Academic literature on the topic 'Post-Nicene fathers'

The article outlines the philosophical and linguistic background of the Post- Nicene theological debates concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son. A sharp focus dwells of the provenance of the term hypostasis, the phi­losophical and grammatical understanding of the terms hypokeimenon and ousia and the Stoic definition of the signifier and thing signified. The article shows new aspects of the anti-Eunomian polemics of the Cappadocian fathers, which come into sight due to comparison of theological concepts with Hellenic linguistic and grammatical theories. In such a way, the comparison demonstrates methodologi­cal and technical strand of the theological argumentation of the Cappadocian fa­thers and their affinity for the exegetic methodology of Origen.

In 1884, the American Historical Association was founded. Four years later, in 1888, the American Society of Church History came into being. The two events, the founding of the ASCH as well as of the AHA, belong to the larger saga of late nineteenth century professional formation. In field after field, amateur and patrician endeavours fell before what seemed a common strategy to consolidate, standardize, resource, institutionalize, and professionalize. The relation of the ASCH to the AHA is instructive. The two organizations shared much. Both drew significantly upon the idiom and structures of German historical scholarship. The guiding spirit of the AHA, Herbert Baxter Adams, plied his German training in a research seminar at Johns Hopkins whose methods and graduates swept historical efforts across the nation into the AHA orbit. His counterpart, Philip Schaff, conceived the ASCH in comparable instrumental and imperialistic terms. German-born, trained by Ferdinand Christian Baur and Johann A. W. Neander, Schaff put an indelible mark on the field of church history. The scholarship attests the leadership and legacy: a 13-volume American Church History Series (1893-7), his own 6-volume History of the Christian Church (1882-92), a 3-volumc Religious Encyclopaedia (1882-4), adapted from that of J.J. Hcrzog, the 3-volumc Creeds of Christendom (1877), and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, the two series of which ran to 28 and 14 volumes (1886-9, 1890–1900).

Abstract The last two decades have seen extensive research on the Trinitarian theologies of several post-Nicene Fathers. Not much, however, has been done for John Chrysostom. Thomas Karman and Pak-Wah Lai have demonstrated separately that Chrysostom shares several theological beliefs with the Eusebian-Meletians, including the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility, and their anti-Sabellian concerns. Stylianos Papadopoulos has claimed further that Chrysostom is a successor of both Athanasius and the Cap­padocians’ teachings. Among the Cappadocians, it was Basil of Caesarea who first allied himself with the Meletians in the 370s. This makes him a prime candidate for examining Chrysostom’s reception of Cappadocian theology. We observe, first of all, that both ­bishops operate within the Meletian tradition, employing a wide range of Eusebian motifs to denote the Trinitarian relations, including the use of hypostatic language as a safeguard against Sabellianism. Both also assume God’s nature as incomprehensible. Basil, however, also developed several theological ideas which feature prominently in Chrysostom’s homilies. Specifically, a doctrine of divine simplicity that distinguishes between the knowledge and conceptions of God’s ousia, a careful distinction between God’s ousia and hypostasis whereby the latter is taken as representing ousia in its particular properties or idiomata, the illuminating role of the Spirit, and, finally, the defence of the Son and Spirit’s full divinity by underscoring the fact that they are equal in knowledge, authority, honour, and power as the Father. Taken together, these similarities suggest strongly that Basil’s teachings loom large in Chrysostom’s Trinitarian theology.

This article examines the origins of the traditional or orthodox Trinitarian formula. The main objective is to clarify to what extent the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Nicene formula) has been influenced by Greek philosophy. Through contemporary theological dialogue on this issue, the research focuses on the comparison between the traditional formulation of the doctrine of Trinity, influenced by Greek philosophy and the biblical revelation of the godhead. The conclusion is that the trinitarian formula might not be a dogmatic teaching, but a mystery (a dehellenisation of the concept of Trinity) and that the Church fathers and the post-Nicene church used the Greek philosophical-theological expressions for Trinity, already present in Scriptures in its doxological and liturgical form, primarily for the purpose of contextualisation.Hierdie artikel ondersoek die oorsprong van die tradisionele of ortodokse trinitariese leerstuk. Die hoofdoel is om uit te vind tot watter mate die tradisioneel Christelike leer oor die Drie-eenheid (Niceense formule) deur die Griekse filosofie beïnvloed is. Deur die hedendaagse teologiese debat oor hierdie onderwerp na te gaan, fokus die navorsing op ’n vergelyking tussen die tradisionele formulering van die leer van die Drie-eenheid soos beïnvloed deur die ortodokse Griekse filosofie en deur die bybelse openbaring van die godheid. Die slotsom waartoe gekom word, is dat die trinitariese formule moontlik nie ’n dogmatiese leerstuk was nie, maar ’n misterie (’n dehellenisering van die Drie-eenheidsbegrip). Die kerkvaders en die post-Niceense kerk het die Griekse filosofies-teologiese uitdrukkings vir die Drie-eenheid, wat alreeds in die Skrif in sy doksologiese en liturgiese vorm voorgekom het, moontlik slegs vir die doel van kontekstualisering gebruik.

Christians, Gnostics, and Platonists attempts to characterize the ethos of late antiquity (100–500 CE) as one that despised matter and the body. It operates within the assumption that there are four criteria which establish this characterization, namely an emphasis on the evil of life, a distrust of the sociopolitical world, asceticism, and an interest in the supernatural. These four criteria are evident in the Platonists, Christians, and Gnostics of the period. As Chapter Two reveals the dissertation understands the concept of ethos in the context of R. C. Trench's discussion of aion: "all the thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, impulses, and aspirations present in the world at any given time." In Chapter Three Plato and the Middle Platonists are viewed as bequeathing to late antiquity its world–denying philosophy which the Gnostics preached more incessantly than the Platonists and the Christians practiced more conscientiously than the Gnostics. The Neoplatonists were the Platonists of late antiquity. In the writings of such figures as Plotinus and Porphyry the hatred of matter and the body is boldly expressed, and it is only slightly less apparent in later philosophers like Iamblichus and Proclus. In Plotinus we discern a profound distrust of the sociopolitical world and in Proclus a thoroughgoing asceticism paired with an interest in the supernatural. In Chapter Four it is shown that Gnosticism was more unyielding than either Platonism or Christianity in its insistence that matter and the body were evil, and it followed the late antique distrust of the social world both in its elitism and in its view of martyrdom as an act of casting pearls before swine. Gnosticism tended to accept the asceticism of late antiquity though some of its adherents practiced an extreme licentiousness that was the counterpart of asceticism in that it approached the body as worthless. The late antique emphasis on the supernatural is evidenced by such Gnostic figures as Simon Magus, Carpocrates, and Valentinus. Chapter Five demonstrates that the hatred of matter and the body is also expressed by the Christians albeit with less consistency to their worldview. It can be glimpsed in the ante– Nicene, post–Nicene, and desert fathers as well as in the Arians. It is most notable in the attempts of Justin Martyr, Origen, and Arius to place the Son at a lower ontological level than the Father in order to protect God from the evil entity of matter. The late antique distrust of the sociopolitical world is manifested in the Christian view of martyrdom as a way of scorning a corrupt world, a view unlike that of the Gnostics. No one possessed this distrust more strongly than the Donatists with whom the later Augustine had some kinship. Many of the Christians tended to practice asceticism and the miraculous, the form in which the supernatural took in their case. The desert fathers can be said to be the most sincere representatives of late antiquity with their intense practice of both of these expressions of the ethos.<br>Thesis (M.A. (Church and Dogma history))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.