Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
http://orthodoxbiblestudy.info/the-church-fathers-part-3/I am going go have to call you out on this and demand a citation in support of your argument, because:
Fr. John Behr of St. Vladimir's Seminary, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, and othere, have referred to Origen and Tertullian as Fathers. And they were by the way both defenders of doctrine; see Tertullian's heresiological polemics against the Gnostics, and see Adversus Praxeas, in which he coined the term "Trinitas.". Only later did he apostasize; his writings before converting to Montanism arre not regarded as heretical.
As far as Origen is concerned, he defended the faith against against Celsus and other Gnostic figures and was regarded as a heretic by St. Epiphanius of Salamis (who may have been himself an Iconoclast) and St. Jerome mainly for the implications of some speculations he wrote, which he by and large did not pronounce as official dogma. Of these, only the doctrine of transmigration allegedly taught by him would be utterly heretical, if he taught it, which is doubtful; regarding apokatastasis, St. Gregory of Nyassa and St. Isaac the Syrian also expressed a belief in this. Indeed, St. Isaac was actually a member of the Assyrian Church of the East and a Nestorian monk, yet he was recognized as a saint by the still-undivided Greek-Latin EO/RC church and the Oriental Orthodox (who are particularly opposed to Nestorians and to the Assyrian Church). This event was centuries after the Council of Chalcedon.
Origen died in the peace of the church and was not declared a heretic until the Three Chapters of Justinian, and there is some debate as to whether or not these anathemas against Origen, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were actually a part of the Fifth Ecumenical Council or merely a unilateral act of St. Justinian; there are many Orthodox theologians who have expressed a view that certain anthemas against, for example, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Oriental saints like Severus, should be lifted; in the case of Severus this is quite likely as part of the process of OO-EO reconciliation.
Tertullian on the other hand died out of communion with the Church, but what he wrote before becoming a Montanist has always been accepted as part of the Patristic corpus.
Also, your definition of Father seems to me incorrect; that definition instead I believe refers to those labelled "Pillars of Orthodoxy" or "Defenders of the Faith" like St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria (just as those who evangelize countries like Sts. Gregory the Illuminator and St. Nino are "Equal to the Apostles," along with certain women of the New Testament like St. Mary Magdalene). I believe you are proceeding from the Roman definition of a Church Father, which is basically that, with the additional caveat that the person predate St. John Damascene, who is reckoned "Last of the Fathers."
Several articles exist refuting the Roman doctrine of the Patristic age being of finite duration by noted Orthodox writers, who identify figures such as St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, who do not meet your unsourced criterion of Patrology, as Church Fathers.
So in general, I am more likely to accept as normative of Orthodoxy the writings and lectures of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Fr. John Behr, vs. some random person on the Net.
Just out of curiosity, which jurisdiction are you a member of, and how long have you been in the Church?
I get my information from Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, which cites De Principiis as the main source of Origen's heretical stances. Here are some quotes from De Principiis:
"If it is true that this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality, and that death is swallowed up at the end; this shows that nothing else than a material nature is to be destroyed, on which death could operate, while the mental acumen of those who are in the body seems to be blunted by the nature of corporeal matter. If, however, they are out of the body, then they will altogether escape the annoyance arising from a disturbance of that kind. But as they will not be able immediately to escape all bodily clothing, they are just to be considered as inhabiting more refined and purer bodies, which possess the property of being no longer overcome by death, or of being wounded by its sting; so that at last, by the gradual disappearance of the material nature, death is both swallowed up, and even at the end exterminated, and all its sting completely blunted by the divine grace which the soul has been rendered capable of receiving, and has thus deserved to obtain incorruptibility and immortality."
"Whence we are of opinion that, seeing the soul, as we have frequently said, is immortal and eternal, it is possible that, in the many and endless periods of duration in the immeasurable and different worlds, it may descend from the highest good to the lowest evil, or be restored from the lowest evil to the highest good."
Origen was a pretty smart guy and an extremely valuable Scriptural scholar, but I think you have to agree he taught some things that were clearly incompatible with Christianity, which is all the more damning in his case because he is one of the top Scriptural scholars of all times.origen is right up there with emanuel swedenborg and nikolai berdyaev. the church often tends to reject the best souls that God gives to them.
Origen was a pretty smart guy and an extremely valuable Scriptural scholar, but I think you have to agree he taught some things that were clearly incompatible with Christianity, which is all the more damning in his case because he is one of the top Scriptural scholars of all times.
You have to actively teach a heresy to be anathematized for it (for obvious reasons--otherwise, anathematizing heretics would turn into a witch-hunt).I would say that he was better than the people who condemn him. it is they who lack the insight into the scriptures that origen himself had. he speculated on some things but demons will use whatever they can against good souls. angels on the other hand tend to see the goodness that outshines the supposed evil. but the typical "condemner of heretics" are often full of heresies they they will by no means admit to for they truly don't know what they do.
You have to actively teach a heresy to be anathematized for it (for obvious reasons--otherwise, anathematizing heretics would turn into a witch-hunt).
Origen wanted very much to reconcile Christianity with pagan philosophy, since he was very fond of both, but he stepped over the line, unfortunately.
My tradition doesn't approve of picking for yourself. Our perspective is what Christ taught is the truth, and the idea is to keep it intact so it is understood precisely how the Apostles understood it. Picking beyond this is heresy. In fact, "heresy" comes from Greek for "choose", and that's what it means here, to choose your own truth as opposed to accepting what Christ taught.he stepped over some peoples lines/borders. so what. everyone picks for themselves what they think the truth is. God will judge justly.
My tradition doesn't approve of picking for yourself. Our perspective is what Christ taught is the truth, and the idea is to keep it intact so it is understood precisely how the Apostles understood it. Picking beyond this is heresy. In fact, "heresy" comes from Greek for "choose", and that's what it means here, to choose your own truth as opposed to accepting what Christ taught.
God can do anything he wants, I can't even exist unless he constantly wills me to exist.there is no escape from perception and freedom. even God can't save you from your own freedom.
God can do anything he wants, I can't even exist unless he constantly wills me to exist.
That depends on how you define "sin".
Based on what?let me cut to the chase. God does not take away our freedom because that is evil.
Based on what?
God doesn't take away our freewill because freewill isn't something we just have, it is something he actively supports in us with his will. I'm not going to go too deep into his personal motivations, because you can't psychoanalyze God. I will only give the Patristic explanation that God gives us freewill so that we can choose his love.
Hate to break it to you, but that is the extent of our freedom, and even that is not unlimited (you cannot just will yourself to grow ten feet tall, for instance).i was not talking about free will.
Now I will answer your question about God sinning using the Orthodox definition of "sin": sin means to miss the mark, the mark is God; the idea is to be more Godlike. So the idea of God sinning is rather incoherent, it would mean God being less like God. This isn't a limitation of God's freedom, it's just a matter of semantics.
Hate to break it to you, but that is the extent of our freedom, and even that is not unlimited (you cannot just will yourself to grow ten feet tall, for instance).
No I'm not, the criterion comes from Holy Tradition and Scripture. I just subscribe to Christ, and accept his teachings in their fullest, whatever they are. I don't make a buffet out of them and only accept the ones I like. If you accept Christ, you can't pick and choose his teachings.i define sin in the same way. i'm just trying to tell you that you make the choice as to what you think is the truth. you are the one who made up the criteria regardless of what authority you decided to trust in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?