Folia Theologica et Canonica 4. 26/18 (2015)
SACRA THEOLOGIA - László Perendy, God’s impassibility and His compassio in Chrisin the patristic tradition
70 LASZLO PERENDY favourable view of Anus: he does not Hellenize or Judaize. but is searching for the authentic Christological interpretation of the Scriptures.5'’ According to the fourth interpretation the primary aim of Arms was to show Christ in his Soteriology as an example to follow. The followers of this view think that there is not a cosmological, but a soteriological background behind Arianism. Robert C. Gregg and Dennis Groh hold the opinion that there is a strong Stoic influence in the ethical message of Arms.53 54 Christ is God’s creation, and he is a model for mankind. During his perfect service a constant moral development (npoKoni)) was characteristic of him. He was obeying his creator in all respects. God had foreseen his moral achievement, he had adopted and exalted him above all the other creatures. With his exemplary conduct Christ showed the right way to all the faithful. Richard P. C. Hanson raised the issue that the most important endeavour of the followers of Arms was not to throw light on the characteristics of the unbegotten nature and those of the begotten nature, but. like the followers of Sa- bellius. they also stressed that the Father cannot be subject to any kind of suffering. They said that in no way could God the Father experience suffering and death.55 Hanson’s suggestion was taken up also by Maurice Wiles is.56 In Gavrilyuk’s mind none of the first four efforts of interpreting Arianism can assert a right for a complete exclusiveness, but he discusses the fifth one in detail, basing his conclusions also on the careful analysis of some works of Athanasius of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa.57 In his work against Eunomius Gregory mentions explicitly that the Arians stressed above all that the Highest God could not suffer either in Christ or outside him.58 59 In opposition to this, the Orthodox writers maintained that the presence of the Aôyoç in Christ was completely different from his presence in the prophets and the martyrs. He was indeed helping and supporting them, but we cannot assert that he endured their sufferings in his human nature. We can say that exclusively about Christ. The human nature and the divine nature cannot be separated in the deeds and experiences of the incarnate divine Aôyoç. Athanasius is formulating it in an unambiguous way: human nature was the means through which Christ endured suffering, but it also made for him possible to make his miracles happen.57 Several defenders of the Nicene Creed explained that the exemption of the Aôyoç from suffering is a sign of the fact that he was in complete possession of his di53 Cf. Gavrilyuk, P.L., The Suffering of the Impassible God, 101-109. 54 Gregg, R.C.-Groh, D., Early Arianism-A View of Salvation, Philadelphia 1981. 55 Hanson, R.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh 1988. 91-121. 56 Wiles, M. - Gregg, R.C., Asterius. A new chapter in the history of Arianism?, in Arianism. Historical and theological reassessments, Cambridge 1985. 111—151. 57 Gavrilyuk, P.L., The Suffering of the Impassible God, 121-129. 58 Contra Eunomium, III. 3, 691-696. 59 De incarnatione Verbi, 8-9.
