Tag Archives: Orthodoxy

A Patristic Christmas

Posted on by
Reply

Modified from original which was published on December 23, 2010. 

The letter to Diognetus, generally dated between 130 and 200, is by an unknown author to a recipient named Diognetus. Diogentus, who may or may not be a real person, has questions about Christianity that the author tackles in the letter. The questions are found in chapter 1 and can be summarized as:

  1. what God do Christians place their trust in?
  2. what practices do they observe?
  3. why do they reject worldly customs, Greek gods, and Jewish practices?
  4. why do Christians show such love/affection to others?
  5. why has the new religion Christianity entered the world now and not earlier?

In chapter 7 of the letter the author talks about the God we trust sending His Son:

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things—by whom He made the heavens … This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness.

At Christmas time we celebrate the birth of our Savior. That special time in history when God chose to send His Son (the Word) from heaven to become flesh and dwell among us (John 1:1-2,14). That baby that we see lying in the manager of our nativity is ‘the very Creator and Fashioner of all things’ who commands the sun, moon, and stars.The Word through whom all things are made (John 1:3; Heb 1:2) and who embodies grace and truth and holiness.

As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?

…

For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are in it, to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him.

God so loved the world that He sent Jesus into the world to save and not to judge (John 3:16-17, 12:47), to offer grace and mercy and life to those who receive Him. He offers this gift but will not force it on anyone. However the warning is made that when he comes again it will be to judge. Who can stand (Malachi 3:2; Rev 6:17) when Christ is sent again? Only those who have accepted and placed their trust in the One whom God has sent.

and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us,He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave
  • His own Son as a ransom for us,
  • the holy One for transgressors,
  • the blameless One for the wicked,
  • the righteous One for the unrighteous,
  • the incorruptible One for the corruptible,
  • the immortal One for them that are mortal.

For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!

The questions posed in this letter remind us that at Christmas – as the worldly customs of trees, Santa, and exchanging gifts swirl by – we need to stop and reflect on that most precious gift – that God loved us enough to send Jesus who is Creator, King, Son, and Savior. We need to stop and praise the God we trust and remember that – like the early Christians – He wants us to be known for the love we have for others because He first loved us (John 13:34-35; 1 John 4:19). God sent His best from heaven to dwell among men, may we with the angels proclaim – Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men (Luke 2:14).

Note: Quotations are from ANF Volume 1. The first quote listed is from chapter 7, the second quote is from chapter 7 and chapter 10.The third is from chapter 9.

What is Orthodoxy? [Part 4] Is Origen Orthodox?

Posted on by
Reply

In the book Love Wins, Rob Bell speculates on what happens in the after-life opening up the door on various ideas claiming in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News:

I think that the orthodox, historic, Christian tradition is this vast, diverse, conversation that’s been going on for thousands of years and I think Jesus can handle the discussion. It think he can handle the debate.

Based on these comments we have looked at the orthodox, historic, Christian tradition – or the Rule of Faith – in a series of posts exploring whether it is something that should be considered wide (vast/diverse) or narrow.

Now to this discussion I would like to look at Origen. Why? Because, Origen is considered one of the earliest writers who speculated on the after-life suggesting many ideas found in Love Wins. Origen (185-254) lived primarily in Alexandria, Egypt. His writings are later than the previous two apologists that we have examined and unlike Irenaeus and Tertullian, Origen is not writing against heresies. One might argue that rather he is creating them. In First Principles he is laying out a systematic theology of sorts.

Origen: On the After-Life

In this book Origen speculates on the after life. Before recording his ideas on this topic he writes:

But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church’s teaching—viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners—let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be. [2.10.1]

From this two observations regarding the judgment and the punishment of sinners can be made – according to Origen:

  • they are according to Scripture.
  • they are according to the Church’s teaching.

Rather than jump into his opinions on the after-life, Origen next establishes that there is an after-life and a resurrection of the body:

there will be no absurdity in restating a few points from such works [other treaties he has composed], especially since some take offence at the creed of the Church, as if our belief in the resurrection were foolish, and altogether devoid of sense; and these are principally heretics, … [2.10.1]

From this two more observations can be – according to Origen:

  • a creed documenting the Church’s doctrine is in existence.
  • those who reject it are heretics.

Having established the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the soul, Origen states that after we die God will raise out of up the natural body “a spiritual one capable of inheriting the heavens” for those that deserve it, while those that are “destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments” are given a body that “cannot be corrupted or dissolved”. Based on this, Origen would certainly reject the annihilationist view of the after-life. Having established that the church teaches that there is an “everlasting fire”, he moves on to to “see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire” [2.10.3].

Origen suggests that there are two possibilities [2.10.5]:

  1. psychological/emotional – the conscience torments the soul because it accuses/convicts the person of all the sin committed.
  2. physical – the pains of general punishment.

However it is his “opinion that another species of punishment may be understood to exist”. Here the pain is likened to the body being torn apart since the soul recognizes it is not connected to God and is in a disordered condition. This state when it has “been tested by the application of fire” will result in “restoration”. Here Origen is advocating the post-mortem evangelistic view.

He bases the restoration on:

  • “God our Physician, desiring to remove the defects of our souls”  will like a doctor take extreme measures to cure us and restore us. [2.10.6]
  • “Nothing is impossible to the Omnipotent, nor is anything incapable of restoration to its Creator” so the “destruction of the last enemy” is when the soul/body ceases to be an enemy and to be dead, but is rather restored. [3.6.5]

What should we make of these ideas in regard to orthodoxy?

Does that fact that Origen wrote out his ideas make them part of the historic, orthodox, Christian faith? Or are they one man’s ideas on what the after-life could be like. More importantly can the speculations withstand the teaching of the Scriptures and the church which even Origen acknowledged were to be the source of truth in his preface to First Principle:

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance [...] it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite  limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these [areas that are in disagreement].

…

seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. [preface]

Then he goes on to list what he considers plain and explicit doctrine clearly communicated by the apostles. Here is how they line up with the Apostles’ Creed.

Apostle’s Creed De Principiis (Preface)
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being [...]
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ [...]
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirity
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried [...] that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die;
He descended into hell
The third day he rose again from the dead that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples,
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty and was taken up (into heaven).
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead the apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments
I believe in the Holy Ghost the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son.
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints [clearly acknowledges the teaching of the Church as the basis of truth]
The forgiveness of sins
The resurrection of the body And the life everlasting. that there is a time of resurrection from the dead [...]
Amen.

When Origen writes about his opinions on the after-life he shows that he is familiar with teachings that some will be raised to “eternal fire and punishments”. He then speculates that these punishments are restorative in nature. Even thought he attempts to support his ideas with Scripture he does not claim that these speculations are part of the Rule of Faith/creed. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that even Origen would not have considered his ideas or conclusions regarding “restorative punishment” as orthodox but rather his explanation to things that were (in his view) outside of the clear and plain teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Is orthodoxy narrow or wide?

Is Origen’s list of clear teachings a good basis for orthodoxy? Can they be supported with Scripture?

Is there anything you agree with or disagree with in his list?

What is Orthodoxy? [Part 3] Tertullian’s Rule of Faith

Posted on by
Reply

In light of Rob Bell’s claim in Love Wins  that orthodoxy is wide and diverse I have been exploring historic orthodoxy.  In part 1, narrow orthodoxy was defined as the basic set of Christian essential doctrine that has been held throughout the history of the church. It does not incorporate speculative theological ideas.  Wide orthodoxy was defined as encompassing all the varying and often speculative teachings found in church history. I have asserted that orthodoxy is narrow. In part 2 we looked at what  Irenaeus listed as the essential apostolic tradition that was handed down. We examined these beliefs with one of the earliest creeds – the Apostle’s Creed . Irenaeus who lived in both Asia Minor and Gaul during his life was writing around 180 AD.

The main two points from that study was that the Scripture were accepted as the basis for doctrine and that the tenets of the Apostle’s Creed were considered the essential truths. Today we are going to look at Tertullian and see if these two points hold up. Tertullian lived around the same time as Irenaeus (145-220) in Northern Africa. He is best known as the father of Latin Christianity and later became an adherent of the Montanist/New Prophecy movement. Prior to moving in that direction he wrote “Prescription against Heretics” (likely before 200 AD). In this document he affirms the importance of Scripture as capturing that which Christ taught the apostles:

From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him” (Matt 11:27).or does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach – that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached – in other words, what is was which Christ revealed to them – can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches – those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ form God. (Chapter 21).

The Rule of Faith alluded to above is described in chapter 13. The chart below compares that to the Apostles’ Creed.

Apostle’s Creed Prescription Against Heretics Chapter 13
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth there is only one God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son [...]
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried [...] having been crucified,
He descended into hell
The third day he rose again from the dead He rose again the third day;
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father,
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead [Jesus] will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh.
I believe in the Holy Ghost [Jesus] sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints
The forgiveness of sins
The resurrection of the body And the life everlasting. [Jesus] will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh.
Amen.

This post (and parts 1 and 2) should not be considered as endorsing all of the content of what Irenaeus or Tertullian have written. The goal has simply been to demonstrate that the early church had a core set of beliefs (historic orthodoxy) that were considered essential and united all of the churches. These beliefs were based on the teaching of the apostles – both what they had said and what they had written (Scriptures).  The apologists and defenders of the faith relied on these essentials when exposing false teaching and anyone who denied these core tenets of the faith or proposed ideas that contradicted them were considered heretical.

What is Orthodoxy? [Part 2] Irenaeus weighs in

Posted on by
Reply

The question as to whether orthodoxy is narrow or wide was considered in the last post?  A narrow orthodoxy is one in which the basic set of Christian doctrine is defined. It does not incorporate speculative theological ideas but only what has been held by the historic church as essential truth. A wide orthodoxy is one that encompasses all the varying and often speculative teachings found in church history. Based on a sampling writers ancient and contemporary I asserted that orthodoxy is narrow. In this post I will share some research into what a narrow historic orthodoxy includes.

Before starting with an creedal examination, the first tenet of historic orthodoxy would include the reliance on the Scriptures as the trustworthy source of knowledge about God:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith [...] Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth and that no lie is in Him. (Ad Haer III.1 and III.5)

We will start with the Apostle’s Creed and compare that to the essentials that are described by Irenaeus. Irenaeus is a bishop who has probable ties to the Apostle John (through Polycarp and Ignatius). He lived in the second century and among his extant writings is a series of books called “Against Heresies” often abbreviated Ad Haer. In these books he describes and refutes the heretical teachings of Gnostics like Valentinius. Another important document is his treatise “Proof of the Apostolic Teaching”, which was written “to show forth in brief the preaching of the truth for the confirmation of your faith” and be “a manual of essentials”. This document elaborates on the “rule of faith”.

Apostle’s Creed Ad Haer Book I.10.1 Ad Haer Book III.4.2
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord one Christ Jesus, the Son of God Christ Jesus, the Son of God
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary who became incarnate for our salvation [...] the birth from a virgin because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried the passion, having suffered under Pontius Pilate
He descended into hell
The third day he rose again from the dead and the resurrection from the dead [...] in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord and rising again
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord and having been received up in splendour
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.
I believe in the Holy Ghost and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations [...]
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith
The forgiveness of sins He Himself uniting man through Himself to God
The resurrection of the body And the life everlasting. to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race [...] in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love
Amen.

In the Proof of Apostolic Teaching Irenaues describes our redemption in Christ:

37. Thus then He gloriously achieved our redemption, and fulfilled the promise of the fathers, and abolished the old disobedience. The Son of God became Son of David and Son of Abraham; perfecting and summing up this in Himself, that He might make us to possess life. The Word of God was made flesh by the dispensation of the Virgin, to abolish death and make man live. For we were imprisoned by sin, being born in sinfulness and living under death.

38. But God the Father was very merciful: He sent His creative Word, who in coming to deliver us came to the very place and spot in which we had lost life, and brake the bonds of our fetters. And His light appeared and made the darkness of the prison disappear, and hallowed our birth and destroyed death, loosing those same fetters in which we were enchained. [...]

39. Now, if He was not born, neither did He die; and, if He died not, neither did He rise from the dead; and, if He rose not from the dead, neither did He vanquish death and bring its reign” to nought; and if death be not vanquished, how can we ascend to life, who from the beginning have fallen under death? [...]

The Apostle’s Creed (with the exception of the “descended into hell” clause) can be shown to be a sound basis for narrow orthodoxy that was affirmed by the early church based on the writings of Irenaues as the Rule of Faith.

What is Orthodox?

Posted on by
1

Rob Bell in the preface to Love Wins claims to be swimming in the wide, diverse pool of historic, orthodox Christian faith.

But what is historic, orthodox Christian faith?  Is it wide and diverse? How wide and diverse is it? Who gets to decide?

In Scott McKnight’s article What Love Wins Tells Us About Christians  he lists ten lessons that we can take away from the debate over Love Wins that erupted in the blog-o-sphere. Lesson #10 asks the following:

Tenth, what is evangelicalism and what is orthodoxy? I heard Rob Bell say in an interview that he is evangelical and orthodox to the bone. What do these terms mean? (emphasis in original)

If people holding to different viewpoints and theological systems are going to communicate and use terms like orthodox then it is important that we have a working definition that we can agree upon. The goal of this post is to think through what the term orthodox means. Generally, orthodox refers to the “right beliefs”. Summarizing dictionary.com it is “pertaining or conforming to approved doctrine”.

Scott McKnight’s tenth takeaway continues by defining orthodoxy as follows:

… And what does “orthodoxy” mean? Ask the best church historians and theologians and they will point you to the classic creeds, from Nicea on, and that means orthodoxy defines and articulates the Trinity. An orthodox person is someone who believes those creedal formulations. But I’m encountering a generation of young thinkers who really don’t care what these terms mean.

G. K. Chesterton (1908) seems to agree writing that “[w]hen the word ‘orthodoxy’ is used [in the book of the same title] it means the Apostles’ Creed, as understood by everybody calling himself Christian until a very short time ago and the general historic conduct of those who held such a creed.”

C. Michael Patton explores 6 different approaches to orthodoxy found in the church today. Patton assesses two views of orthodoxy as credible and defines them as follows (I recommend reading the whole post):

[Paleo-orthodoxy:] the Christian faith can be found in the consensual beliefs of the church. …  consensual faith can be found in the first five centuries of the Christian church.

[Progressive Orthodoxy:] seeks the consensus of the Church throughout time for the core essential theological issues, finding most of these in the early church expressed in the ecumenical councils. But it also believes that our understanding of these issues can and may mature and reform both through articulation and added perspective.

In another post on essentials Patton proposes separating orthodoxy along historic and denominational lines. The historic orthodox faith would be a set of doctrine that would (or should) be agreed upon by all denominations and which has been held throughout the history of the church. Patton cites the Vincentian Canon found in  the Commonitory (434 AD) – “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all” – as the principle behind historic orthodoxy.

But are we really to look to the historic church and the creeds and writings to define orthodoxy? Shouldn’t we just rely on Scripture?

Before answering that question consider what Irenaeus wrote in “Against Heresies” (180 AD) regarding the purpose of orthodoxy (Book 1 Chapter 10):

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.

And also what Augustine wrote in a treatise called On the Creed (around 393). In it he explains the importance and purpose of orthodoxy (which he calls the “rule of faith”) :

Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). …  These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes.

Orthodoxy then seems to center on those doctrines which are held in the early creeds and councils of the church. It comprises those essential beliefs that unified the church, that people were willing to die for, and made the teachings of Scripture more easily remembered.  Orthodoxy, therefore, is not taking historic Christianity over and above the teaching of Scripture. It is capturing the essential doctrines of the faith throughout the history of the church that are clearly taught in the Scriptures.  These rules of the faith are part of what was passed on to us and which  Jude urges us to contend for (Jude 1:3). As does Paul (2 Tim 2:2; 1 Core 11:2; 1 Thess 2:15; 3:6). When orthodoxy goes beyond the Scriptures we would certainly be right to reject it. Of course determining which creeds (Apostle, Nicene, or Athanasian) and which councils are to be used to define orthodoxy certainly muddy up the water a bit (more on this in later posts). However rather than a wide and diverse pool – the purpose of orthodoxy seeks to define a clear set of basic doctrine that is narrow and establishes the essentials. Orthodoxy is the bumper guards in the bowling alley of theology. It is the narrow and uniform body of water that is safe to swim in.  It is there to protect us from straying outside of the truth.

How do you define orthodoxy?

Is it a narrow (defining the basic Christian doctrine) or wide (encompassing all the varying and often speculative teachings found in church history) pool?