Channels, Fall 2016

Page 12 Little • Emotions and the Divine Nature In regards to divine emotions, Athenagoras is the most negative thinker that we shall examine. However, even Athenagoras uses απαθης as an apophatic qualifier rather than a definitive description of God, and he makes his strongest negative claims in contrast to the twisted, overpowering desires of the Greek gods. His denial of passions in God is tied to his desire to maintain God’s complete self-sufficiency and to accurately describe the unperturbed character of an immutable, perfect, incorruptible being. 68 Athenagoras maintains the tradition of holding impassibility as an apophatic qualifier that safeguards aspects of God’s nature by telling us what he is not. Irenaeus Irenaeus of Lyons was a church father who wrote in the late second century, and he is the last major thinker considered in this study. 69 He tends to be the most scripturally grounded of all the thinkers we have considered, especially in his shorter work, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching . Weinandy describes him as “far more the Biblical theologian than the philosopher.” 70 Irenaeus engages in Scriptural exegesis throughout Against Heresies 71 and The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching . He demonstrates a significant willingness to challenge Hellenistic thought throughout his work. He explicitly holds to creation ex nihilo . 72 Furthermore, he accuses the Gnostics of deriving their views from false Greek thought. 73 Irenaeus follows the apologists in drawing a strong contrast between the creator and the created; his struggles with the Gnostics cause him to place heavy emphasis upon the act of creation. 74 Irenaeus’ primary discussion of impassibility occurs in Book II of Against Heresies . He describes this book as being devoted to overthrowing the heretics’ systems of doctrine. 75 The exact systems under discussion are somewhat debated, but he primarily focuses upon the Gnostics and Marcionites. He specifically mentions Valentinus, Secundus, and Ptolemaeus as representatives of this Gnostic heresy, and these followers of Ptolemaeus were likely his primary opponents. 76 The specifics of this Gnostic heresy are incredibly complicated and far beyond the scope of this article. A brief summary of the points pertinent to our discussion must suffice. Irenaeus’ primary Gnostic opponents seem to have believed in a divine pleroma. Within this pleroma, a hierarchy of divine beings generated from each other in pairs to distance the origination of evil 77 as far as possible from the divine nature. 78 This pleroma was much more strongly united than the polytheistic pagan systems. However, it still included a large number of divine beings (referred to as Aeons ) in male and female pairs, with the first god being described as Bythos. 79 The pairs are often attributes or mental properties and operations, including 68 Traits which reflect claims of God within the Scriptures as well as certain philosophical positions. 69 Behr, The Way to Nicea, 111-112. 70 Weinandy, Does God Suffer ? 90. 71 Behr, The Way to Nicea, 113-114. 72 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,10, 4. 73 Ibid, 2,14,2. 74 Weinandy, Does God Suffer? 91. 75 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2 Preface, 2. 76 Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons, 82. 77 Or matter or any other imperfection. 78 Chiaparinni, “Irenaeus and the Gnostic Valentinus,” 111. 79 Ibid, 105.