notescollected

[notescollected]

Thus it happened that two opposite marvels took place at once: the death of all was consummated in the Lord’s body; yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished. Death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid. Wherefore, the Word, as I said, being Himself incapable of death, assumed a mortal body, that He might offer it as His own in place of all, and suffering for the sake of all through His union with it, ” might bring to nought Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver them who all their lifetime were enslaved by the fear of death.

Athanasius, "On the Incarnation" §4.20

[notescollected]

"All the great groups that stood about the Cross represent in one way or another the great historical truth of the time; that the world could not save itself. Man could do no more. Rome and Jerusalem and Athens and everything else were going down like a sea turned into a slow cataract. Externally indeed the ancient world was still at its strongest; it is always at that moment that the inmost weakness begins. But in order to understand that weakness we must repeat what has been said more than once; that it was not the weakness of a thing originally weak. It was emphatically the strength of the world that was turned to weakness and the wisdom of the world that was turned to folly."

— G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

[notescollected]

And like as when a great king has entered into some large city and taken up his abode in one of the houses there, such city is at all events held worthy of high honour, nor does any enemy or bandit any longer descend upon it and subject it; but on the contrary, it is thought entitled to all care, because of the king's having taken up his residence in a single house there: so, too, has it been with the Monarch of all.

Athanasius, "On the Incarnation" §9

[notescollected]

On one side are those who, like Auden, sense the furies hidden in themselves, evils they hope never to unleash, but which, they sometimes perceive, add force to their ordinary angers and resentments, especially those angers they prefer to think are righteous. On the other side are those who can say of themselves without irony, “I am a good person,” who perceive great evils only in other, evil people whose motives and actions are entirely different from their own. This view has dangerous consequences when a party or nation, having assured itself of its inherent goodness, assumes its actions are therefore justified, even when, in the eyes of everyone else, they seem murderous and oppressive. One of many forms this argument takes is a dispute over the meaning of the great totalitarian evils of the twentieth century: whether they reveal something about all of humanity or only about the uniquely evil leaders, cultures, and nations that committed them. For Auden, those evils made manifest the kinds of evil that were potential in everyone... Like everyone who thought more or less as he did, Auden didn’t mean that erotic greeds were morally equivalent to mass murder or that there was no difference between himself and Hitler. He was less interested in the obvious distinction between a responsible citizen and an evil dictator than he was in the more difficult question of what the citizen and dictator had in common, how the citizen’s moral and psychological failures helped the dictator to succeed.

Edward Mendelson on W.H. Auden, in "The Secret Auden" in the New York Review of Books

[notescollected]

I suppose this might be different in the hard sciences, but in the humanities (and biblical studies is part of the humanities, for good or bad), you are not an expert. You are a senior learner. Paradoxically, the very thing you're paid to do is the one thing you cannot create: learning. Sure, you can teach student to give information back to you in tests and papers, but that's different from that kind of enrichment and enlargement of soul which is the sign that something from outside has deeply taken root in the student. Your role is more of a facilitator, creating ideal environments within which something mystical can happen, which you cannot cause or even see, but only notice the aftereffect. My definition of teaching is: a powerless being-with over the text which is very powerful.

Eric Ortlund, "Powerless Powerful Being-With: Thing I Have Learned About Being a Professor"

[notescollected]

We are in the relatively early stages of the rolling news/social media age and what we’re seeing now is a kind of emotional dandyism emerging. The upshot of publishing all of our thoughts and opinions is that those opinions tend to become more affected as we subconsciously try to place them in the pantheon of the wider public. As such, we’re much more willing to take offence. We crave offence now, we even look for it.

Tim Stillman on Arseblog

[notescollected]

Your local coffeehouse may be a hotbed of heresy. Check the following list and see how yours measures up.

Decaf is Docetic because it only appears to be coffee.

Instant is Apollinarian because it’s had its soul removed and replaced.

Frappuccinos are essentially a form of Monophysitism, having their coffee nature swallowed up in milkshake.

Chicory is Arian, not truly coffee at all but a separate creation.

Irish coffee is Nestorian, being two natures conjoined solely by good will.

Nitro coffee (coffee + Red Bull) is Montanist, having a form of godliness but denying its power.

Affogato is Adoptionist, being merely topped with espresso.

The Café Bombón is Sabellian, appearing at some points to be foam, at others coffee and at others sweetened condensed milk.

The Caffè Americano is a form of Unitarian Universalism, being so watered down so as not even to qualify as coffee.

The Café miel violates Canon 57 of the Council in Trullo, “for it is not right to offer honey and milk” in one’s coffee.

The Cafe Mocha (espresso + steamed milk + chocolate) is syncretic and polytheist, for it presumes to adulterate coffee with another nation’s gods.

The Doppio (espresso + espresso) is Monothelite, permitting only one will to dominate.

WHAT IS AN EGGNOG LATTE I DON’T EVEN.

Half-Caf is another form of Adoptionism, being a hybrid of disparate natures.

The Pharisäer (drip coffee + 2 shots rum + whipped cream) is nothing but sheer Antinomianism.

The Red Eye (drip coffee + 1 shot espresso) is Ebionite, for it would swallow up pure faith in the Law.

A rigorist exclusivism for Fair Trade Coffee is a form of Donatism, insisting that only sinless hands may produce a true beverage.

“Coffee is bad for you”: The watchwords of the Iconoclast.

The fellow who just keeps adding sugar to his over-roasted Pike’s Peak is surely a Pelagian.

But despite all that, Lutherans just drink beer and Anglo-Catholics stick to gin. And mine’s an Earl Grey, barman! Cheers!

[notescollected]

The HPtFtU [Human Propensity to F things Up] is bad news, and like all bad news is not very welcome, especially if you let yourself take seriously the implication that we actually want the destructive things we do, that they are not just an accident that keeps happening to poor little us, but part of our nature; that we are truly cruel as well as truly tender, truly loving and at the same time truly likely to take a quick nasty little pleasure in wasting or breaking love, scorching it knowingly up as the fuel for some hotter or more exciting feeling.

Francis Spufford, Unapologetic: Why, Despite Everything, Christianity Can Still Make Surprising Emotional Sense, 30

[notescollected]

Because that’s what the Christmas story really is — an entire worldview in a compact narrative, a depiction of how human beings relate to the universe and to one another. It’s about the vertical link between God and man — the angels, the star, the creator stooping to enter his creation. But it’s also about the horizontal relationships of society, because it locates transcendence in the ordinary, the commonplace, the low.

Ross Douthat in the NY Times

[notescollected]

"He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man… might become the son of God."

Irenaeus

[notescollected]

In the Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote: “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

Ron Belgau at Spiritualfriendship.org