Some good advice for theologians from Cyril of Jerusalem. He is speaking about the Holy Spirit but his words are valid for all topics of theology.
It must therefore belong to Jesus Christ's grace itself to grant both to us to speak without deficiency, and to you to hear with discretion; for discretion is needful not to them only who speak, but also to them that hear, lest they hear one thing, and misconceive another in their mind.
Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say. (emphasis added)
Catechectical Lectures 16,2
26 comments:
That's a good one. Reminds me a bit of one further on:
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Volume VII, p. 23.)
These tesserae so appealing to your tastes are part of a larger mosaic that includes chrismation, epiklesis and, in general, communion fellowship with the bishops of the Orthodox Church. Be careful in playing with them in isolation: jewels taken from their mountings are quickly lost.
Father Hogg,
I agree with you in part. Blogs are not conducive to long posts. People dont read them. Nor do I. These short quotes are just nuggets suited to this medium.
In any event, the fathers themselves were fond of such collections of short extracts of the fathers on specific topics Cyril of Alexandria gathered them against Nestorius.
Patristics, as any other topic, are best understood through in depth study where they may be digested whole, with approproate historical and theological context. Just not sure this little blog is the place to do that.
That such study leads to "communion fellowship with the bishops of the Orthodox Church" is something about which I am sure we disagree.
Pr. Alms:
Patristics, as any other topic, are best understood through in depth study where they may be digested whole, with approproate historical and theological context. Just not sure this little blog is the place to do that.
Rx:
The issue is not brevity, but selectivity. How can it be that the Cyril who says such things, also practices chrismation, concerning which he says, "For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer, but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ's gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature. Which ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead and thy other senses; and while thy body is anointed with the visible ointment, thy soul is sanctified by the Holy and life-giving Spirit."
Clearly he reads the Scriptures in a way different from, say, Lutherans.
PrA:
That such study leads to "communion fellowship with the bishops of the Orthodox Church" is something about which I am sure we disagree.
Rx:
Of that I have no doubt. My point is to warn that such selectivity as you employ in reading the holy fathers is guaranteed to produce misunderstanding their actual views.
Dear Father Gregory (H not A),
You warn against selectivity in the reading of the Fathers. It seems that what you raise as a concern for us should also be a concern for you. Do you disapprove of St. Cyril saying that no one should believe even what he teaches unless he delivers the proof from the Divine Scriptures? The Fathers speak with one accord on that particular question, as you know. They invite us to read them with discernment and with a constant testing of their words against the Sacred Scriptures. It is part of their humility and their wisdom. We cannot but give thanks to God for their witness.
Father Hogg,
"Christian reader, these testimonies of the ancient teachers of the Church have been here set forth, not with this meaning that our Christian faith is founded upon the authority of men. For the true saving faith is to be founded upon no church-teachers, old or new, but only and alone upon God's Word, which is comprised in the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles, as unquestionable witnesses of divine truth."
I am under no compulsion to acccept all of Cyril of Jerusalem. I read him as a witness to the faith in his time and context and I honor him as such.
That he and I may disagree about chrismation or the epiclesis or any number of other topics is not surprising nor distressing to me. It may challenge me to rethink things I have simply accepted without thought. It may lead me to change or nuance my own views over time or it may reinforce what I now hold.
It does not mean I may not read him with profit nor agree with him where I may.
Alms
Prs. Weedon and Alms,
You miss the point. Cyril of Jerusalem had no problem teaching about chrismation, the epiklesis etc. in the context of the very same citations you relish--items concerning which, I am sure, your view is different than his. Unless he had a serious psychological disorder, or was woefully lacking in consistency, what *constitutes* "demonstration of the Holy Scriptures" is remarkably different for him than it is for you. Hence to cite those words, when he did not mean what you take them to mean (as his usage demonstrates) is fundamentally to *mis*understand him. Hence also the point of my tessera analogy. You cite the words, but you place them in an alien context.
Pr. Alms, I note that your last citation begins with a quote. Which book of the Bible is it from?
Father Hogg,
I understand your point.
To restate: Cyril's reading of the Bible is such that it produces doctrine and practice such as chrismation and epiclesis.
Thus it is wrong for Lutherans to try to claim him for their reading of the Scriptures since it is clear that Cyril and Lutherans have a fundamentally different reading of the Bible.
I wasnt really trying to make a big point about Cyril and Lutherans or to say, "aha, look Cyril really is a Lutheran when it comes to the bible."
He isn't. He has some good things to say. The quote I posted was one. We( a general we, whoever) do well to study him and his times.
That said, I think Weedon's point is well taken. Scripture is always the test.
These posts were very enlightening! Although we should refrain from quoting people out of context, if I was to utilize Father Hogg's philosophy, I could only quote people of whom I am in 100 percent agreement with on doctrinal matters. Would this imply that only Lutherans should quote Luther? Or only Calvinists may quote John zCalvin? I think not. All men are fallible sinners and imperfect, but this need not impede our learning from our ancestors of faith.
Frank Marron
Mr. Marron,
I think you missed the point. Revs. Alms and Weedon quoted Cyril of Jerusalem with approval because of his apparent endorsement of a version of "sola Scriptura." I merely pointed out that the _same_ father, in the _same_ writing, makes reference to things which most s.S. readers of the Bible today deny. (One need only consider a recent thread in the Orthodox/Lutheran dialogue list to see another Lutheran minister deny the Scripturality of chrismation.) I think it's fair to say that Cyril himself is a more faithful witness to what he means than any of us is.
So I am not advocating that one must be in 100% agreement on doctrinal matters before one quotes someone. I am advocating, however, that Cyril may not quite hold the view of Scripture than an isolated quote may suggest. There is a tendency on the part of some to quote this or that father in support of their view. "Gobbets" circulate about the Fathers and Scripture, the Fathers and justification etc. Yet citations from those same fathers which take a different point of view are mysteriously absent.
Really, if a man wants to believe sola Scriptura, I see no need for him to look to the fathers for approval of his view. It is rather self-defeating to say, "See--sola Scriptura! The fathers told me so."
Fr. Gregory,
Tiresome it is, says Yoda, when ever the fathers say something inconvenient to any modern church to hear the same old excuse about how one is not taking them in context. Reading the Fathers is the cure, and the more one reads, the more one discovers points that challenge the Church of today in its pidgeon-holing of these Fathers. "He can't mean what he says because that's not what we teach." Nonesense. He means what he says and he says what he means. St. Cyril invites his hearers to discard whatever he says that is not found in conformity with the Scriptures. He was a wise and holy man. Would you say the same about your teaching? I know you would. It is the godly approach.
In response to the last two comments,one from Father Hogg and the other from Pastor Weedon:
These illustrate my personal experiences communicating with Roman Catholics in particular. Lutherans maintain that since only Holy Scripture is infallible and without error, Scripture is the norm for all else. Furthermore, it is maintained that Scripture interprets Scripture, not any "Magesterium" or church body. Hence, although the Lutheran Confessions quote many early Church Fathers, illustrating the Catholicity of the Reformers, the Word of God forms the primary basis for the Confessions. However, using Holy Scripture as the norm, many early Fathers erred in their teachings and one must always read them through the lens of the Word of God. To take everything the Fathers wrote or said as absolute truth would lead one quickly into heresy.
Frank Marron
Tiresome it may be to Yoda, or to you; but I am not denying the point you make, you are ignoring the point I make.
Read Catechetical Lecture 21, on Holy Chrismation. Cyril *does* deliver this mystery with the Holy Scriptures (1 John 2.20-28), and describes the mystery of chrismation point-by-point with the Holy Scriptures.
The words of Cyril are best understood by seeing how he puts them to use, for usage determines meaning.
Is chrismation, in fact, "a divine and holy mystery of the Faith," "delivered with the Holy Scripture?" Then why do you not submit to it?
Or is it a "mere plausibility and artifice of speech"? Then you impugn the character of the very man you cite as witness, for you say that he who taught us to deliver the faith with Scripture, *mis*used the Scripture in delivering that faith.
Let me remind you that Cyril adds it is a matter connected with salvation: "this *salvation* which we believe...", and "For this holy thing (chrism) is a spiritual safeguard of the body, and *salvation* of the soul."
Not that it matters but I really had no thought of Orthodoxy vs. Lutheranism or sola sciptura when I cited Cyril. I certainly wasnt thinking of christmation!
I had in mind a recent blog dicscussion among Lutherans concerning the nature of theology and speech about God. Some were emphasizing that God is bigger than our categories and thus we are free to talk of God beyond such limitations.
Cyril it seemed to me was saying that our speech ought to be governed by the patterns of Holy Scriputres wherein Gdo has revealed HIS truth. Any attempt to go beyond such speech is inherently dangerous to the theological task.
That was the intent of the author. The readers make their own conclusions, to be sure!
Father Hogg,
I read Lecture 21 at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310121.htm
Although this lecture claims to be based upon 1John 2:20-28, this is a good illustration for why I am not Orthodox,but instead Lutheran. Your post seemed to indicate that there were extensive Scripture references for each and every word uttered by Cyril. However, this simply is not the case. While there certainly are correlations between Lecture 21 and 1John and Scripture in general,there is absolutely no Scripture references for the Aristotelian philosophy expounded in paragraph 3, which expounds Transubstantiation.
Hence, I can see where many early Church Fathers are useful in showing us their faith and reasoning, but only Holy Scripture itself is the absolute rule and norm for what weare to cleave to. Holy Scripture must be the lens by which a man reads and understands everything anyone else says. If I were to read only the writings of Cyril,perhaps I would be persuaded to be Orthodox in my faith. Since I go directly to the source of all salvation knowledge, the Holy Scriptures, I am in a superior position for comprehending the Grace of God in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Frank Marron
Dear Frank,
I have no idea who you are, or what your study of theology (or of Aristotle, for that matter) has been. But St. Cyril of Jerusalem does not expound transsubstantiation. Nor would we expect St. Cyril to offer Scriptural support for a teaching he would discuss in the lectures just following.
Cordially,
Fr. Gregory Hogg
Father Hogg,
According to the link I mentioned earlier, Paragraph 3 from Lecture 21 includes the sentence: "For as the Bread of the Eucharist. after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer, but the Body of Christ". If this is not the philosophy of Transubstantiation, what else is it? Reading further, one can see where there are definate hints of the Orthodox belief in the deification of believers(e.g. impart His Divine Nature), which is heresy. Although believers'bodies become temples of the Holy Spirit, they remain "simul justus et peccator" until the Last Day when our bodies are raised incorruptible to join our resurrected spirits which already reside with Christ in the heavenlies.
Frank Marron
Frank, you wrote:
According to the link I mentioned earlier, Paragraph 3 from Lecture 21 includes the sentence: "For as the Bread of the Eucharist. after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer, but the Body of Christ". If this is not the philosophy of Transubstantiation, what else is it?
Rx: The confession of Christ's real presence in the eucharist. He himself says, of the eucharistic bread, "Take, eat, this is my body."
The Roman teaching of transsubstantiation was officially promulgated by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 AD.
FM:
Reading further, one can see where there are definate hints of the Orthodox belief in the deification of believers(e.g. impart His Divine Nature), which is heresy. Although believers'bodies become temples of the Holy Spirit, they remain "simul justus et peccator" until the Last Day when our bodies are raised incorruptible to join our resurrected spirits which already reside with Christ in the heavenlies.
Rx:
May I recommend that before you assess something as heresy, you study?
Frank Marron
Father Hogg,
You suggest that I must "study" before I dare comment on theological notions,such as heresy. I hope you mean "study the Scriptures"? Contrary to professional churchmen, it doesn't take years of attending a seminary in order to recognize heresy, but rather the ability to discern and distinguish based upon the Word of God. So for example, the fact that Mormonism claims that believers can actually become deified makes them heretical since only God is Divine and I am commanded not to have any other god other than the One revealed to me in Scripture: Yahweh,better revealed in the Holy Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Most religious sects which emphasize a deification of man fail to concentrate on the cross of Christ as the basis for our value: the fact that out of sheer Grace, God Himself took the punishment for our sins so that whoever believes is legally declared Not Guilty! and is reckoned as Righteous on account of Christ alone. Such a faith apprehends the gift of the forgiveness of sins, which is credited to his account. This is biblical faith as described in Holy Writ. Although I have advanced secular degrees from prestigious institutions,it doesn't take a genius to see that heresy is believing that a human being can either become a god in any manner, way. shape, or form. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck,it is most likely a duck. Any religion that concentrates on a man becoming increasingly godlike is the opposite of the Gospel. Only the Gospel, which claims the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to believers through the vehicle of faith creates assurance of salvation. Any other belief-system is a form of self righteousness and works, which robs a man of the certainty and assurance of his salvation. The Lutheran emphasis is to always look outside of oneself to the cross of Christ for assuranace, while others tend to concentrate looking inward to the an "improved" self. The latter has one always questioning whether he has done enough, has improved enough,etc... In Matthew chapter 5 Christ exegeted the Law of God for the Scribes and Pharisees of his day by saying a man can be saved by the Law alright, if their righteousness exceeds that of the fanatical religious Pharisees, but this means he must be perfect in thought, word,and deed. To a thinking man, this means that a Righteousness based on Law is impossible, and hence one should hear the Gospel of the Grace of God in Christ Jesus as the solution. Unfortunately, many people do not "study" the Scriptures and think about them, resulting in a continued reliance on the Law again for their "justification". This continued reliance on the Law can also involve concentrating on the Holy Spirit as a power source to enable a man to obey the commandments better and better. This is the trap men fall into: you can never obey or please God enough.
FrankMarron
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '? 35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)..."
Notice the beginning of verse 35:
He called them gods...
Subject: He (i.e. God)
verb: called
ind. object: them+
dir. object: gods
+=(explained as those "to whom the word of God came," i.e. human beings)
And lest you think like the Jews he was speaking to, the Lord adds, "Scripture cannot be broken."
There's a beginning for discussion. But this blog belongs to Pr. Alms, not to me, and I defer to him.
Fr. Gregory
Well, Frank, theosis, or divinization, is a very interesting topic and one that I would not call heresy. In Christian usage it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mormon doctrine.
Father Hogg can explain its patristic and especially Greek Patristic roots better than I but it is really a consequence of the Incarnation. Theosis does not mean that we ontologically become God or gods. The Scripture teaches a difference in being between God the creator and all else. We never cross that line or we would cease to be his creatures.
Yet the Word became flesh and we have a real communion with the Godhead in Christ and the sacraments. There is a real likeness that God imparts through our being members of the body of Christ.
One might contemplate 2 Peter 1:4 in this connection.
Luther taught a type of theosis but his teaching and that of the EO church differs as I am sure Father Hogg would agree. There is an excellent book on Luther and theosis by Maanerma (sp?) whose title escapes me. Luthers theosis is one driven by faith and the exchange between Christ and sinner.
Also, the EO church does not teach transubstantiation. That, as Hogg indicates is really, a Western thing.
Pastor Alms,
I appreciate your response. Let me clarify my thinking a bit. The reason I brought up Mormonism is to merely illustrate a major movement in America that seems to be tied to the sin in the Garden of Eden, where the serpent in Genesis 3:5 tempted man to be like God Himself. Being familiar with Mormonism, I know this thinking permeates Mormonism. To a lesser extent it is present in all religions of the Law, even Evangelical Christianity. Fallen man simply must contribute towards his salvation and the emphasis is always inward looking at the “improved” self, rather than outward looking to the cross of Christ. You say such thinking is not heresy? What would you call it: wrong thinking based upon the Word of God? All believers in Christ have “wrong thinking” to one extent or the other,but most false doctrines held by Christian denominations do not override their saving faith in the atonement of Christ – or else no one is saved, including Lutherans!
I checked out 2Peter 1:4 as you suggested. Verses like this one, if taken by themselves without referring to other Scripture, would lead one to emphasize a sort of deification of believers. In EO the emphasis is on the Incarnattion of Christ, not the cross of Christ. Hence, the fracturing which took place in the Garden of Eden is being reversed in EO through a Theosis: God became man in order that man can become God. As I stated previously, the Reformation saw the principle of simul justus et peccator, where there was no insistence on the merging of man’s will with God’s will, as in EO. The Reformation, through Scripture, saw 2 natures in Christ and no comingling of our attribute’s with Christ’s. Neither is there a comingling of the divine and human attributes of Christ. The emphasis was on a free gift bestowed, not transferred within us. God reaches down to me and adopts me as His child while I was yet a sinner. There was absolutely no improvement within me to merit such a Gracious attitude. Most non-Lutheran belief systems, including Evangelicalism, combine Justification and Sanctification, and the natural tendency is to emphasize the outward improvements in believers as signs of their holiness and value to God. In this respect I see EO in similar terms.
Father Hogg,
The cult referred to as Jehovah Witness continually rewrites the bible in order to eliminate any refernce to the deity of Jesus Christ. Since the entire bible is about Christ, this is a never ending task for them. One of the famous passages in the bible referencing the deity of Christ is John 1:1,which says "...the Word was God". The Watchtower Society translates this as "...the Word was a god". Now, my question for JWs is "how many gods are there"? That is the same question I put to you Father Hogg. Could it be that Jesus is the vine and we are the branches(John 15)? That as we are united to Him by Grace through Faith, we form what St Paul referred to as the Body of Christ here on earth(Eph 3)? And yet believers are not gods, are they? Are believers rather adopted children of God based upon their Faith in Messiah/Christ and the imputation of His Righteousness(Romans 4)?
Frank Marron
Frank,
Enfleshed God says they are gods, to whom the word of God came. And he adds that the Scriptures cannot be broken.
God makes us to become by grace, what he is by nature. That is why Peter walked on the water, for example.
But this is a *very* difficult conversation to have on line.
Father Hogg,
I understand that this it is often difficult to communicate online, and soI willmake this brief. I haver witnessed any person walkon water the way the Scriptures record Peter as doing. Are you saying that since believers are gods, they are all capableof such miraculous things? I alsohave noted that everyone seems to die and are either buried or cremated or lost at sea,etc... Can gods die?
Fr. Hogg, (or Pr. Alms or anyone else),
The passage under discussion is John 10:34-35. Jesus is quoting an Old Testament passage to establish that the Jews should not stone Him for calling Himself the Son of God.
Do you know what Old Testament passage it is?
What do you think it means?
Kerner-
Psalm 82:5-8 seems to the primary OT refernce passages.This definitely acolds anyone who thinks he is a "god" because it is foolishness: all men, even "sons of the Most High", eventually die and are always subject to God.
Frank Marron
Post a Comment