CHAPTER 9
Reading the Early Church Fathers 122. Apostolic Constitutions 3.2 (3.20).
123. Apostolic Constitutions 2.7 (2.57). See also 7.2 (7.25) for an example of a eucharistic prayer.
124. Apostolic Constitutions 5.3 (5.19).
125. Apostolic Constitutions 2.3 (2.12, 14, 18, 20, 24).
126. Apostolic Constitutions 2.3 (2.16).
127. Apostolic Constitutions 6.3 (6.15).
128. Apostolic Constitutions 6.3'(6.16).
129. Apostolic Constitutions 7.2 (7.24, 29).
130. Apostolic Constitutions 7.5 (7.4749).
131. Apostolic Constitutions 7.3 (7.39).
132. Apostolic Constitutions 8.4 (8.34).
CHAPTER 9
1. David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now:
Contemporary Hermeneutics in Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 136. According to Dockery,
Augustine joined the Manichees for the same reason that Marcion had gravitated toward docetism: an attempt to find a satisfying answer to the problem of evil.
2. Eusebius criticized the syncretism of the Manichees, saying that their founder, Mani, had "stitched together" various doctrines and heresies (see Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History
7oay 3. Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of Fohn 40.9.
Although Augustine seems to be referring to Isaiah 7:9, his Latin version is based on the Greek translation in the Septuagint (LXX).
4. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions Book 9.
5. Novatian had hinted at this (see Novatian, On the Trinity 29.6-11).
6. Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 43, Tatian, Address to the Greeks 7, Theophilus of Antioch, Jo Autolycus 2.27, Irenaeus of Lyons,
Against Heresies 4.37.1—4. Irenaeus says that humans have free will because we are made in the image of God, and God has free will.
Note, however, that angels also have free will (Justin Martyr, 2 Apology 7, Dialogue with Trypho 141, Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Notes Heresies 4.37.1), but animals do not Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 43, Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 1.6). The consensus among these writers is that if humans did not have free will, then there would be no moral responsibility and evil would be part of creation.
That evil is not part of creation, and God as Creator is not responsible for evil, see Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 44, Tatian, Address to the Greeks 11, Theophilus of Antioch, 7o Autolycus 2.17, Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 6, Hippolytus, Refutation of All
Heresies 1.16. Therefore, whoever is rejected by God is rejected on the basis of God's foreknowledge of the individual's rejection of Christ by his or her own free will, not on the basis of predestination Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 44, Dialogue with Trypho 141, Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4.29.2, 4.39.4). As Theophilus had said,
"Tt was not the tree, as some think, but the disobedience, which had death in it" (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2.25).
7. Arius had combined adoptionism with an Eastern optimism (based on the Stoic concept of virtue as moral progress) which has affinity with the concept of deification, or theosis. He had applied these ideas to Christology, which resulted in a soteriology of human effort. In some ways, however, Eastern Christianity was not influenced as much by Augustine and so never lost this classical optimism. Therefore, the East seems to have retained the assumption of free will, resulting in less of an emphasis on original sin.
8. Augustine of Hippo, Ox the Spirit and the Letter 4.
9. Augustine of Hippo, On the Spirit and the Letter 52.
10. Augustine of Hippo, On the Spirit and the Letter 23.
11. Augustine of Hippo, On the Spirit and the Letter 25, 54.
By contrast, Pelagius argued (from Plato) that if we know the good, we can do it. For Pelagius, what we need is information, to know what choices to make. For Augustine, what we need is inner healing from God.
12. Augustine of Hippo, On the Spirit and the Letter 60.
13.
Lam indebted to one of my former professors, Dennis E.
Groh, for this idea. My understanding of Augustine is shaped in large part by listening to his lectures when I was his teaching assistant. I will always be grateful for his perspective.
14. But see Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success (New
Reading the Early Church Fathers York: Random House, 2006), in which Stark argues that the "Dark
Ages" were not really as dark as we've been led to believe. Note that the fifth century also included the fall of the Roman Empire in the West.
15. Though they were the minority in Hippo, and perhaps even in North Africa, in the bigger picture of the worldwide
Church, the Catholics were the majority.
16. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 10.6.
17. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 10.6.
18. Augustine assumed that the greater affects the lesser, implying that purity purifies the impure (Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity 6.8).
19. Note that the relative uniqueness of Christ is related to ecclesiology as well. If, as the orthodox argued, Christ is unique among humanity, then the Church must be inclusive, since no one can be perfect like Christ. If Arius and Pelagius are right, however, and Christ is more of an example to be followed than a Savior by divine intervention, perfection might be expected of his followers.
The less unique Christ is understood to be, the more is expected of believers, so it is arguably the case that for the Arians as well as the rigorists, the Church is meant to be exclusive, only for true believers.
20. Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to FourthCentury Trinitarian Theology (New York: Oxford University Press,
2004), 190, 194, 216.
21. Hilary of Poitiers had written, "Much obscurity is caused by a translation from Greek into Latin, and to be absolutely literal is to be sometimes partly unintelligible" (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Councils 9.
22. Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume 1:
From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 334-37.
23. Ibid., 339.
24. Hippolytus, Against Noetus 17, Against Beron 8.
Hippolytus clarified that the full humanity of the Son meant that he did have a human rational soul (mind and will). This means that the person of Christ has two wills, one divine and one human (see
Roch Kereszty, Fesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology [New York:
Society of St. Paul/Alba House, 2002], 365; cf. Ayres, Nicaea and Its
Notes Legacy, 296-97). Note that there is only one will in the Trinity. The three persons of the Trinity do not have one will each for a total of three wills; this is made necessary by the assumption of monotheism, and is demonstrated by the concept of inseparable operation.
The will is an attribute of the substance, not a personal property, so that there is one will in the divine substance of the Trinity, and one will in the human substance of the human nature of Christ. Therefore, the will of the divine nature of Christ zs the will of the Trinity.
When Jesus says, "not my will, but yours be done" in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:42), it is just as accurate to say that the mind/will of the human nature in Christ conforms to the mind/will of the divine nature in Christ, as it is to say that the mind/will of the Son conforms to the mind/will of the Father. The mind/will of the divine nature of the Son is the mind/will of the Father (cf.
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 1.34). Origen had also affirmed the human will in Christ, but apparently did not allow that the human nature of Christ had free will. He seems to have feared the same thing as Apollinarius, that a free human will in Jesus might result in sin, and then he would be disqualified as Savior. Whereas
Origen had simply implied that the human will of Christ was not free, Apollinarius speculated that Christ had no human will.
25. Nestorius's term for the two natures was prosopon, the same word others were using to talk about the whole person of Christ. Because of this, Nestorianism is often characterized as dividing Christ into "two persons." But this is a good example of how a debate can be exacerbated by the fact that some people were using the same Greek word to mean different things, or in other cases, different words to mean the same thing.
26. It is also consistent with the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum as we saw it in Novatian (see Novatian, On the Trinity
13.5, 18.5, 22.9, 24.8-10).
27. Ina document known as the Bazaar of Heraclides, it is said that Nestorius agreed with Leo's Tome and the Chalcedonian
Definition.
28. Tertullian, Against Praxeas 27. See also Eric Osborn, Tertullian: First Theologian of the West (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1997), 140.
29. Leo of Rome, Epistle 28.
Reading the Early Church Fathers 30. Leo of Rome, Epistle 95.
31. Leo of Rome, Epistle 28. Cf. Novatian, On the Trinity 13.3. The account of the acceptance of Leo's Tome changes depending on who is telling the story. Official reports record that the Tome was accepted unanimously, with shouts of "Leo speaks for Peter!"
Other accounts claim that the bishops were pressured to accept it by the emperor as part of an attempt to secure the supremacy of Rome (see Matthias F Wahba, Monophysitism Reconsidered [Sacramento, CA: St. Mary Coptic Orthodox Church, n.d.], 8-10).
32. Tertullian, Against Praxeas 27.11, On the Flesh of Christ 13, Novatian, On the Trinity 24.9. Cf. Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist 4, Against Beron \-2.
33. There is some continuing legacy of traditional schools of thought in Alexandria and Antioch that contributes to the differences in perspective. As Wahba points out, "While Antioch formulated its christology against Apollinarius and Eutyches, Alexandria did against Arius and Nestorius" (Monophysitism Reconsidered, 12).
In other words, as authors often attempted to define Christology in reaction to perceived heresy, the Antiochenes, building on the foundation of Theophilus, reacted against the Alexandrian emphasis on unity and proposed a distinction of natures. Thus, in the realm of theology Antioch tended to lean toward adoptionism and, in the realm of Christology, toward Nestorianism. On the other hand, the Alexandrians reacted against the Antiochene emphasis on distinction (perceived as too much separation) and proposed a unity of natures that confused the natures. Thus, in the realm of theology, Alexandria tended to lean toward modalism and, in the realm of Christology, toward monophysitism. Even Cyril of Alexandria had at one time been a follower of Apollinarius. In the past it was conventional to say that the Eastern Church emphasized distinction while the Western Church emphasized unity. It has now been recognized that this is an oversimplification, if only because there are orthodox in both the East and the West. If one put Alexandria with the West, however, there is still some truth to it.
34. There were some early attempts at reconciliation, most notably by the emperors Justinian and Zeno.
35. The Oriental Orthodox Church includes the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, as well as the Armenian, Syrian,
Notes Ethiopian, and Malankara Indian churches (Wahba, Monophysitism Reconsidered, 3).
36. Wahba, Monophysitism Reconsidered, 12-14. The Coptics agree that Eutyches was a heretic.
37. The phrase "in two natures" from Leo's Tome is still thought by the Coptics to leave too much room for a separation of natures. They prefer the phrase "from two natures." But this phrase was rejected at Chalcedon because it was perceived as leaving too much room for a confusion of natures after the incarnation.
38. Wahba, Monophysitism Reconsidered, 15.
39. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 2.5.4. Irenaeus wrote that it is inappropriate to say that God is bound by anything.
40. Sometimes the title Cur Deus Homo? is translated "Why God Became Man." However, there is no verb in the title, so a better translation is "Why the God-Manp" Ultimately, it is not about the incarnation per se but about the two natures of Christ, the "God-Man."
41. On the balance of mercy and justice in God, see Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.8.
42. Anselm was probably influenced by the concept of a debt of honor, or the allegiance that would be owed to a landowner by his tenants in a feudal society.
43. The label satisfaction theory is also preferable because it avoids confusion with a later theory of atonement known as penal substitution.
44. James L. Papandrea, Spiritual Blueprint: How We Live, Work, Love, Play, and Pray (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications,
2010), 51-53.
45. Note that the issue here is the question of whether Adam's sin affected only his person or his nature. Pelagius would argue that Adam's sin only affected him as an individual, not human nature in general. Anselm, however (and to a certain extent
Augustine), would argue that since Adam and Eve constituted the whole of humanity at the time, when they sinned their sin affected all of humanity through the universality of human nature. If Pelagius was right, and Adam's sin affected only his person, then there is no original sin, and Adam (and indeed Christ) influences us only by example. If, however, one applies the concept of consub-
Reading the Early Church Fathers stantiality to human nature, then Adam' sin affects us in a way that can only be counteracted by Christ's consubstantiality with humanity. This arguably demonstrates that Arian and Pelagian salvation is more of an individual salvation, while Augustine's and Anselm's soteriology leans more toward the corporate (see Augustine of Hippo, On Original Sin 16, and Anselm of Canterbury, On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin).
46. Note that Clement of Alexandria had said that involuntary sin would not be held against a person. In fact, he said there were two types of involuntary sin; sins committed in ignorance, and sins committed through necessity (Clement of Alexandria,
Miscellanies 2.14).
47. In this sense, Abelard was influenced by Augustine and his emphasis on love as the primary motivation.
48. For the story of Abelard's life in his own words, see his autobiography, The Story of My Misfortunes (Historia Calamitatum).
Abelard's relationship with Heloise is famous and has been the subject of numerous books and films.
49. Note that each christological position assumes a certain anthropology and necessarily implies a certain soteriology. For example, adoptionism assumes an optimism about humanity that allows that humans could progress to perfection and earn their adoption by God. Adoptionist Christology is one in which Christ is the pioneer of self-salvation. The Savior saves by setting the example for those who may follow in his footsteps. Adoptionist
Christology is a Christology of ascent and therefore adoptionist soteriology is ultimately a salvation by human effort—it's what we do that saves us, not what Christ did. The grace of God is defined as God's gift of the teaching of Jesus and the example that he set for us. Therefore, the mainstream Church reasoned that if the Adoptionists were right, most (if not all) humans have little hope of salvation, and this is what gave the Arian controversy its urgency in the fourth century. It was one thing for theologians to argue whether Christ was coeternal in the past with the Father, but many
Christians worried that if salvation required earning God's favor, then all hope is lost. On the other extreme, the soteriology implied by docetism, gnosticism, and modalism is a salvation of divine intervention, but without any human element. In each case, Christ
Notes is not really a human being, so his interaction with humanity is as divine revealer but not as representative of humanity. This is a version of a Christology of descent, but one in which the descent only goes so far. Christ came only to bring secret knowledge, only to a spiritual elite who were predestined to it, or in the case of modalism the Father comes "in disguise," but in neither case does Christ truly experience the human condition. Thus he is of God, but not one of us. In contrast to these extremes, the mainstream Church affirmed that for Christ to save us, he had to be both divine and one of us. And as one of us, he made it clear that God's love and forgiveness are offered to all people, not just to an elite few.
Subject Index Abortion, 19, 35, 101, 251-52 Adoptionism/Adoptionists, 81, Apostolic authority, 48-55, 98, 147, 150-53, 156, 218, 226-27, 261 Apostolic succession, 21-22, 111, 116-17, 141-46, 183-86, 189, 205, 216, 228, 239=3 9; 2559258, 3028322, 325, 329, 3325334 Aeons, 66, 70-71, 275-76 Against Praxeas (Tertullian), 25, 48, 53, 76, 94, 100, 149-50, 153-55, 166, 1692) ORV/2, bec eT, 2536 Dose OF US eo LO Appropriation, 241, 301 Aquarianism, 66, 82, 271-72 Archons. See Aeons Ascension of Christ, 72, 82, 95, 102, 152, 284, 286-87, 296, 306-7, 331-32 Alexander of Alexandria, 112, 157, 185-87, 190, 210, 239,
Allegory/allegorical method, 140, 281 Ascent Christology. See under Christology Asceticism, 40, 48, 62, 65-67, 30-31, 55, 114, 116, 130-32, 134-38, 233-36, 298-99 Almsgiving, 31, 167, 194 Ambrose of Milan, 135, 202-3, 72, 74, 82-83, 112, 151, 155, 19352327309 Asia Minor, 41, 44, 77-78, 92,
Angel Christology. See under 11237136, 15:15 210-1023, 232, 239, 246, 261, 310 Athanasius of Alexandria, 113, Christology Anselm of Canterbury, 134, 220-24, 333-34 Antoninus Pius, Emperor, 13, 124, 190, 200, 202, 210-12, 239, 281, 303, 324 Athenagoras, 41-42, 46, 100, 37-38 Apollinarianism/Apollinarius,
ZAG, 2025 2) OU, 206
Atonement, 36, 69, 73, 167, 212-16, 218, 238-40, 295, 324, 331-32 206, 220-25, 232, 333 aol
Reading the Early Church Fathers Christology of descent, 143, Augustine of Hippo, 134-35, 184, 187, 239, 335; hybrid Christology, 67-68, 70, 72, 74, 139, 231-32, 238, 274, 300; kenosis Christology, 117, 129, 238, 336; Logos Christology, 8, 32.37, 40, 43-45, 61, 81, 86-87, 94-95, 102, 104, 106, 108-10, 115, 117, 126, 129, 142-43, 183, 185, 212-13, 232-33, 237-39, 264, 283, 288, 295, 302, 316, 323; spirit Christology, 80, 322 Circumincessio. See Perichoresis Circumscribability/ 137, 175, 200-210, 212-13, 247, 219220, 222, 224-25, 227, 268, 295, 299-300, 317-18, 324-25, 328-30, 333-34 Augustus, Emperor, 11, 172, N77, 7?
Authorship: of scripture, 24, 74-75, 122-23, 125, 126, 1295299, 292, 293-94 Balance. See Middle way Begetting. See Generation Birth of Christ. See Incarnation Cassius Dio, 247 Catacombs, 12, 106, 149, 166, circumscription, 95-96, 103-4, 109, 214-15, 242,
Clement of Alexandria, 34-35, 176.29, 195; 267 Catechesis, 7, 18, 26, 30, 44-45, 52, 56, 90-91, 95, 105, 111, 134, 144, 147, 174, 189, 192, 250, 303, 325 Cemeteries. See Catacombs Chalcedon, Fourth Ecumenical 44, 46, 54, 58, 86, 111, 12223, 134, 252, 257, 259-61, 265-68, 273, 281-82, 291, 293-97, 303, 305, 308, 323-24, 329, 333-34 Communicatio tdiomatum, 107, Council of (451 CE), 105, 217-18, 238, 240, 280, 290, 299; 3025 322350-31,533 Charismatic authority, 15, 48, LL 7 e242 13 Confession. See Penance Confessors, 15, 17, 25, 39, 48, 98-99, 150-51, 153, 161-62, 1675193, 2272325 Christ: as "angel of the Lord,"
102, 161-62, 164-65, 167, 173, 192-93, 311, 314, 317,
Constantinople, 181-82, 187, 280, 282; as Messenger, 96, 103,117 Christology: angel Christology, 190-91, 211, 214, 216-17, 238-39, 295 Constantinople, Second 80-81, 238, 273, 280, 322; Christology of ascent, 143, Ecumenical Council of (381
CE), 191, 211, 238-39
183, 187, 239, 334;
Subject Index 86-88, 93-94, 104, 108, 110-11, 121, 128, 132, 139-40, 146, 216, 231-32, 238, 253, 255, 269-72, 292-93, 328 Domitian, Emperor, 11-12, Consubstantiality, 96, 99, 103, 107, 115, 117, 145, 184-89, 226 2AN= 1 121 Op 22207 575 239, 241-42, 287, 289, 302-3, 324, 331, 334 Corinth, 20-21, 50, 59, 61, 19-20, 247, 294 Donatists, 170, 173, 175, 181, 268-69 Cornelius of Rome, 116, 162, 207-9, 226, 295, 318 Dualism, 60, 64-67, 108, 232, 164-65, 308, 312, 319 Corruptbility/incorruptibility, 269, 275 Dynamic monarchianism. See 61,110, 222,241, 279 Councils, ecumenical. See Adoptionism Dynamic subordination, 17 individual councils by name Creeds, 56, 100, 108, 118, 144, 165, 188-89, 190, 192, 202, 210-11, 213, 217, 286, 324,
Cyprian of Carthage, 115-16, Ebionites, 77-82, 86, 88, 94,
104, FOZ TUL 113, 116, 123;
141, 146, 193, 232, 273-75, 278, 280-81 Economy. See Hierarchy Edict of Milan, 180 Edict of Toleration, 179 Ephesus, Third Ecumenical 148-50, 160-75, 193, 207, 251, 262-63, 267, 271-72, 285, 291, 295-96, 303-6, 309-19, 325-27 Council of (431 CE), 24, 37, Demiurge, 64, 70 Descent Christology. See under 104, 7, 217, 238,240) 253,
Epiphanius of Salamis, 269-81, Christology Dionysius of Alexandria, 127, 300-302, 307 Episcopacy, 20-21, 22, 25, 51, 144-45, 164, 293-95, 298, 310. 3123 1o. Bee Dionysius of Rome, 145, 150, 53, 147-50, 196, 261-62, 288, 303-4, 319 Essence. See Consubstantiality Eternal generation, 115, 185, 303.522
Dispensationalism, 29-30, 48-49, 94, 98, 125, 151, 255, 283, 294-95, 298 Divine intervention. See under 187, 190, 242, 322, 324 Ethics. See Morality Eucharist, 8, 27, 38, 52-53, 55, 57-58, 66-67, 82, 84, 130, 149, 154, 165-66, 173, 192, 1955 198,219, 254, 262,265, Salvation Docetics/docetism, 26, 32, 59-68, 72, 74-75, 77-78, 82, 539°
Reading the Early Church Fathers 61, 63, 147-48, 246, 251, 253-54, 262-63, 266-68, 270-71, 278, 281-82, 287, 292, 304-5, 314; and authorship, 27 Immutability/mutability, 69, 267, 270-71, 274, 317-19, 3255328 Eutyches, 216-19, 226, 238, 240, 332-33 Exposure of infants, 19, 35, 101, 251=52 79,94, 103, 107,109) L1sh, 117, 186, 214, 216, 241, 279,
Impassibility/passibility, 68, 72, Filioque, 202, 212-13, 324 First Cause, 103, 111 94-95, 241-42, 274 Incarnation, 8, 55, 57, 63-68, Generation, 96, 103, 107-9, 145, 184, 186, 239, 242, 323-24 Grace, 70, 78, 81-82, 169-70, 71, 73, 78-81, 86-88, 94, 96, 104, 108-10, 114-15, 117, 129-30, 140, 142-43, 190,
(92) 1G 1642230233230,
240,246, 255,251, 205, 273-74, 280, 292, 300,
Incorruptibility. See 174, 201, 203-7, 209-10, 222, 224-25, 251, 334 Hierarchy: within the Trinity,
96, 103, 1085 TL 7237
Hippolytus, 102, 105-11, 115, 129, 140, 146-48, 151-53, 162, 173-74, 192, 237, 269-81, 287-90, 296, 301, 303-4, 307, 310, 318, 325, 329, 330, 332; questions of authorship, 107, 287, 289 Historia Augusta, 250, 309 Human effort. See under Corruptibility Inseparable operation, 104, 232, 241, 301, 324, 331 Jerome, 135-36, 248, 258, 278, 284, 290, 294-95, 299 Jerusalem, 8, 11, 35, 41, 44, 64, 78-79, 82, 87, 99, 112, 130, LOS. aes Justin Martyr, 14, 37-42, 46, Salvation Human representation. See under Salvation Hybrid Christology. See under S253 Oe 20 bode 147, 246, 249, 252, 255-58, 261-63, 265-77, 280-81, 292, 295-96, 308, 328-29 Christology Hymns, 45, 54-55, 63, 143, 198, 258, 264-65 Hypostatic (personal) union, Katharoi, 165. See also 215, 217, 240 Novationists Kenosis, 117, 237, 242; see also Ignatius of Antioch, 4, 13, 17, under Christology 24-28, 32, 42, 51-52, 56-57,
Sulject Index Lapsed, 160-69, 173-75, 178, 125, 150-54, 161, 173-74, 285, 307-5,.30 1,305 Morality, 7, 18-19, 30, 35, 45, 194, 208, 263, 296, 310-14, 3185 3.25
Laxists, 116, 161-63 Leo of Rome, 217, 240, 50, 1259/99, 06135, 138, 192, 199, 235-36, 303, 308,
Mother of God, 104, 214-15, 331-33 Logos Christology. See under Christology 218-19, 240 Music. See Hymns Mutability. See Immutability Marcion/Marcionites, 59, 63-67, 104, 121, 129, 131-32, 139, 154, 171, 226, 228, 231, 246, 271-72, 292, 310,328 Messiah, 38, 41, 65, 78-79, Nero, Emperor, 11-12, 85, 102, 246-47 Nestorianism/Nestorius, 214-18, 226, 238, 240, 324, 331-32 Nicaea, First Ecumenical 127-29, 233, 278, 280 Middle way, 62, 107, 117-18, 137, 145-47, 189, 206, 210, 213, 215-18, 224-28, 232, 236, 268, 289, 333 Millennialism. See ComncikonG25 GCE), 2.113; 150, 165, 181, 187, 189-90, 202-211, 213,217 fe, 238-39, 274, 278, 302-3, 322-24, 326, 330 Noetus, 106-8, 140, 287-90, Dispensationalism Modalism/Modalist, 102-8, 11 116217 139041, 145-46, 152-53, 185-86, 139210, 212,216,228:
237-39, 288-89, 300-303, 307, 332, 334-35 Monarchianism. See 296,301, 303, 307, 330 North Africa, 14, 48, 90, 97, 149, 160-61, 164, 169, 175, 181, 200-202, 207-9, 250, 268, 307, 311, 318, 330 Novatian, 105, 113, 115-18, Adoptionism; Modalism Monism, 106, 108, 140 Monophysitism. See Eutyches Monotheism, 9, 37, 45, 99, 124, 145-48, 160-66, 169-70, 173, 185-86, 194, 202, 210,715,121 70220.
237, 258, 260, 270, 274, 288, 290-93, 295, 297, 303, 306, 312-28, 331-32,
Novatianists, 165, 173, 226, 102 MEO7, APO S10 eu -G55185;.
259-60 Monothelitism. See Apollinarianism Montanism/Montanists, 30, 48, 51, 53, 89, 92, 98-99, 102, 131, 318, 321; Katharoi, 165
Reading the Early Church Fathers 204,278, 2009285; 292,20), 300, 307 Omnipresence, 99, 109, 214, 241-42, 281, 298 Ordination, 55, 58, 112, 117, Recapitulation. See Typology Reciprocity. See Perichoresis Reconciliation. See Penance Relics, 16, 29, 84-85, 183 Resurrection, 23, 28, 39, 149-50, 165, 173, 186, 192, 208, 237, 266, 288, 304, 315 Origen, 44, 46, 111-15, 120, 130, 134-36, 144, 147, 157, 188, 233, 235, 290-91, 293, 297-99, 322, 331 41-42, 45-46, 56, 61, 66, 72-73, 79, 82-83, 86-87, LUO ste 55.0220. 2 3204, 267, 274-75, 278, 281-82 Revelation, Book of, 12, 14, 20, Passibility. See Impassibility Patripassionism. See Modalists Patronage/patron-client, 28-30, 48-49, 54, 91, 98, 1235¢125,.1-33, (1355-15 5 eli66, 1795 2483256259, 261; 265, 267, 292-95, 298, 310, 320, 336; authorship of, 125, 292, 293-94 Rigorism/rigorists, 98, 115-16, 31-32, 35, 54, 111-12, 157,
Paul of Samosata, 141-44, 150, 183},18553302,322 Pelagianism/Pelagius, 200, 204-7, 222-24, 329-30, 333-34 Penance, 15.731, 5/98, 99, 119, 151-52, 161-65, 168, 173, 193-94, 198, 206-9, 314, 318, 330 Rufinus of Aquileia, 113, 290 106, 116, 148, 161-68, 174, 193-94, 225, 304, 312-14, 313,332 Perichoresis, 107, 241-42, 288 Philo, 131,269; 323 Pliny the Younger, 13, 24, 102, Sabellians/Sabellius. See Modalists Salvation: and divine interven248-50, 258, 264 Polycarp of Smyrna, 14, 24-25, tion, 79, 86, 144, 184, 187, 204, 220, 222, 224, 228, 232, 237, 255, 330, 334; and human effort, 30, 32, 78, 27-29, 32, 65, 89, 91-92, 250-51, 254-55, 263, 270, 2825305033 Praxeas. See Against Praxeas Prophecy/prophets, 9, 15, 34, 144, 184, 187, 204, 219, 223-25 42281937 ,52 39,255, 329, 334; and human representation, 222, 232, 237
Schism, 21, 26, 65, 98, 116, 37; 48-49) 514,65, 76, 78-80, 95, 98-99, 123, 126-28, 137, 142-43, 150-54, 193, 232-33, 258, 148-53, 162, 168-75, 181, 194, 227, 309, 314-18
Subject Index Septimius Severus, Emperor, Theophilus of Antioch, 42-44, 14, 100, 157, 250 92, 108, 136, 142, 183, 185, Simplicity: divine, 241-42 245-46, 253, 256-57, 259, Soteriology, 126, 144, 184, 206, 279, 281-82, 297, 299, 322, 212, 219-21, 223, 225-26, 328-29, 332 228, 329, 334 Theotokos. See Mother of God Spirit Christology. See under Tiberius, Emperor, 11, 102, Christology
Stephen of Rome, 149-50, 'Trajan, Emperor, 13, 20, 24, 169-72, 306, 310, 316 102, 248, 250, 258, 264, 294 Substance. See Typology, 94, 130, 132, Consubstantiality 134-35, 138, 234-35, 267 Suetonius, 10, 246 Syncretism, 62, 66, 110, 270, Unbegotten. See Generation 300, 328 Wisdom, 40, 43, 60, 96, 108-9, Tacitus, 246 135,295,297 Theophanies of the Old.
Word of God. See Logos Testament, 95-96, 129 Christology
Works by the Author from Other Publishers Trinity 101, 2012 Romesick: Making Your Pilgrimage to the Eternal City a Spiritual
Homecoming, 2012 Novatian of Rome and the Culmination of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy, 2011
How to Be a Saint, 2011 The Wedding of the Lamb: A Historical Approach to the Book of Revelation, 2011 Spiritual Blueprint: How We Live, Work, Love, Play, and Pray, 2010
Pray (Not Fust Say) the Lord's Prayer, 2010 "Between Two Thieves:
Novatian of Rome and Kenosis Christology," in Studies on Patristic Texts and Archaeology: If These
Stones Could Speak...Essays in Honor of Dennis Edward Groh, George Kalantzis and Thomas F. Martin, eds., 2009
The Trinitarian Theology of Novatian of Rome: A Study in ThirdCentury Orthodoxy, 2008
For more information about the author, visit www.JimPapandrea.com
"This is the book I wish I had when I was first studying the early Church | and the development of doctrine." —James L. Papandrea
Reading the Early Church Fathers introduces the reader to the primary sources _ of Church history, with commentary that will help the reader make sense of |
. the theological/Christological trajectory that led the Church from the New I Testament era, through the apologists, to the development of the major | doctrines of the Church. Papandrea's treatment of the early Church fathers
| is unique in that he situates his discussion against the social and cultural context of the Roman Empire and its relationship to the Church, especially
4 with regard to the effect of the persecutions on the Church.
Instead of providing actual excerpts of the works under discussion, Reading the Early Church Fathers directs the reader to the primary sources available on the Internet, resources that will be updated regularly. The result, for all students of the early Church, is a unique and unprecedented "big picture" of early Christian literature.
JAMES L. PAPANDREA is assistant professor of church history at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, where he teaches early and medieval church history. He earned his PhD in the history and theology of the early church from Northwestern University.
— Paulist Press ; 7) www.paulistpress.com
ISBN 978-0-8091-4751-9
| | | | | 9°780809"147519