Deification and the Rule of Faith: The Communication of the Gospel in Hellenistic Culture

By Daniel E. Wilson Ph.D.

<br><!--<br>/* Style Definitions */<br>p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal<br>{mso-style-parent:"";<br>margin:0in;<br>margin-bottom:.0001pt;<br>mso-pagination:widow-orphan;<br>font-size:10.0pt;<br>font-family:"Times New Roman";<br>mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}<br>@page Section1<br>{size:8.5in 11.0in;<br>margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;<br>mso-header-margin:.5in;<br>mso-footer-margin:.5in;<br>mso-paper-source:0;}<br>div.Section1<br>{page:Section1;}<br>--><br>

Evangelicals are often surprised or maybe even shocked whenever they encounter the early Church Fathers description of salvation in terms of deification, divinization, or apotheosis. It was Athanasius, the black dwarf, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy, who coined the phrase in his On the Incarnation, God became man that man might become god. Hundreds of years before Athanasius, Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of the Apostle John, wrote of Christs salvific provision for humanity using similar deification type concepts.

Why did these Church Fathers use such seemingly foreign biblical concepts? Could it be that influential theologian, Adolf Harnack, is right and these church Fathers implementation of deification reveal that the gospel changed from what Jesus originally intended after being exposed to Hellenistic culture? Not at all, at least, that is what this work argues. It does so, first, by comparing an overall understanding of deification in both Athanasius and Irenaeus respective writings. This section encompasses the first three chapters, which exhibit how the Fathers use of deification is immersed in their respective descriptions of salvation history, the Trinity, and Christology. Further, this work assesses Harnacks proposal by comparing the Fathers respective descriptions of deification with that of many Greek and Roman philosophers. Finally, this work seeks to propose that both Irenaeus and Athanasius contextualize the gospel by comparing the Fathers respective descriptions of deification with their respective understandings of scriptural authority and the rule of faith.

• Language: English
• Publisher: WestBow Press
• Release date: Nov 5, 2015
• ISBN: 9781490887180

Daniel E. Wilson Ph.D.

Daniel E.Wilson is the senior pastor of Plainview Baptist Church in Durham, North Carolina. He and his wife Ginny have one daughter, Lydia. Daniel grew up on the outskirts of a small town in Northwest Arkansas, Siloam Springs, where he and his four siblings enjoyed the breathtaking foothills of the Ozark Mountains. Daniel graduated from the University of Arkansas with a degree in Animal Science only to find that he would pursue a MDiv and then PhD at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Eventually, Daniel graduated with his PhD in 2005. His dissertation, A Comparison of Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ Respective Descriptions of Deification in Relation to Adolf Harnack’s History of Dogma, is a culmination of his doctoral studies regarding the doctrine of deification in the Patristic period of the church.

Book preview

Copyright © 2015 Daniel E. Wilson, Ph.D.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

WestBow Press

A Division of Thomas Nelson & Zondervan

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.westbowpress.com

1 [phone]

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4908-8717-3 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4908-8718-0 (e)

WestBow Press rev. date: 11/05/2015

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1   A COMPARISON OF IRENAEUS’ AND ATHANASIUS’ RESPECTIVE DESCRIPTIONS OF DEIFICATION

Introduction

An Organized Economy

First Stage: Creation

Second Stage: The Fall

Part 1: The Fall of Humanity

Part 2: Image and Likeness

Third Stage: Redemption

Part 1: The Provision of the Incarnation

Part 2: The Relation of Free Choice and Grace within Redemption

Fourth Stage: The Resurrection

Part 1: The Final Stage of Humanity’s Deification

Part 2: The Deification of Creation

Conclusion

CHAPTER 2   THE CENTRAL THEME OF DEIFICATION AND THE DIVINE OIKONOMIA: THE INCARNATION

Introduction

Christ’s Natures

The Incarnation: The Restoration of the Oikonomia

The Views of the Gnostics and Arians

The Judicial Aspect of Deification

Christ’s Humanity

Christ’s Divinity as Evidenced by His Works

Conclusion

CHAPTER 3 IRENAEUS’ AND ATHNASIUS’ RESPECTIVE DESCRIPTIONS OF DEIFICATION IN RELATION TO THE TRINTY

Introduction

The Trinity’s Function within the Divine Oikonomia

The Trinity: The Same Substance

Trinitarian Distinctions

Father-Son Relationship: The Knowledge of God as Being

The Divinity of the Holy Spirit and His Relation to Deification

Conclusion

CHAPTER 4   THE GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERSTANDING OF DEIFICATION AS CONTRASTED WITH THAT OF IRENAEUS AND ATHANASIUS

Introduction

Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ Dispositions to Philosophy

Part 1: Irenaeus’ Understanding of Philosophy

Part 2: Athanasius’ Understanding of Philosophy

A Comparison/Contrast of Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ Respective Descriptions of Deification with that of Greek Philosophy

The Logos: The Second Person of the Trinity or Reason and Mind?

The Image and the Likeness

Human Anthropological Composition

Virtue and Grace

Apophatic Theology

Participation

Contemplation

Immortality and Deification

Conclusion

CHAPTER 5   IRENAEUS’ AND ATHANASIUS’ RESPECTIVE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE GOSPEL IN RELATION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE DESCRIPTIONS OF DEIFICATION

Introduction

Irenaeus and Athanasius: The Unchanging Gospel

The Rule of Faith

Table 1. A Comparison of Irenaeus’ Rule and the Nicene Creed

Scripture

Scripture and the Concept of Deification

Johannine and Pauline Concepts of Deification

Tradition

Conclusion

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works Cited

Works Consulted

Primary Bibliography

This Dissertation was prepared and presented to the Faculty as a part of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina. All rights and privileges normally reserved by the author as copyright holder are waived for the Seminary. The Seminary Library may catalog, display, and use this Dissertation in all normal ways such materials are used, for reference and for other purposes, including electronic and other means of preservation and circulation, including on-line computer access and other means by which library materials are or in the future may be made available to researchers and library users.

ABSTRACT

The concept of deification was widespread in the Patristic Era whether from the vantage point of the Church Fathers or from the Greek and Roman philosophical traditions. The predominant concept of deification as relates to this dissertation does not refer to a human becoming a god in some mythological sense, but it relates to a person’s desire to become like God or in some way form a union with deity. The characteristics that surround God such as virtue, immortality, and immutability were attractive to the Christians and philosophers alike, and in their writings they recognize that deification relates to these characteristics. However, the Christian and the Hellenistic philosopher do not perceive deification or its results in the same manner.

The philosophers like Plato, Philo, Plotinus, and Cicero present deification as an important part of their worldview by pursuing it for peace and contentment through a virtuous lifestyle and reason. They believe that deification can bring true happiness, and through deification they can subdue the negative aspects of the body that pull them away from the meaning that one finds by dwelling on the higher things of the mind. Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Athanasius wrote works in response to sects that claim to present a Christian message but do not adhere to the fundamentals of the faith. Within Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ respective works, several terms and concepts resemble the terms and concepts of the various philosophical descriptions of deification.

Adolf Harnack concludes that this resemblance of terms and concepts reveals that the Christian message at some point fused and became syncretized with the teachings of the Greek and Roman philosophers or those of the Hellenistic tradition. This syncretization was not a single event in the history of the Church, but it spurned a process of continual change that affected the Christian gospel by transforming it from its once Judaic message. Harnack describes the process of Hellenistic influence on the gospel as hellenization. Eventually, the Hellenistic philosophical systems of thought affected the gospel to the point that the gospel took on the structural form of the many Greek and Roman philosophical traditions. The Fathers eventually placed the gospel in a fixed form of dogmatics by which the followers of Christianity could defend their faith through logic.

This dissertation provides an alternative explanation for the similarity of terminology and structure between the Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Athanasius with that of the Hellenistic philosophical traditions. These Fathers grasp onto terms and concepts like deification to identify with their respective audiences. However, they do not allow their message to change or transform in any way, and to prevent any change, they adhere to a strict standard of faith that Christ and his disciples originally present.

The defense of this alternative position contains three main sections. The first and largest section encompasses a comparison of Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ respective descriptions of deification in relation to their presentation of the gospel. These Fathers existed over one hundred and fifty years apart from one another yet they present similarity in structure and content at almost every level. It is hard to find a gradual change in their respective presentations of deification as it relates to the gospel. Furthermore, their respective descriptions of deification align with their standard of authority, the scriptures. They both claim to adhere to a message taught by the Apostles, and their respective descriptions of deification follow the structure and concepts of salvation within the Johannine and Pauline writings.

The primary similarity that these Fathers have with the Greek and Roman philosophical traditions is terminology, which does not adversely affect the Fathers’ gospel message. The predominant message of deification for the Hellenistic philosophers is that one can find happiness in union with God through the mind and away from the body. However, both Irenaeus and Athanasius assert that one receives deification through faith in the Incarnate Christ who through the Spirit deifies the whole person, body and soul, and ends in the resurrection. Both the medium and end result differs between the Hellenistic description of deification and that of both Irenaeus and Athanasius.

Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ respective descriptions of deification in relation to the gospel are very similar. Both Fathers claim to adhere to a standard of authority that resembles their respective descriptions of deification. Further, their respective descriptions of deification drastically differ with that of the Greek and Roman philosophical traditions. Therefore, the results of this dissertation favor a conclusion that both Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ use of deification do not represent the syncretization and hellenization of the gospel.

INTRODUCTION

At the turn of the twentieth century, prominent theologian Adolf Harnack presented a theory in his History of Dogma, which concluded that within the early centuries of the Church the gospel evolved from its original form. He proposed that the Jewish understanding of the gospel was syncretized with Greek or Hellenistic philosophy, illustrated by the Fathers’ use of the Greek philosophical concept of deification, and this Hellenistic influence led to a process of change within the gospel called hellenization.¹ One may dispute the claim that the doctrine of deification as found within the Church Fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Athanasius, is an indication of the hellenization of the gospel. This dissertation will examine Harnack’s claim that deification exemplifies the transformation and syncretization of the gospel by analyzing the use of deification within the works of both Irenaeus and Athanasius.

Harnack’s Description of Hellenization in Relation to the Church Fathers’ Descriptions of Deification

For centuries the predominant understanding of the gospel was a description of faith that remained unchanged from Jesus and his Apostles onward. This understanding is summarized in a statement from Vincent of Lerins’ A Commonitory in which he writes, Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.² The gospel reflects the teachings of Christ and his Apostles, which is consistently passed from generation to generation within the Church. The Church Fathers labeled those who adhered to the teachings of the gospel as orthodox, but those who did not as heretics.

Over the past century, many scholars have claimed that the gospel did not always possess the same content throughout history, but that it changed and transformed with the various contexts it encountered. One may trace this theory of an evolving gospel to Adolf Harnack who proposes that over a period of time, Church Fathers like Irenaeus syncretized Greek philosophical ideas with their respective descriptions of the gospel.³ This syncretization eventually led to theorems of doctrines that the Church Fathers could prove called dogmas, and syncretization serves as the means by which the gospel continually changed from its original content. Harnack defines the process that led to the formation of dogma as hellenization or a work of the Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel.⁴ His History of Dogma maps out dogma’s origin and its development initially through the process of hellenization, and Harnack claims the dogma of the Church Fathers is different from the original teachings of Jesus whose goal was not a presentation of doctrines, but rather the emphasis of a holy lifestyle before God.⁵

This evolution occurred when the gospel of the Jewish Church became detached from its original context and Church leaders, while pursuing to bring those of a Greek and Roman background into the Church borrowed from the Greek and Roman systems of thought from which they came. The early Gentile Christians eagerly joined this movement, perceiving in the gospel certain benefits from a fusion of Greek and Jewish elements, which formed a synthesis through the process of hellenization.⁶ Harnack writes regarding what he considers a changing gospel:            

But not only did an original element evaporate in the course of the second century; another was introduced. Even had this youthful religion not severed the tie which bound it to Judaism, it would have been inevitably affected by the spirit and the civilization of the Graeco-Roman world on whose soil it was permanently settled. But to what a much greater extent was it exposed to the influence of the spirit after being sharply severed from the Jewish religion and the Jewish nation. It hovered bodiless over the earth like a being of the air; bodiless and seeking a body. The spirit, no doubt, makes to itself its own body, but it does so by assimilating what is around it. The influx of Hellenism of the Greek spirit, and the union of the Gospel with it, form the greatest fact in the history of the Church in the second century, and when the fact was once established as a foundation it continued through the following centuries.⁷

Over time, Jesus’ presentation evolved into various dogmas, which came about as a result of including a hope for immortality through union with God or deification within the gospel. Deification (a0poqe/wsis) is the process by which one unites with God and/or becomes like God in virtue, and the Christian form of deification as described by Harnack was "namely the deifying of the human race through the incarnation of the Son of God. The apotheosis of mortal man through his acquisition of immortality (divine life) is the idea of salvation which was taught in the ancient mysteries."⁸ Harnack claims the introduction of deification (a0poqe/wsis) to the Christian system of thought occurs in the beginning of the second century. A syncretism of Christianity with what Harnack calls Oriental cults and philosophical traditions such as Platonism and Stoicism formed into a belief system characterized by a heightened sense of morality.⁹

The standard of what was morally right and what was morally wrong was set higher than it had been in previous years, and these various groups emphasized following the conscience and seeking purity of soul by following this high standard. Those who had fallen below this standard of morality could repent by turning away from their lower standard and turning toward this higher morality and stricter way of life to receive healing for their soul. Further, to accomplish this pursuit of a higher morality and bring enjoyment to one’s life, an inner union between an individual and deity was sought first and foremost, which soon led to a desire for a God who as Savior could heal one’s fallen soul.¹⁰

This inner union with deity (a0poqe/wsis) is representative of a return to the old system of emperor worship. Greek and Roman emperors were given the title of deity and worshiped as gods, and Christians followed the pattern of the Greeks and Romans by placing Jesus in a position of worship as God. Those who worshiped Jesus further resembled the ancient form of emperor worship by looking to Jesus as an example of how to live, claiming the description of Jesus as God brought the hope of immortality, an aspect of deification, which guaranteed an eternal existence. The most influential factor in this religious moralistic revival that led to such an emphasis on deification was philosophy, but other factors also had a large impact on the hellenization of Christianity, which include the influential role of Greek culture through its grammar, rhetoric, schools, exegesis, learned profession, and homilies.¹¹

Harnack divides the Christianity of the first century into two groups, the Gnostics and the Catholics, and he associates the process of hellenization with both of them. The Gnostics represent the acute secularizing of Christianity, with the rejection of the Old Testament,¹² and they were the theologians of the first century who transformed Christianity into a systematic tradition of doctrines or dogmas. In a swift manner, the Gnostics attempted to capture Christianity for Hellenistic culture, and Hellenic culture for Christianity, and who gave up the Old Testament in order to facilitate the conclusion of the covenant between the two powers, and make it possible to assert the absoluteness of Christianity.¹³ Harnack contends that Gnosticism as early as the first century had already assumed a syncretistic character with Greek philosophy.¹⁴

Catholicism, on the other hand, gradually changed and transformed under the subjection of Hellenistic culture, and they chose to conserve the Old Testament. Harnack writes:

The older Catholicism never clearly put the question, What is Christian? Instead of answering that question it rather laid down rules, the recognition of which was to be the guarantee of Christianism. This solution of the problem seems to be on the one hand too narrow and on the other too broad. Too narrow, because it bound Christianity to rules under which it necessarily languished; too broad, because it did not in any way exclude the introduction of new and foreign conceptions. In throwing a protective covering round the Gospel, Catholicism also obscured it. It preserved Christianity from being hellenised to the most extreme extent, but, as time went on, it was forced to admit into this religion an ever greater measure of secularization. In the interests of its world-wide mission it did not indeed directly disguise the terrible seriousness of religion, but, by tolerating a less strict ideal of life, it made it possible for those less in earnest to be considered Christians, and to regard themselves as such. It permitted the genesis of a Church, which was no longer a communion of faith, hope, and discipline, but a political commonwealth required with apostolic, that is, indirectly, with divine authority. This course disfigured Christianity and made a knowledge of what is Christian an obscure and difficult matter. But in Catholicism, religion for the first time obtained a formal dogmatic system.¹⁵

Harnack proposes that Catholicism developed from two major movements. First, Catholicism claimed a set of fixed outer standards to define Christianity through apostolic authority, which included the baptismal confession known as the rule of faith that relates to the apostolic canon of scripture. These fixed standards resulted in an exclusive Church made up of a confederation for those of a common confession.¹⁶

Second, Harnack proposes that in combating the Gnostic heresy, the Catholics sought strategic argumentation by explaining individual articles within the rule of faith to fit the desired answer for the respective questions that the Greeks and Romans were asking such as the composition of Christ Jesus’ person in relation to deification. In pursuing such a strategy, they helped to continue the transformation of the gospel as did the Apologists before them by presenting the Christian faith through foreign concepts. By the middle of the second century, the Catholics tried to legitimize Christianity’s central message, the rule of faith, by presenting it in a format that resembled Greek philosophy. This presentation sparked a form of synthesis in which Christianity gradually formed a fixed set of beliefs or dogmatics, and the rule of faith became like a philosophical system of thought, structurally similar to the systems of the Platonists and Stoics. Irenaeus, along with Tertullian and Hippolytus, initiated the process of gradually changing articles within the rule of faith, into fixed doctrines or dogmas that would eventually lead to a system of dogmatics and would legitimize the Christian faith to a Hellenistic world.¹⁷

Both Irenaeus and Hippolytus further advance the process of hellenization by implementing the ancient concept of deification from many of the Platonists and Stoics into their respective descriptions of the gospel. The goal of deification in these Greek philosophical traditions was union with God, and Irenaeus and Hippolytus synthesize the Greek philosophical concept of deification with the gospel by connecting union with God through union with Christ. Harnack writes:

In them a religious and realistic idea takes the place of the moralism of the Apologists, namely, the deifying of the human race through the incarnation of the Son of God. The apotheosis of moral man through his acquisition of immortality (divine life) is the idea of salvation which was taught in the ancient mysteries. It is here adopted as a Christian one, supported by the Pauline theology (especially as contained in the Epistle of the Ephesians), and brought into the closest connection with the historical Christ, the Son of God and Son of man "filius dei et filius hominis."¹⁸

Harnack proposes that deification became the central Christian message, and the Catholics who were unaware of any transformation allowed Jesus’ gospel to evolve from its original form.¹⁹ Catholicism and its retention of the Old Testament was subjected to Hellenistic culture and suddenly required to recognize itself in a picture foreign to it. However, it was yet vigorous enough to reject that picture, but to the gradual, and one might say indulgent remodeling to which it was subjected, it offered but little resistance, nay, as a rule, it was never conscious of it.²⁰

Harnack initiates a second division of the development of dogma with a description of Athanasius’ theology. According to Harnack, Platonism and the Greek Hellenistic spirit also influenced Athanasius as it had Irenaeus, and Athanasius reveals his role in the continual process of the gospel’s evolution or hellenization through continuing to implement the concept of deification to describe the Christian gospel.²¹ However, Athanasius prevents hellenization from going to its extreme extent, which would have been the disappearance of Christianity altogether.²²

Athanasius like Irenaeus placed the central focus on the nature of Christ and his work, and Athanasius claimed that his description of Christ as God was the exclusive and only possible view against that of his opponents, the Arians, who described Christ as the created Logos.²³ If Arius’ doctrine of Christ had won, it would have ruined Christianity to the point of its disappearance because the Arian Christ was dogmatically unstable in that it did not present an adequate explanation for how humanity can attain union with God through Christ as did Athanasius’ description. Athanasius explained that Christ is both God and humanity, being able to provide general humanity direct union with God. However, Athanasius’ description of Christ erased almost every feature of the historical Jesus and his message by placing the emphasis of faith on a fixed definition of Christ’s person as opposed to a pursuit for a holy lifestyle in the service of God’s kingdom, every feature that is except bringing humanity into fellowship with God. Athanasius reduced both the historical account of Christ and the general interpretation of scripture to the central belief that Christ is God and humanity.²⁴

Harnack reveres Athanasius as a reformer who took the rudder when the ship of Christianity was in danger of losing its helm, and he presents him as a man with an exclusive view of faith in Christ as God and humanity. Harnack writes:

Athanasius’ importance to posterity consisted in this, that he defined Christian faith exclusively as faith in redemption through the God-man who was identical in nature with God, and that thereby he restored to it fixed boundaries and specific contents. Eastern Christendom has been able to add nothing up to the present day. Even in theory it has hit on no change, merely overloading the idea of Athanasius; but the Western Church also preserved this faith as fundamental. Following on the theology of the Apologists and Origen, it was the efficient means of preventing the complete Hellenising and secularisation of Christianity.²⁵

Athanasius led the Church down a path that it never abandoned, and Harnack proposes that Athanasius’ description of redemption is complete in the deification of man through the gift of immortality.²⁶

Both Irenaeus and Athanasius play a role in the evolution of the gospel according to Harnack’s theory of hellenization. Irenaeus was one of the first to introduce the external concept of deification, and his presentation of this concept helped to stabilize individual articles of faith into a fixed formula. Athanasius also emphasized humanity’s deification through Christ as Christianity’s central message and, therefore, he played a part in the hellenization of the gospel. However, by cementing all the articles of the gospel into a fixed formula, Athanasius prevented Christianity from disappearing forever, which would have been the extreme end to the process of hellenization.

An Examination of Harnack’s Thesis

Harnack claims that the concept of deification as found within the works of the Church Fathers supports his theory of hellenization or a gospel that gradually evolved into dogmas due to the influence of Greek philosophy and other external sources. This dissertation seeks to examine Harnack’s theory of hellenization by analyzing the concept of deification within the works of two Church Fathers, Irenaeus and Athanasius. The analysis is composed of three major Parts.

In Part 1, which encompasses chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the dissertation, the strategy for examining Harnack’s theory involves comparing both Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ respective descriptions of deification. If Harnack is correct, this comparison should reveal an evolution of fundamental content from Irenaeus to Athanasius. Harnack’s description of the gospel’s syncretization in the second century with Hellenistic philosophy and beliefs from various Oriental cults with which this gospel so drastically differed could not have been a stabilized form of belief in its initial stages. It must have evolved under Harnack’s theory of Catholicism’s gradual hellenization.

Other elements surrounding the circumstances of both Irenaeus and Athanasius also indicate that a comparison of these Church Fathers’ respective descriptions of deification is a good test case for examining Harnack’s belief that deification exemplifies the process of hellenization. Irenaeus and Athanasius are separated by an extended period of time, approximately over one hundred and fifty years. Both Irenaeus and Athanasius served the Church from two different continents. Irenaeus served in Lyons of Europe, and Athanasius served in Alexandria of Egypt. Both Fathers also opposed two different forms of teaching. Irenaeus primarily opposed the teachings of the Gnostics, and Athanasius primarily opposed the Arians.²⁷ Such diversity of time, location, and opponents would tend to result in a changed or transformed message, which makes both Irenaeus and Athanasius prime candidates to examine Harnack’s theory of hellenization or a gospel that gradually changes. However, as opposed to Harnack’s theory, this dissertation seeks to reveal that Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ respective descriptions of deification as they relate to the gospel are extremely similar in fundamental content though they differ on minor issues of presentation.

This dissertation pursues a comparison of both Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’