after they had searched and inquired, they said, “Gideon the son of Joash has done this thing.”  30 Then the men of the town said to Joash, “Bring out your son, that he may die, for he has broken down the altar of Baal and cut down the Asherah beside it.”  31 But Joash said to all who stood against him, “Will you contend for Baal? Or will you save him? Whoever contends for him shall be put to death by morning. If he is a god, let him contend for himself, because his altar has been broken down.”  32 Therefore on that day Gideon was called Jerubbaal, that is to say, “Let Baal contend against him,” because he broke down his altar. 

Judges 6:28-32

Theophilus does not defend God, he asserts God. As Spurgeon said of the Bible, the best defense is to let the lion out of the cage

But the power of God is manifested in this, that out of things that are not He makes whatever He pleases; just as the bestowal of life and motion is the prerogative of no other than God alone. For even man makes indeed an image, but reason and breath, or feeling, he cannot give to what he has made. But God has this property in excess of what man can do, in that He makes a work, endowed with reason, life, sensation. As, therefore, in all these respects God is more powerful than man, so also in this; that out of things that are not He creates and has created things that are, and whatever He pleases, as He pleases.

Theophilus recounts Psalm 115:

1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness! 

2 Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” 

3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.  – Psalm 115:1-3

The Previous Post in This Series May be Found Here: 

God is not Contained

13 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

But this is the attribute of God, the Highest and Almighty, and the living God, not only to be everywhere present, but also to see all things and to hear all, and by no means to be confined in a place; for if He were, then the place containing Him would be greater than He; for that which contains is greater than that which is contained. For God is not contained, but is Himself the place of all. 

Theophilus of Antioch on the omnipresence or the “immensity” of God and the omniscience of God

Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus: Turn or Burn

09 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Apologetics, Church History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/theophilus-of-antioch-on-politics/

Theophilus gives an account of his conversion and calls upon his friend to likewise convert. It interesting in this short passage how he easily holds together matters which latter Christians have divided.

First consider the matter of apologetics: Does one believe as the result of evidence or does one believe as the result of being confronted by God in the Scripture and irresistibly believing (evidence then coming second as confirmation). Theophilus holds both positions:

Therefore, do not be sceptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve that this would take place, but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe. At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass, and the things now occurring as they are now happening, and things future in the order in which they shall be accomplished.

Second, Theophilus does not divide faith & obedience; nor does he find obedience meritorious. Faith & obedience are inseparable responses to disclosure of God to his soul.

Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, but I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments; which punishments, when they had been foretold by the prophets, the later-born poets and philosophers stole from the holy Scriptures, to make their doctrines worthy of credit. Yet these also have spoken beforehand of the punishments that are to light upon the profane and unbelieving, in order that none be left without a witness, or be able to say, “We have not heard, neither have we known.” But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and they will make your way plainer for escaping the eternal punishments, and obtaining the eternal prizes of God. For He who gave the mouth for speech, and formed the ear to hear, and made the eye to see, will examine all things, and will judge righteous judgment, rendering merited awards to each.

To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither hath eye seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, “Show me thy God,” this is my God, and I counsel you to fear Him and to trust Him.

Three additional observations on the text.

First, Theophilus has an unflinching confidence in the “prophetic Scriptures” (the language sounds similar to Second Peter’s “prophecy of Scripture”). It is stated, it is true, you had best believe.

Second, Theophilus sees the future judgment and eternal punishment as an apologetic, a “witness” to God. The warning of God having been incomprehensible and denied; the judgment of God will give final and eternal proof of God’s existence and authority:

when you are tormented with eternal punishments; which punishments, when they had been foretold by the prophets, the later-born poets and philosophers stole from the holy Scriptures, to make their doctrines worthy of credit. Yet these also have spoken beforehand of the punishments that are to light upon the profane and unbelieving, in order that none be left without a witness, or be able to say, “We have not heard, neither have we known.”

Third, he continues the idea of Justin that the Greek philosophers followed the Hebrew prophets.

Theophilus of Antioch on Politics

21 Sunday Sep 2014

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Church History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

First, read the direction:

Wherefore I will rather honour the king [than your gods], not, indeed, worshipping him, but praying for him. But God, the living and true God, I worship, knowing that the king is made by Him. You will say, then, to me, “Why do you not worship the king?”Because he is not made to be worshipped, but to be reverenced with lawful honour, for he is not a god, but a man appointed by God, not to be worshipped, but to judge justly. For in a kind of way his government is committed to him by God: as He will not have those called kings whom He has appointed under Himself; for “king” is his title, and it is not lawful for another to use it; so neither is it lawful for any to be worshipped but God only. Wherefore, O man, you are wholly in error. Accordingly, honour the king, be subject to him, and pray for him with loyal mind; for if you do this, you do the will of God. For the law that is of God, says, “My son, fear thou the Lord and the king, and be not disobedient to them; for suddenly they shall take vengeance on their enemies.”

Now consider carefully his argument. Theophilus limits the relationship between the subject and the king on the ground that the king was “made by” God. He continues, “he was not made to be worshipped.”

If we fail to understand the creaturely limitation of the government, if we fail to see the rulers as creatures, we will be tempted to grant such men and women a respect and reverence not due them. Sometimes the temptation will be overt such as the bizarre acts of worship accorded to mere men. Such as the prayer to Chavez:

Or the worship of Putin: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/vladimir-putin-paul-the-apostle-worshipped_n_861637.html

Yet there are those who subscribe supreme meaning to politics and government. When one’s highest and greatest source of meaning is the state, a worship has been conferred. The only sure limitation on the state’s authority is the recognition that the governors and all the state mechanism is a creature of a Creator.

The above quotation comes from:

Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 92.

Theophilus of Antioch, On the Necessity of Faith

10 Thursday Jul 2014

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Apologetics, Church History, Faith

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post on Theophilus may be found here

Theophilus having explained that his God can be known to exist through both providence and creation, proclaims:

This is my God, the Lord of all, who alone stretched out the heaven, and established the breadth of the earth under it; who stirs the deep recesses of the sea, and makes its waves roar; who rules its power, and stills the tumult of its waves; who founded the earth upon the waters, and gave a spirit to nourish it; whose breath giveth light to the whole, who, if He withdraw His breath, the whole will utterly fail.

Why then is God not known? Due to “blindness of soul and hardness of heart”. How then can this be healed? By faith.

But before all let faith and the fear of God have rule in thy heart, and then shalt thou understand these things

This healing will be complete when God has raised the dead and the mortal puts on immorality. It is at this point Theophilus knew he would receive an objection, and so he answers Autolycus:

But you do not believe that the dead are raised. When the resurrection shall take place, then you will believe, whether you will or no; and your faith shall be reckoned for unbelief, unless you believe now.

He thus turns the matter back to faith: the trouble is not really with the resurrection, but with trust in the God of the resurrection:

And why do you not believe? Do you not know that faith is the leading principle in all matters? For what husbandman can reap, unless he first trust his seed to the earth? Or who can cross the sea, unless he first entrust himself to the boat and the pilot? And what sick person can be healed, unless first he trust himself to the care of the physician? And what art or knowledge can any one learn, unless he first apply and entrust himself to the teacher? If, then, the husbandman trusts the earth, and the sailor the boat, and the sick the physician, will you not place confidence in God, even when you hold so many pledges at His hand?

Yes, but, we can hear the critic say, I just don’t believe in such things. I will not believe that these things can be so. Theophilus turns the matter around:

Moreover, you believe that the images made by men are gods, and do great things; and can you not believe that the God who made you is able also to make you afterwards.

When a modern reads this, he could easily think, “Yes, but, I don’t believe in any god, invisible or represented in an image.” Think a bit further on that point. You believe that mere atoms moving around for a bit — if left alone for long enough — will write poems, fall in love, start wars. The modern in the end is worse than the most crass pagan in his believe in the divine power of matter. It is a strange thing to believe that an effect exceeds the cause (that life and person can come from atoms bouncing about through time). At least an idolator believes something extraordinary brings about extraordinary ends.

Theophilus of Antioch: Providence as Evidence of God’s Existence

20 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in 1 Timothy, Ante-Nicene, Apologetics, Romans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/theophilus-on-the-nature-of-god/

In chapter 5, Theophilus argues that God is understood by means of his actions. In chapter 4 he remarked that God is the self-existent sovereign creator. Here Theophilius continues with the proposition that God also maintains providential control over the creation.

This argument is line with the argument of Paul in Romans 1

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19–20 (ESV)

Theophilus writes:

For as the soul in man is not seen, being invisible to men, but is perceived through the motion of the body, so God cannot indeed be seen by human eyes, but is beheld and perceived through His providence and works. For, in like manner, as any person, when he sees a ship on the sea rigged and in sail, and making for the harbour, will no doubtinfer that there is a pilot in her who is steering her; so we must perceive that God is the governor [pilot] of the whole universe,

Theophilus then continues with the argument, fully supported by Christian Scripture, that God cannot be observed:

though He be not visible to the eyes of the flesh, since He is incomprehensible. For if a man cannot look upon the sun, though it be a very small heavenly body, on account of its exceeding heat and power, how shall not a mortal man be much more unable to face the glory of God, which is unutterable?

John 1:18 reads, “No one has ever seen God”. Theophilus’ imagery may have been inspired by Paul’s words in 1Timothy 6 that God dwells in unapproachable light and thus cannot be seen:

13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, 14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:13–16 (ESV)

Theophilus next picks up an argument which Augustine will ponder in the Confessions:

For as the pomegranate, with the rind containing it, has within it many cells and compartments which are separated by tissues, and has also many seeds dwelling in it, so the whole creation is contained by the spirit of God, and the containing spirit is along with the creation contained by the hand of God. As, therefore, the seed of the pomegranate, dwelling inside, cannot see what is outside the rind, itself being within; so neither can man, who along with the whole creation is enclosed by the hand of God, behold God.

Augustine raises this as a question: What is God’s relationship to the Creation:

Since, then, thou dost fill the heaven and earth, do they contain thee? Or, dost thou fill and overflow them, because they cannot contain thee? And where dost thou pour out what remains of thee after heaven and earth are full? Or, indeed, is there no need that thou, who dost contain all things, shouldst be contained by any, since those things which thou dost fill thou fillest by containing them? For the vessels which thou dost fill do not confine thee, since even if they were broken, thou wouldst not be poured out. And, when thou art poured out on us, thou art not thereby brought down; rather, we are uplifted. Thou art not scattered; rather, thou dost gather us together. But when thou dost fill all things, dost thou fill them with thy whole being? Or, since not even all things together could contain thee altogether, does any one thing contain a single part, and do all things contain that same part at the same time? Do singulars contain thee singly? Do greater things contain more of thee, and smaller things less? Or, is it not rather that thou art wholly present everywhere, yet in such a way that nothing contains thee wholly?

Book I, Chapter 3.

Theophilus then returns to his original proposition and seeks to bring the point to bear: If you can recognize a king by his secondary actions, why cannot you not recognize God by the same means?

 

Then again, an earthly king is believed to exist, even though he be not seen by all, for he is recognised by his laws and ordinances, and authorities, and forces, and statues; and are you unwilling that God should be recognised by His works and mighty deeds?