Category: Eastern Fathers

Origen of Alexandria according to Rebecca Lyman.

I reviewed Denis Minn’s chapter on Ireneaus of Lyons from the book Early Christian Thinkers: The Lives and Legacies of Twelve Key Figures edited by Paul Foster on February 29th (see here). As you can tell I am working through this book slowly, an essay at a time. Today I’d like to write on Rebecca Lyman’s contribution on Origen of Alexandria. Origen is a perplexing figure which makes him very interesting!

Lyman presents Origen as a man shaped by his debates with philosophers, rabbis, gnostics, and other Christian thinkers (p. 111). He was a well educated man who was proficient in a everything from literature to philosophy to science, text criticism, various forms of exegesis, and so forth (pp. 112-113). He was a man who was not afraid to borrow from the wisdom of the pagans. This led to trouble at times as people sometimes saw him as compromising. He seems to have walked the thin line of any Christian apologist or philosopher who seeks to discuss the Gospel in the language of the intellectuals of this world.

Origen made some great contributions to the early church. He wrote a reply to the first great intellectual assault against Christianity in his Against Celsus. He wrote the Hexpala, a work comparing various Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old Testament. He wrote an important theological work called On First Principles. Finally, he wrote a lot on Scripture, often using his famous allegorical hermeneutic.

Origen is well-known for contributing to several theological controversies. He was a supporter of a strong view of free will. He said some confusing things about the pre-existence of souls and some things that led people to think he was a universalist. Yet overall he seems (to me) to be a lot like the modern Christian intellectual whose service to the church is the pondering of various answers to various questions. Sometimes that “thinking out loud” gets people in trouble. Origen was that kind of theologian. I think I would have liked the man.

Online readings on Maximus the Confessor.

“Going Upward with Everything You Are: The Unifying Ladder of St Maximus Confessor”, Doru Costache

“Maximus reminds us that God is all in all”, Marc Cortez

“Maximus the Confessor”, Andrew Louth

“Maximus the Confessor”, Orthodox Wiki

“St. Maximus of Constantinople”, Catholic Encyclopedia

“The Anthropological Cosmology of St. Maximus the Confessor”, Dragos Bahrim

“The Christian Neoplatonism of St. Maximus the Confessor”, Edward Moore

“The Historical and Political Development of Christology fromThe Council of Chalcedon in 451 to the Third Council of Constantinople in 681”, Justin Cardinal (downloadable paper)

…if you have any links to add please place them in the comments.

Online readings on Cyril of Alexandria.

“Cyril and the Condemning of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus”, Billy Cash

“Cyril of Alexandria”, earlychurch.org

“Cyril of Alexandria”, Orthodox Wiki

“The Exegesis of Cyril of Alexandria vs. Theodore of Mopsuestia: A Play in Three Acts”, Andy Peloquin (downloadable paper)

“Disliking Cyril of Alexandria”, Brian LePort

“Remembering Cyril of Alexandria and the Twelve Anathemas”, Marc Cortez

“St. Cyril of Alexandria”, Catholic Encyclopedia

“St. Cyril of Alexandria”, CCEL.org

“The Historical and Political Development of Christology from The Council ofChalcedonin 451 to the Third Council of Constantinoplein 681”, Justin Cardinal (downloadable paper)

“The Perniciously Persistent Myths of Hypatia and the Great Library”, D.B. Hart

“Twelve Anathemas”, Early Church Texts

…if you have any links to add please leave a comment! 

Online readings on John Chrysostom.

“Augustine vs. Chrysostom: How to read Genesis 1-2″, Stephen Leckvold

“Gathering Clouds: A Tale of the Days of St. Chrysostom”, F.W. Farrar

“John Chrysostom”, ChristianHistory.net

“John Chrysostom”, Orthodox Wiki

“St. Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Etc.”, Philip Schaff

“St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans”, Philip Schaff

“St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians”, Philip Schaff

“St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint John and the Epistle to the Hebrews”, Philip Schaff

“St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew”, Philip Schaff

“St. Chrysostom: On the Priesthood, Etc.”, Philip Schaff

“St. John Chrysostom”, Catholic Encyclopedia.

“The pastorate as a consolation prize.”, Brian LePort

“Turn Your Homes into Heaven”, Stephen Leckvold

Various posts on Chrysostom, Alex Poulos

…if you have anything to add, please comment! 

Online reading on Gregory of Nyssa.

“Gregory of Nyssa”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Gregory of Nyssa”, Orthodox Wiki

“Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc.”, Philip Schaff

“Gregory of Nyssa’s Infinite Progress: A Challenge for an Integrated Theology”, Adam Bottiglia

“Saint Gregory of Nyssa”, Catholic Encyclopedia

…please feel free to add more links in the comments below! 

 

Let’s discuss John of Damascus!

John of Damascus

I am a evangelical Christian who lives in a literate society in a post-Johannes Gutenberg world. We don’t learn as much from pictures and symbols as we do from books. In some Christian traditions like Orthodoxy and Catholicism icons remain very important, but I have never been part of these traditions. In fact, as a youth I was a Pentecostal which is very much a “Spirit” branch of Christianity. There were no paintings of saints in our sanctuary. At best, we had a stained glass window. I don’t know that we were iconoclast, but we didn’t have any room for praying to saints or honoring icons in our understanding of our religion.

Over the years I’ve tried to rethink this, but I remain closer to where I was back then than I do to Christians who find value in icons or even see icons as essential aspects of worship.

One figure who did not receive much attention in our Greek Fathers class at Western Seminary was John of Damascus. This is because he was the final person and you know how things go, schedules are always a bit behind. I suspect few of us were exceptionally excited about him since he seems to have made few unique contributions that evangelicals would find valuable. He developed liturgy a bit, he expounded on received orthodoxy and defended it, but his biggest contribution was a defense of icons.

I confess: I didn’t give much time to understanding him. What am I missing by ignoring John of Damascus? What is it that I should know about icons?

__________

See my other posts wherein I prepare for my Th.M. oral defense:

If you’d like to discuss Origen of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Athanasius of Alexandria, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Basil the Great, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nazianzus, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nyssa, go here.

If you’d like to discuss John Chrysostom, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Cyril of Alexandria, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Maximus the Confessor, go here.

Online readings on Athanasius of Alexandria.

“An Introduction to The Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit by Athanasius of Alexandria”, Brian LePort

“Athanasius”, ChristianHistory.net

“Athanasius”, Tim Kimberely

“Athanasius: Select Works and Letters”, Philip Schaff (CCEL)

“Athanasius Chart”, Fourth Century Christianity

“Athanasius of Alexandria”, Orthodox Wiki

“St. Athanasius”, Catholic Encyclopedia.

“St. Athanasius of Alexandria”, Orthodox Research Institute

…add more links by leaving them in the comments! 

Let’s discuss Maximus the Confessor!

I confess that I don't know a lot about the Confessor.

I know one thing about Maximus the Confessor: he was influential in discussing whether or not Christ had one singular will or two wills, a human and a divine will. If I understand him correctly he argued that Christ had two wills, one for each nature. He held a Chalcedonian Christology that emphasizes that Christ had two natures that were united, but distinct. If this is true then the human aspect of Christ had a human will and the Logos or divine nature of Christ had a will shared with God the Father.

At least I think that is how it goes!

Also, Maximus was exiled and abused for this belief.

I know I should know more about him, but I don’t, so let’s talk! 

__________

See my other posts wherein I prepare for my Th.M. oral defense:

If you’d like to discuss Origen of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Athanasius of Alexandria, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Basil the Great, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nazianzus, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nyssa, go here.

If you’d like to discuss John Chrysostom, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Cyril of Alexandria, go here.

Let’s discuss Cyril of Alexandria!

Cyril of Alexandria pondering how to bury Nestorius.

There are two things I know about Cyril of Alexandria: (1) he was the one who sought to bury Nestorianism and (2) he comes across as a thug.

Nestorianism is attributed to Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople. He sought to separate the divine and human natures of Christ or at least emphasize their distinction. This point was most important in the discussion over whether Mary the mother of Jesus should be called the “Christ-bearer” (Christotokos) or the “God-bearer”(Theotokos). Nestorius seemed to have feared calling Mary Theotokos because the divine nature of Christ was incarnate and eternal as the Word, not “born” which seems to indicate “coming into existence”. Others like Cyril argued that Christotokos seemed to deny the incarnation, as if the one born was somehow less than God. At least this is how I understand the debate.

Eventually Cyril won the day. Nestorianism because a heresy. The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon seemed to have sided with Cyril, though there is a bit of tension here. Cyril’s view seems quite close to that of the monophysites, those who saw only “one nature” in Jesus, either God fully emptied into man or man fully engulfed into deity, not not two distinct natures. Chalcedon attempted to maintain the tension of Jesus being “fully God, fully man” with two natures that are not morphed into one yet completely united. I don’t know if Nestorius really, really disagreed or if he was framed as disagreeing by his opponents.

Cyril came across as a Christian mafioso in my estimation. He lead gangs of monks. He played the political game with much vigor. I don’t recall all I read, but I remember thinking of him as less of a pastor, more of a punk. I don’t know that he handled his dispute with Nestorius correctly. In fact, I doubt he did. That said, the past is the past and all our interpretations are history!

Let me know your thoughts on this man! 

__________

See my other posts wherein I prepare for my Th.M. oral defense:

If you’d like to discuss Origen of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Athanasius of Alexandria, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Basil the Great, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nazianzus, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nyssa, go here.

If you’d like to discuss John Chrysostom, go here.

Let’s talk about John Chrysostom!

"The Golden Mouth"

"The Golden Mouth"

John Chrysostom is one of the most popular figures in the early church. He was known as the “golden-mouthed” because of his majestic oratory. He become the Bishop of Constantinople, the most powerful city in the empire at that time. He was drawn to the ascetic life for a time, so this shaped his teaching and preaching. In fact, although beloved for his homilies, it was his preaching that got him in trouble with the authorities of the city and eventually exiled from his office.

Chrysostom wrote many homilies. He wrote much commentary on Scripture. He seemed to support the poor and disenfranchised. Sadly, some of his preaching seems overbearing and harsh toward women and Jews, but overall he left a positive reputation on the memory of most Christians.

I found his work On the Priesthood to be quite encouraging, especially as one who sees too many people who think the pastorate is a place for religious celebrities, rather than servants of the church. He reminded priests/pastors that they care for souls and that this is no task for the flippant. I admit, any friend of mine who tells me they want to pastor is likely to receive my recommendation of this book.

Lastly, if I remember correctly Chrysostom influenced the liturgy of the church. I don’t know the details, but I know he did! What else should I know about Chrysostom? 

__________

See my other posts wherein I prepare for my Th.M. oral defense:

If you’d like to discuss Origen of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Athanasius of Alexandria, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Basil the Great, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nazianzus, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nyssa, go here.

Let’s discuss Gregory of Nyssa!

The Cappadocians.

It seems to me that Gregory of Nyssa is honored not so much because of his unique contributions, but his association with Basil the Great (his brother) and Gregory of Nazianzus. These three created the Cappodocian Fathers, but Gregory of Nyssa seems like the lesser of them. He supported the other two in defending Nicene Christianity. He argued for the doctrine of the Trinity. He affirmed the deity of Christ and the Spirit as well as their unity to the Father. Yet he seems completely unoriginal.

When I read his work On Not Three Gods I found his arguments hard to follow. This likely has much to do with my own density, but at times I couldn’t tell if he was leaning toward Tritheism or not. I wrote about my confusion in “Am I Misunderstanding Gregory of Nyssa?”

Is there a student of this man who has insight into something I’ve missed? Do you sense there is something unique or important about Gregory of Nyssa that I am overlooking? Is it unfair for me to equate him to the Chris Bosh of the Cappodocians?

__________

See my other posts wherein I prepare for my Th.M. oral defense:

If you’d like to discuss Origen of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Athanasius of Alexandria, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Basil the Great, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Gregory of Nazianzus, go here.

Let’s discuss Gregory of Nazianzus!

Gregory of Nazianzus

Today I want to discuss another one of the Cappodocian Fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus, also known as “the Theologian” (which is quite the title). Along with Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa he contributed to the doctrine of the Trinity as we know it as the defeat of Arianism. He is known for his support of Christ being of the “same substance” (homoousia) as God the Father. Also, he provided the church with the language regarding the Spirit “proceeding” from the Father in order to differentiate from the Son being “begotten” of the Father, an idea that I admit not fully understanding.

One of the things that stood out to me about Gregory is that he is known to some as “the Patron Saint of Those Who Do Not Want to be Bishops”–a great title. When he was ordained as a priest he fled the scene. When he was installed as a Bishop he did the same. Apparently, he craved the ascetic (and even scholarly) life more than the pastoral. My memory may be failing me, but I think Basil coerced him into the office to strengthen his own ecclesiastical-political strength. Poor Gregory! I blogged about this a while back in “Gregory of Nazianzos, the Patron Saint of Those Who Do Not Want to be Bishop”.

What do you find to be the most important things to know about Gregory of Nazianzus?

__________

See my other posts wherein I prepare for my Th.M. oral defense:

If you’d like to discuss Origen of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Athanasius of Alexandria, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Basil the Great, go here.

 

Let’s discuss Basil the Great of Caesarea!

Basil the Great

I almost wrote a paper on Basil the Great when I took a class on the Greek Fathers a while ago. Instead, I wrote on Athanasius of Alexandria, but I was torn. Sadly, even though I had great interest in his work, I admit that I don’t remember a lot about Basil. I know he was from Caesarea. I know he is considered one of the Cappadocian Fathers along with Gregory of Nyssa (his brother) and Gregory of Nazianzus. This trio impacted Christian language about God like few before them. We may not have our unique concept of the Trinity as it is today if it were not for their writings.

Basil’s work On the Holy Spirit is credited with moving the church toward language that included the Spirit in the Godhead. There was some debate prior. Unlike Athanasius whose Pneumatology is grounded primarily in connecting the Spirit to Christ and then Christ to the Father to argue that the Spirit cannot be a mere creature if he shares the nature of the Father and Son, Basil seems to have gone a more direct route exegeting passages, especially Pauline and Johanine passages, where the Spirit is depicted as deity.

Other than this I know Basil wrote many sermons, many exegetical works, and he continued to write polemics against Arianism, which was not quite dead yet. Along with the other two Cappodocians he formulated language regarding one substance and three persons, language the church uses today. Yet this is the limitation of my knowledge off the top of my head.

What would you say is most important about Basil the Great? What else should I know?

__________

See my other posts wherein I prepare for my Th.M. oral defense:

If you’d like to discuss Origen of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyons, go here.

If you’d like to discuss Athanasius of Alexandria, go here.