Concerning what was shared earlier,
When it comes to patristics, one thing that should always be kept in mind is the fact that not every Church Father was ever held in the same regard. In example, Tatian was one who was Assyrian (i.e. not a part of the Orthodox Church or Byzantine system) and he was actually considered a herectic in his time - despite where his efforts helped the Church. This happens a lot when it comes to differences within the Church - and although Tatian was once a one-time protege of Justin of Martyr, he ended up having a fall-out later on when he started to go into areas which the
Early Church found to be very questionable....[URL="http://www.christianforums.com/t7810600-2/#post66322796"]and later became associated with the Assyrian Church of the East (which was not in agreement with Rome[/URL]). Specifically, T
atian was reported to have become an Encratite (
an ascetic 2nd century sect of Christians who forbade marriage and counselled abstinence from meat) - as Irenaeus makes mention of this Tatian in
Against Heresies 1.28.1. Of course, with Tatian, he was very on point (IMHO) when it comes to the subject of free will - as he addressed pagans who blamed everything on “fate" and Tatian answered that our miseries are our own fault - in light of the fact that
our own free will brought evil into the world—but our own free will can reject evil. Additionally, as it concerns his connection with the Assyrian Church of the East (if wanting to know more on them), I'd say that One excellent resource is [/url]
East Meets East: What East Meets East is about , which focuses on showing the history of interaction and what people can learn on the matter. For them,
they've been on their own long before the Great Schism and
have experienced many things other parts of the Body have not.
Being Orthodox, Patristics is one of those topics where you have to always be wise in how to go about it since not every Church Father was always held with the same esteem - whereas others ended up going into A LOT of craziness later on that did harm and others who were accused of mess had to unfortunately deal with a lot of false accusations on people not understanding what they were about. They are all vastly different and some are not known as well - with many within the Protestant world often coming to pick & choose among the fathers and yet not seeing them as a whole for what they were...but the Fathers are amazing and I tend t
o lean toward the Syriac Fathers myself.
There's actually an excellent book on the subject which I have greatly enjoyed and found insightful - as seen in the work by
Ronald Kydd called
Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church: The Gifts of the Spirit in the First 300 Years (more shared
here)
He also has another which is really beneficial entitled
Healing through the Centuries: Models for Understanding (more shared
here).
Others have spoken on the issue in-depth. As said more in-depth by another who recommended the book (as
said for a brief excerpt):
The presence of Montanism in the early church also provides us with evidence of the continuing operation of the gifts of the Spirit. Aside from the Montanists themselves, numerous church fathers regard the gifts as still valid. For example:
- Justin Martyr (a.d. 100-165) boasted to the Jewish Trypho "that the prophetic gifts remain with us" (Dialogue with Trypho, 82).
Irenaeus (a.d. 120-200) also bears witness to the presence of the gifts of the Spirit. He writes:
- ·"We have heard of many of the brethren who have foreknowledge of the future, visions, and prophetic utterances; others, by laying-on of hands, heal the sick and restore them to health" (Against Heresies, 2:32,4).
- ·"We hear of many members of the church who have prophetic gifts, and, by the Spirit speak with all kinds of tongues, and bring men's secret thoughts to light for their own good, and expound the mysteries of God" (Against Heresies, 5:6,1).
- ·"It is impossible to enumerate the charisms which throughout the world the church has received from God" (Against Heresies, 2:32,4).
- Eusebius himself concludes that the charismata were all still in operation down to the time in which Irenaeus lived (Ecclesiastical History, 5:7,6).
- Apollinarius is quoted by Eusebius as saying that "the prophetic gifts must continue in the church until the final coming, as the apostle insists" (EH, 5:16,7).
Epiphanius, perhaps the most vocal opponent of the Montanists, did not attack them because they practiced the gifts of the Spirit. Indeed, he declared that "the charism [of prophecy] is not inoperative in the church. Quite the opposite. . . . The holy church of God welcomes the same [charisms] as the Montanists, but ours are real charisms, authenticated for the church by the Holy Spirit" (Panarion, 48).
Ironically, one of the principal reasons why the church became suspect of the gifts of the Spirit and eventually excluded them from the life of the church is because of their association with Montanism. The Montanist view of prophecy, in which the prophet entered a state of passive ecstasy in order that God might speak directly, was a threat to the church's belief in the finality of the canon of Scripture. Other unappealing aspects of the Montanist lifestyle, as noted above, provoked opposition to the movement and hence to the charismata. In sum, it was largely the Montanist view of the prophetic gift, in which a virtual "Thus saith the Lord" perspective was adopted, that contributed to the increasing absence in church life of the charismata.
There are others who live out this principle, to be clear. And in example, one can consider others such as
Orthodox Evangelist Charles Omuroka (who
operates within Africa....more
here, here and here) as well as
Fr. Eusebius Stephanou of the
Brotherhood of St. Symeon the New Theologian
And for others who've spoken on the issue: