Some of you may recall my first encounter with paleo-orthodoxy in 2007, when, to quote my other blog, “My mind was blessedly cracked open and happily split by Robert W. Jenson.” Well, as I read Learning Theology with the Church Fathers (see post), Hall’s chapter “Christ the Son, Begotten and not Made,” which deals with St. Athanasius contra Arius, a similar event occurred.
To describe such a brain-cracking is hard. It seems silly when I review the chapter. It seems like, “Well, yes, this is Nicene theology, Matthew. This is the mindset you were reared on.” My Father is a big fan of St. Athanasius. Nevertheless, the Truth comes bounding into my life and mind sometimes, and the shock of it is explosive. Suddenly, my brain-pain is split wide open. I gape in wonder at the beautiful simplicity of orthodoxy and proclaim, “Yea, verily!” or “Sweet deal!” So, at the risk of sounding like a pedestrian, small-brained kid from rural Alberta . . .
St. Athanasius primarily blew my mind by pointing out that when we talk of the Divine, we are talking about a categorically different Being than when we talk about anything else in the universe.
Thus, begetting with God is not the same at all as begetting with men. How can it be? Men are bound by time, and thus beget in time. God is not; God is eternal and exists outside of time. Thus, He would not necessarily beget in time. In fact, since like begets like—were I to have a son, he would be consubstantial with me by nature—God cannot but beget anything other than God. Therefore, whatever God begets is like God.
As Hall puts it, “whatever is predicated of the Father must be predicated of the Son . . . . That is, if the Father is sovereign as an attribute of deity, the Son possesses that same attribute. If the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord. If the Father is Light, the Son is Light. [Quoting St. Athanasius], ‘Thus, since they are one, and the godhead itself is one, the same things are predicated of the Son as of the Father, except the title of ‘Father.’” (p. 44). I was also especially fond of St. Athanasius’ analogy of the Sun and its radiance; you cannot separate the two. Thus it is between the Father & the Son. Clearly this analogy, like all analogies (especially those used of the Godhead) could break down, but it is firm enough to do the job.
St. Gregory of Nazianzus sort of blew my mind also. In Hall’s recounting of his Theological Orations, St. Gregory never goes beyond the bounds of Scripture yet uses logic to demonstrate certain truths of the Holy Trinity. First of all, we see an element of Patristic methodological thinking that is absent today. Hall, paraphrasing St. Gregory, writes, “Theology, while employing the mind, also involves the heart. A pure heart, one grounded in the worship of the church and a life of prayer, will produce clear and fruitful theological reflection. A murky heart and a dark mind, on the other hand, will produce a sick, thorny theology; it will offer no nourishment, only harm.” (p. 56)
I once took a correspondence course from a prominent Protestant college in Australia. This course was an introduction to the Bible, and its goal was to get us students acquainted with Scripture and the main foci and themes running throughout the divine narrative. According to the authors of this work, using the interpretive method laid out by the book, anyone—Christian or pagan—would be able to correctly interpret Scripture and see what its plain sense was. St. Gregory and others would likely raise an eyebrow at this. Really? If we Christians see as through a mirror darkly, what about those who do not have the grace of the Holy Spirit to enlighten their hearts and minds? This modernist approach also fails to take into account the human heart, something that St. Gregory of Nazianzus does first off—theology is both of the mind and the heart. If we want to be true theologians, we should seek to be pure of heart. How many academic theologians operate that way today?
However, these foundational challenges were not what blew my mind as I read about St. Gregory. What blew my mind was the simple statement in a cool, logical fashion of the truth:
For indeed, it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents his being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet he is not Father. . . . For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of essence; but the very fact of being unbegotten or begotten, or proceeding, has given the name of Father to the first, of the son to the second, and to the third . . . of the Holy Ghost, that the distinction of the three persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the godhead. (71)
He blew my mind elsewhere, but I can’t find the reference just now.
May the Lord God Almighty blow all our minds by the stark reality of His Truth now and again.
 This sentiment is echoed in John Cassian’s Eighth Conference when Abba Serenus says that the pure of heart alone can properly interpret the high points of Scripture, and that a holy life is necessary for anyone who wishes to discern the true meaning of the Bible.