Jean Calvin on baptism:
We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation...Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.
We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation...Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.
14th-15th cent. Anglican views on the right of private judgement and Church's authority of interpreting Scripture
This is what I offer to God; this do I dedicate, my sole remaining possession, my sole wealth.
The rest I have made over to the commandment and the Spirit, and in exchange for all I once had I have taken the pearl of great value and become a rich merchant, or rather, hope to be such, trading things small and altogether corruptible for the great and everlasting; and as devotee of the word I cling to the Word alone and would never willingly neglect this possession, but on the contrary honor it and embrace it and take more pleasure in it than in all other things combined that delight the multitude- St Gregory Nanzanzius, Oration 6, 5
#soteriology
#Christ
#St_Gregory_Nanzanzius
The rest I have made over to the commandment and the Spirit, and in exchange for all I once had I have taken the pearl of great value and become a rich merchant, or rather, hope to be such, trading things small and altogether corruptible for the great and everlasting; and as devotee of the word I cling to the Word alone and would never willingly neglect this possession, but on the contrary honor it and embrace it and take more pleasure in it than in all other things combined that delight the multitude- St Gregory Nanzanzius, Oration 6, 5
#soteriology
#Christ
#St_Gregory_Nanzanzius
Tell me, what is the use of eating human seed, as the Stagirite did?
What profit to have intercourse with mothers and sisters, as the philosopher in charge of the Stoa legislated.
As for the director of the Academy and his teacher and those whom they admire still more, I would expose their still greater depravity' and, stripping off all the allegory, I would unveil pederasty, which they consider respectable and a part of philosophy- John Chrysostom, Disclosure on Blessed Babylas, 49
#Philosophy
#LGBTQ
#St_John_Chrysostom
What profit to have intercourse with mothers and sisters, as the philosopher in charge of the Stoa legislated.
As for the director of the Academy and his teacher and those whom they admire still more, I would expose their still greater depravity' and, stripping off all the allegory, I would unveil pederasty, which they consider respectable and a part of philosophy- John Chrysostom, Disclosure on Blessed Babylas, 49
#Philosophy
#LGBTQ
#St_John_Chrysostom
“my inheritance is strongest for me, the Lord is the portion of my inheritance and my cup.”- Psalm 15:6
The Lord is the Savior’s portion of inheritance and his “cup.” We drink the Savior and we eat the Savior: the logos is “living bread, coming down from heaven” and “the true vine.” And, doubtless, since we eat him and his flesh—to which he summons us, saying, “unless you eat my flesh”—and since we drink his blood—if we are persuaded by him when he says: “If you do not drink my blood, you will not have life in yourselves”—the Savior undergoes something from us. Still, he remains the complete logos even when we eat him, and he remains complete even when we drink him. Therefore, just as he is himself our nourishment and he is our drink—“this” is even “my blood of the new covenant”—and he promises concerning himself saying: “I will not drink it, until I drink it with you in the kingdom of God,” in the same way he has the Father as his nourishment, and he has the Father as his cup.- Origen, Homily on Psalm 15
The Lord is the Savior’s portion of inheritance and his “cup.” We drink the Savior and we eat the Savior: the logos is “living bread, coming down from heaven” and “the true vine.” And, doubtless, since we eat him and his flesh—to which he summons us, saying, “unless you eat my flesh”—and since we drink his blood—if we are persuaded by him when he says: “If you do not drink my blood, you will not have life in yourselves”—the Savior undergoes something from us. Still, he remains the complete logos even when we eat him, and he remains complete even when we drink him. Therefore, just as he is himself our nourishment and he is our drink—“this” is even “my blood of the new covenant”—and he promises concerning himself saying: “I will not drink it, until I drink it with you in the kingdom of God,” in the same way he has the Father as his nourishment, and he has the Father as his cup.- Origen, Homily on Psalm 15
An example of bad interpretation of Early Christian aiconism.
Forwarded from Fundamental Christianity
Fai3WzsWAAAw5zd.jfif
448.2 KB
Early Christians on Images
Images is a sensitive issue that divide Christians today. There are a spectrum of stances taken to them.
1)Accepted as ornamentation and paedadogical purpose. Veneration not permissible
2) Accepted for ornamentation, paedadogical and veneration
3)Objected completely in churches
Usually today the debate centers around 2) and 3) and it is not uncommon for both sides to appeal back to the Early Church to support their position. But oftentimes, both sides do this with flawed/little understanding of what early sources actually say and the archeology of Early Christian Art. Here I hope to bring this to light, alongside the current of scholarship on this issue. I will refer to Robin M Jensen and Michael Peppard here, both who have done a lot of work on this subject. The former on Early Christian art and how it functions in Baptismal contexts. The latter known for explicating the images at Dura Europos
Images is a sensitive issue that divide Christians today. There are a spectrum of stances taken to them.
1)Accepted as ornamentation and paedadogical purpose. Veneration not permissible
2) Accepted for ornamentation, paedadogical and veneration
3)Objected completely in churches
Usually today the debate centers around 2) and 3) and it is not uncommon for both sides to appeal back to the Early Church to support their position. But oftentimes, both sides do this with flawed/little understanding of what early sources actually say and the archeology of Early Christian Art. Here I hope to bring this to light, alongside the current of scholarship on this issue. I will refer to Robin M Jensen and Michael Peppard here, both who have done a lot of work on this subject. The former on Early Christian art and how it functions in Baptismal contexts. The latter known for explicating the images at Dura Europos
A) History of Early Christian Art
What may please strict Iconoclasts is that in scholarship, there is the thesis and a widespread one that aligns with their interpretation.
Hugo Koch, a Catholic scholar during the early 20th cent. is one example of this. He takes early Christians as being completely against images. Images are a 2nd Commandment violation after all.
Edwyn Bevan, a British historian acknowledges his debt to Koch in his 1940 publication, Holy Images: An Inquiry into Idolatry and Image- Worship in Ancient Paganism and Christianity (London: 1940), 84– 85. Christians only produced images after the end of persecution and distance from Jewish context. Christian creation of images are due to Christians assimilating themselves into a Pagan cultural context.
Some 30 years later, renowned Anglican historian Henry Chadwick has this to say,
"The second of the Ten Commandments forbade the making of any graven images. Both Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria regarded this prohibition as absolute and binding on Christians. Image and cultic statues belonged to the world of paganism.”(The Early Church (London: 1967), 277)
Chadwick's sentiments would be echoed by art historian Robert Grigg ten years later in the 1970s, affirming, "It is well known that the spokesmen for the early Christian church were hostile to religious images. They regarded the Old Testament prohibition against images (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 5:8) as binding upon Christians"- Aniconic Worship and the Apologetic Tradition: A Note on Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira,” Church History 45 (1976), 428– 33 (Jensen: quoting from page 428). Grigg’s first footnote (at the end of the first sentence quoted above) credits Koch’s Die altchristliche Bilderfrage as an “indispensable study.”)
Generally this would be the trend of scholarship for most of the 20th cent when it came to Early Christian art. One can even find this view as late as the 1990s, as Hans Belting pretty much echoes this sentiment in Likeness and Presence(pg.144).
So far from this, it looks like Early Christian Studies has generally taken the position similar to strict iconoclasm. Early Christians saw images as idolatry and a 2CV violation. So what happened? What caused a paradigm shift in the approach to early Christian art?
One of the first dissent against this majority view was Sister Charles Murray. She noted how the supposedly iconoclastic stance of Early Christian authors seldom invoke the 2nd Commandment. In fact, the majority of early Patristic critiques of images rely on approaches already known in the cultural Philosophical current of their time.(Art and the Early Church,” Journal of Theological Studies 28, 307-308). One thing that Murray also invoked against the prevailing view is archeological evidence. The fact that we do have pre Nicene Christian artwork preserved and against the 2nd CV objection, the presence of mosaics in Jewish synagogues, most prominent before Nicaea being the Dura Europos one(pg.311).
Building on Murray's critique, Paul Finney explains how the lack of art during the 1st and early 2nd cents should be explained via economic factors(Invisible God, pg.116-132).
This would lead to a change in interpreting how early Christian art is viewed in scholarship moving forward. As Jensen comments:
Soon more scholars joined in to offer alternative explanations for the apparent late emergence of Christian material culture, some citing the gradual attainment of economic and social stability, others questioning whether the categories of “Christian” and “pagan” were even applicable (or even appropriate) to material culture in the early centuries.
What may please strict Iconoclasts is that in scholarship, there is the thesis and a widespread one that aligns with their interpretation.
Hugo Koch, a Catholic scholar during the early 20th cent. is one example of this. He takes early Christians as being completely against images. Images are a 2nd Commandment violation after all.
Edwyn Bevan, a British historian acknowledges his debt to Koch in his 1940 publication, Holy Images: An Inquiry into Idolatry and Image- Worship in Ancient Paganism and Christianity (London: 1940), 84– 85. Christians only produced images after the end of persecution and distance from Jewish context. Christian creation of images are due to Christians assimilating themselves into a Pagan cultural context.
Some 30 years later, renowned Anglican historian Henry Chadwick has this to say,
"The second of the Ten Commandments forbade the making of any graven images. Both Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria regarded this prohibition as absolute and binding on Christians. Image and cultic statues belonged to the world of paganism.”(The Early Church (London: 1967), 277)
Chadwick's sentiments would be echoed by art historian Robert Grigg ten years later in the 1970s, affirming, "It is well known that the spokesmen for the early Christian church were hostile to religious images. They regarded the Old Testament prohibition against images (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 5:8) as binding upon Christians"- Aniconic Worship and the Apologetic Tradition: A Note on Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira,” Church History 45 (1976), 428– 33 (Jensen: quoting from page 428). Grigg’s first footnote (at the end of the first sentence quoted above) credits Koch’s Die altchristliche Bilderfrage as an “indispensable study.”)
Generally this would be the trend of scholarship for most of the 20th cent when it came to Early Christian art. One can even find this view as late as the 1990s, as Hans Belting pretty much echoes this sentiment in Likeness and Presence(pg.144).
So far from this, it looks like Early Christian Studies has generally taken the position similar to strict iconoclasm. Early Christians saw images as idolatry and a 2CV violation. So what happened? What caused a paradigm shift in the approach to early Christian art?
One of the first dissent against this majority view was Sister Charles Murray. She noted how the supposedly iconoclastic stance of Early Christian authors seldom invoke the 2nd Commandment. In fact, the majority of early Patristic critiques of images rely on approaches already known in the cultural Philosophical current of their time.(Art and the Early Church,” Journal of Theological Studies 28, 307-308). One thing that Murray also invoked against the prevailing view is archeological evidence. The fact that we do have pre Nicene Christian artwork preserved and against the 2nd CV objection, the presence of mosaics in Jewish synagogues, most prominent before Nicaea being the Dura Europos one(pg.311).
Building on Murray's critique, Paul Finney explains how the lack of art during the 1st and early 2nd cents should be explained via economic factors(Invisible God, pg.116-132).
This would lead to a change in interpreting how early Christian art is viewed in scholarship moving forward. As Jensen comments:
Soon more scholars joined in to offer alternative explanations for the apparent late emergence of Christian material culture, some citing the gradual attainment of economic and social stability, others questioning whether the categories of “Christian” and “pagan” were even applicable (or even appropriate) to material culture in the early centuries.
This next wave of scholarly analysis was, thus, far less theological or even ritually- focused in its approach.
Nearly all these scholars have conceded that although early Christians never actually objected to pictorial art as such, surviving literary evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that their spokespersons were extremely hostile to the veneration of pagan cult images.(Figural Images in Christian Thought and Practice before ca. 500, 115).
Nearly all these scholars have conceded that although early Christians never actually objected to pictorial art as such, surviving literary evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that their spokespersons were extremely hostile to the veneration of pagan cult images.(Figural Images in Christian Thought and Practice before ca. 500, 115).
B) Early Christian Hostility to Images
So, if many early fathers as typically quoted criticize the use of images. How can this be reconciled with the paradigm shift in Early Christian Studies?
Jensen points out how early Apologists primarily target images of ancient Roman deities that invite worship(i.e via votive offerings, sacrifices and prayers).
As Irenaeus describes: [Marcellina and her followers] also possess images [imagines], some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world, that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.(Haer. 1.25.6)
While the term "images" is used here, this seems to refer more to three dimensional statuary and images meant to be realistic. Phily the Elder's description of how the deceased are honoured shows this. The portraits of the departed being carried in funeral processions are wax models. He also laments the loss of the concern for likeness in the trends of setting up and painting portraits.
What Phily lamented here is the loss of the style of portraiture common during the prior Republican era of Rome(mid 1st cent BC). Jensen points out how portraits found during this period have an emphasis on realism(Portraits of the Divine, pg.37-38). One example is the bust of the banker Lucius Cecilius, which does not present a beautified depiction. It is instead meant to make the deceased recognizable and as who he was seen as by others when alive. After this era there is in statuary, a clear move towards more idealized representation of the deceased.
Two centuries earlier, Polybius describes how the portrait of the deceased placed in a wooden shrine is a mask that display remarkable detail of his complexion and features. Images like this would be displayed prominently in public sacrifices.
When this is understood as the target of Irenaeus' description of the Carpocratians who honour images, it becomes clear that he does not comment on things like narratival or symbolic images.
Of course, Irenaeus was more about the portraits of historical figures being honoured. What about the ancient Roman view of portraits of their deities?
In the ancient Roman world of Pre Nicene Christianity, images of these deities would be everywhere. There are indications that this imagery will also include the style of portraiture for honouring the deceased. Dio Chrysostom for instance considers representation of the gods to be part of human conceptualization of the Divine. These likenesses would be made using wax, stone, paint, wood and metal. Artisans who make them are noted to shy away from trying to be creative.
Ironically in an argument between an Egyptian and Roman, one can also see how non Romans view the Pagan Roman images of deities. Apollonius of Tyana mocked Egyptians for representing their deities as animals. In return, the Egyptian quipped how the Romans know their gods looked like. Apollonius here appeals to the ingenuity of human imagination. Imagination is an instantiation of an ideal not seen. Imitation can only depict what is corporeally seen.
Still, as Jensen pointed out, this idealism still requires the deities represented to be such that they are recognizable(ibid.pg 61), moving back to the trend in depicting deceased people to honour them. This recognizably will also be exploited by Early Christian imagery which borrows from known tropes/characteristics in Pagan representation of deities.
For all the worship of these images, it needs to be noted that the intellectual elites of Roman society actually express disdain for superstition. Some can even seem like the strict Iconoclast view of them.
So, if many early fathers as typically quoted criticize the use of images. How can this be reconciled with the paradigm shift in Early Christian Studies?
Jensen points out how early Apologists primarily target images of ancient Roman deities that invite worship(i.e via votive offerings, sacrifices and prayers).
As Irenaeus describes: [Marcellina and her followers] also possess images [imagines], some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world, that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.(Haer. 1.25.6)
While the term "images" is used here, this seems to refer more to three dimensional statuary and images meant to be realistic. Phily the Elder's description of how the deceased are honoured shows this. The portraits of the departed being carried in funeral processions are wax models. He also laments the loss of the concern for likeness in the trends of setting up and painting portraits.
What Phily lamented here is the loss of the style of portraiture common during the prior Republican era of Rome(mid 1st cent BC). Jensen points out how portraits found during this period have an emphasis on realism(Portraits of the Divine, pg.37-38). One example is the bust of the banker Lucius Cecilius, which does not present a beautified depiction. It is instead meant to make the deceased recognizable and as who he was seen as by others when alive. After this era there is in statuary, a clear move towards more idealized representation of the deceased.
Two centuries earlier, Polybius describes how the portrait of the deceased placed in a wooden shrine is a mask that display remarkable detail of his complexion and features. Images like this would be displayed prominently in public sacrifices.
When this is understood as the target of Irenaeus' description of the Carpocratians who honour images, it becomes clear that he does not comment on things like narratival or symbolic images.
Of course, Irenaeus was more about the portraits of historical figures being honoured. What about the ancient Roman view of portraits of their deities?
In the ancient Roman world of Pre Nicene Christianity, images of these deities would be everywhere. There are indications that this imagery will also include the style of portraiture for honouring the deceased. Dio Chrysostom for instance considers representation of the gods to be part of human conceptualization of the Divine. These likenesses would be made using wax, stone, paint, wood and metal. Artisans who make them are noted to shy away from trying to be creative.
Ironically in an argument between an Egyptian and Roman, one can also see how non Romans view the Pagan Roman images of deities. Apollonius of Tyana mocked Egyptians for representing their deities as animals. In return, the Egyptian quipped how the Romans know their gods looked like. Apollonius here appeals to the ingenuity of human imagination. Imagination is an instantiation of an ideal not seen. Imitation can only depict what is corporeally seen.
Still, as Jensen pointed out, this idealism still requires the deities represented to be such that they are recognizable(ibid.pg 61), moving back to the trend in depicting deceased people to honour them. This recognizably will also be exploited by Early Christian imagery which borrows from known tropes/characteristics in Pagan representation of deities.
For all the worship of these images, it needs to be noted that the intellectual elites of Roman society actually express disdain for superstition. Some can even seem like the strict Iconoclast view of them.
Plutarch is one example. He expresses contempt for those who depict gods as human beings and worship them. His Life of Numa shows how while he set up shrines and temples all over Egypt, none of them bore any human or animal image of the deities worshiped.
Plotinus himself refused to have anyone make an image of him. He rebuffed at the futility of such, saying,
"Is it not enough to carry about this image in which nature has enclosed us? Do you really think that I must also consent to leave, as a desirable spectacle to posterity, an image of the image?"
Yet however, Plotinus still reserves a role for the importance of images. Though they cannot communicate or bear any Divine truth in themselves, they nevertheless point to something beyond themselves. The truth of say Zeus could be comprehended by the existence of the inferior image of him, just as the natural world is a proof of the higher transcendent Platonic realm of Forms.(ibid. Pg.88)
This aiconic tendency in the Roman intellectual tradition would be appealed to by Early Christian apologists. Even more so than invocation of 2CV.
Athengoras is one example, explicitly pointing this out in his Plea for the Christians(6-7). He even goes as far as to consider the use of images in the Roman cult to be a late innovation to it rather than being originally integral to it. In contrast to the Romans, Christians follow the ancient philosophers in describing God as immutable, invisible & incorporeal.
Theophilus of Antioch in arguing with Autolycus utilizes Hellenic philosophical concepts to justify Christians not having Images of God. He points out,
"The appearance of God is ineffible and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivaled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable"
This has commonalities with Philo and Stoics.
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria both also clearly utilize this to show the folly of Pagan image worship. Both also utilize Plutarch's "Life of Numa", with Clement claiming Numa took from Moses and Tertullian claiming Christians as true inheritors of this Roman aiconist thought.
This context creates a frame in which the overwhelming Early Christian critique of images tend to focus on the cultic portraits that are used in worship. Nothing is spoken of symbolic or narrative mosaics. This also explains why Clement of Alexandria permit Christians to make singlet rings with symbolic images, one of which being of the Apostles in his Paedadogous. Tertullian himself in On Modesty refer to Eucharistic chalices with Good Shepherd images on them.
These indicate that the early Christian opposition to images are more restrictive in scope than just "all image bad".
Plotinus himself refused to have anyone make an image of him. He rebuffed at the futility of such, saying,
"Is it not enough to carry about this image in which nature has enclosed us? Do you really think that I must also consent to leave, as a desirable spectacle to posterity, an image of the image?"
Yet however, Plotinus still reserves a role for the importance of images. Though they cannot communicate or bear any Divine truth in themselves, they nevertheless point to something beyond themselves. The truth of say Zeus could be comprehended by the existence of the inferior image of him, just as the natural world is a proof of the higher transcendent Platonic realm of Forms.(ibid. Pg.88)
This aiconic tendency in the Roman intellectual tradition would be appealed to by Early Christian apologists. Even more so than invocation of 2CV.
Athengoras is one example, explicitly pointing this out in his Plea for the Christians(6-7). He even goes as far as to consider the use of images in the Roman cult to be a late innovation to it rather than being originally integral to it. In contrast to the Romans, Christians follow the ancient philosophers in describing God as immutable, invisible & incorporeal.
Theophilus of Antioch in arguing with Autolycus utilizes Hellenic philosophical concepts to justify Christians not having Images of God. He points out,
"The appearance of God is ineffible and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivaled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable"
This has commonalities with Philo and Stoics.
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria both also clearly utilize this to show the folly of Pagan image worship. Both also utilize Plutarch's "Life of Numa", with Clement claiming Numa took from Moses and Tertullian claiming Christians as true inheritors of this Roman aiconist thought.
This context creates a frame in which the overwhelming Early Christian critique of images tend to focus on the cultic portraits that are used in worship. Nothing is spoken of symbolic or narrative mosaics. This also explains why Clement of Alexandria permit Christians to make singlet rings with symbolic images, one of which being of the Apostles in his Paedadogous. Tertullian himself in On Modesty refer to Eucharistic chalices with Good Shepherd images on them.
These indicate that the early Christian opposition to images are more restrictive in scope than just "all image bad".