Augustine was so strongly influenced by Pagan thought that he was practically incapable of writing about Christianity without referring to it. His thinking was shaped by several Pagan traditions and he ended up fitting Christianity into the mould of these concepts. He wasn't unusual in this. In the fourth century, many of the classically trained Pagans converted to Catholicism. Essentially, the educated elite went where ever the power was. The beginning of the fourth century saw the legalization of Christianity and the end of the fourth century saw Catholicism made the state religion. It makes me wonder to what extent these conversions were motivated by a desire for political positioning. In particular, I wonder this about Augustine.
Something about Augustine's conversion feels disingenuous. I've been studying his writings a bit. There is one thing that isn't clear. Did his ideas develop or did he merely change his argument as the ideological debate shifted? When you take into account the entirety of his thinking, it fundamentally isn't really that different from his Pagan education. He just couched it in Christian terminology. So, what was the point of his conversion?
As Augustine used Neo-Platonism against Manichaeism, so he uses Stoicism against Academic skepticism and Epicureanism. However, his use of pagan thought was only situational and opportunist. He used whatever argument that was convenient to his apologetics, his heresiological polemics. He conveniently ignored, for instance, that Neo-Platonism had been previously used against Christianity. Once a particular Pagan argument was no longer useful for his vision of orthodoxy, he drops it claiming that Christianity doesn't need any Pagan philosophy to justify it. But if that was true, then he wouldn't use Pagan philosophy at all.
He got mired in this conundrum because he was trained in Pagan philosophy first. Paganism was the hermeneutic lense by which he came to appreciate Christianity, and it took him many years to notice the deep conflicts. But it was too late. His thinking had already become too enmeshed with Paganism... and, for that matter, all of Christianity had become too enmenshed in Paganism. If you were to take the Paganism out of Christianity, there wouldn't be much left.
The question is to what extent that Augustine even cared. He was trained in rhetorical and legal studies. Maybe he saw the entire situation with the eye of a politician. Maybe Christianity was just convenient. The writing was on the wall in that it was obvious that Paganism was in dire straits. Augustine very conveniently converted right before Theodosius I started his persecution of the Pagans. It was the perfect time to politcally position oneself within the new Catholic regime. The Church was looking for classically trained philosophers to create propaganda.
He made two statements that undermine the validity of his theological claims. He said he wouldn't believe in the Christian theology if the Church didn't demand it of him. It was his understanding that faith was simply dogmat enforced with political power, and God's grace was when the Church didn't see you as heretic. The other thing he said was that it was acceptable to lie and deceive for the greater purposes of the Church, and this view was actually common amongst the Church Fathers. This fit into his own theology. He used philosophy for apologetic ends, but he didn't trust rationality. He didn't believe people were fundamentally rational as people didn't have the freewill to make rational choices. People needed to be brought into the fold by any means necessary. This also included oppression and persecution which he supported. Augustine even went over the head of a Pope to the Emperor in order to make sure one of his opponents wasn't accepted back into the Church, and this led to that person being the first Christian officially killed by the Catholic Church. Augustine was a shrewd politician no doubt.
Was Augustine always this cynical? Obviously, he had a cynical streak as he was attracted to the Gnostic dualism of Manichaeism. He turned away from N. African Catholicism to Manichaeism partly because of his desire for rational answers. However, supposedly he turned away from Manichaeism to Neo-Platonism because of a desire for rational answers beyond scriptual limitations. The Manichaeans used rationality to study scripture and probably for apologetics as well. Maybe this, along with rhetoric education, was where he got his taste for apologetics. But was there a struggle in him at this time? Did he see rationality as potentially being used for the purpose of discovering truth? It would seem so as Neo-Platonism satisfied his intellect, but I suspect that his mother's simplistic faith nagged at his intellectual side (especially as it was his promiscuous Pagan father who had encouraged his intellectual studies).
Whether or not there were political ambitions, maybe his conversion was genuine. Maybe at first he thought he could bridge these divisions within himself. Maybe Christianity suggested a unifying answer could be attained. He could embrace his mother's simplistic faith; he could keep the dualism, determinism, and apologeticism of Manichaeism; and he could satisfy his intellect with Neo-Platonism. The famous bishop Ambrose emodied much of this for him, the prototypical zealous Christian trained in Classical thought.
However, there was the added bonus of being offered political position within the growing Church. His time as a teacher may have given him a taste of being in a role of respect where he could influence others. More than a theologian or even an apologist, maybe he was most fit for the role of politician. With his education, he had great command of language both written and spoken. I get the sense that he didn't just want something to believe in. Moreso, he wanted something to fight for. And, in the Christianized Empire, theological debates were fights with big risks and big rewards. Ambrose probably fed Augustine's political ambitions as Ambrose was in the middle of many political conflicts about orthodoxy.
It's very interesting that Augustine felt he had so little control over his own behavior, but acted in such a forceful manner that he was able to influence the behavior of others. It must have bolstered his self-confidence (and ego) that he had the ear of popes and emperors. Being involved in political intrigue led to real world results of people being oppressed, persecuted, and killed. This must've contributed to his grim view of human nature and of the Church's political role.
Despite his intellectual acumen, Augustine had become somewhat of an anti-intellectual in the latter part of his life. He was ultimately a rhetoritician rather than a philosopher per se. Maybe it's his rhetoric training that is the commonality between his tendencies towards rationality and apologetics. The purpose of rhetoric is to convince. A true philosopher such as Socrates disliked sophistry but Augustine seems to have embraced it.
Still, I wonder whether there was a time during his Neo-Platonic phase when he genuinely felt a love for truth above mere debate. Was there a time in his life where he actually thought he could know God? I get the sense that the Manichaeans may have believed this, and the fact that he was a Manicahean for almost a decade would suggest he at least hoped to know God in a way that his mind and heart could be unified. But he seemed to have lost this hope somewhere along the way. He came to believe that his mind had to be sacrificed in order to know God.
I have a theory that maybe his sacrifice of his mind was self-defense. He found himself in a religion that didn't truly respect the intellect, and he was trapped. The problem was that at that point he had become fully committed to Christianity and his whole sense of identity was at stake. In fact, to turn away from the faith would be to turn away from the fond memories of his own mother. It was with her that he had the spiritual experience that led him to conversion in the first place. And where else was there to turn? Unlike when he was a Pagan before, it was now dangerous to be anything other than Catholic. To leave the Church would've meant giving up his prestige and wealth, his power and influence. Plus, on a psychological level, he had spent so many years rationalizing it to himself. How could he give it up now? It was easier to betray his own intellectual honesty. Besides, this latter betrayal came slowly in small increments. He probably hardly noticed that he had lost his love of truth.
I'm not sure whether to feel pity for him or judgment. His use of his great mind for the purposes of oppression and persecution is utterly horrifying. He was capable of such deep insight that it's just sad that he wasted it on political propgandizing. And to think how many people were tortured and killed according to the justification of his beautiful writing.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Graeco-Roman Tradition
I was writing about Greek thought in my previous post, but in this one I want to delineate some lines of development.
Greek thought had a crises when the Greek city-states lost power. The Greek philosophers had a strong civic sense. Debates happened in public and this was the pride of the culture. A philosopher had great respect and great influence. Philosophy and politics went hand in hand. Also, it was a democratic society where everyone participated. There were no standing armies. When there was a war, every able-bodied person fought. The city-state was upheld by philosopher and common person alike.
This all changed during the Alexandrian Age which was a period of empire-building. The average person wasn't as connected to the workings of politics and philosophy was something for the elite. The philosophers practiced now in schools. Furthermore, Greek thought itself became less directly involved in politics and the sharp focus of the Greek mind became divided by a vast multi-culturalism. And yet this was a time of immense innovation. There was less certainty as society had become more complex. To balance out the probing of the Greek mind was the centralizing power of Egyptian religion. The Egyptians were great synthesizers and this helped guide Greek thought into the wider world (and some have theorized that this was the main mythology at the heart of the early Gnostic-Christian movement). Out of this mix (or maybe clash would be more appropriate) came Hellenism.
I should add that Eastern thought was also an influence during this historical period. I know that Hindus and Buddhists were known as these religions had travelled widely during those tulultuous times. Easterners were also great philosophers and synthesizers, but they weren't the dominant voice of the culture and so their influence has mostly been forgotten (although some, including early Christians, have speculated that the Therapeutae were the earliest Christians and some have further speculated the Therapeutae might've been Buddhist or Buddhist-influenced).
A similarity between Egyptian and Eastern mythology was the heavy use of astrology and astro-theology. Actually, these were heavily used in many of the cultures at that time. For example, Judaism apparently was largely built upon astrological mythologies. Astro-theology was one of the biggest forces of synthesis across cultures because it was a common language that transcended regional differences. The other major synthesizing system was Neo-Platonism which is better remembered today. Christians were influenced by both astro-theology (Christ was often referred to as Sol) and Neo-Platonism (Christ was also often referred to as Logos), but the former wasn't spoken about as openly... although a number of early church fathers wrote about Christianity's similarity to (and in some cases origins in) sun worship, often all the while denouncing it as the product of Satan.
The reason these synthesizing systems were needed is because Greek tradition had splintered. Intellect had become separated from emotion, science from religion, individuality from imperialism.
The Greek tradition promoted rationality and this became a force unto itself. There were two main strains of rational philosophy within Hellenism: Epicureanism and Stoicism. Stoics promoted a strong moral sense rooted in Natural Law and denounced the passions. In the Roman era, the Stoics would influence Christianity and many Stoics converted to Christianity. Some of the supposed sayings of Jesus are actually traditional Stoic sayings. The Stoics and Christians were so similar that the earliest observers couldn't tell them apart. Based on this, some have assumed that Christianity was simply a Judaized form of Stoicism. This is entirely possible as many Jews had Hellenistic educations, Philo being the most famous example and Philo being the one who wrote about the Therapeutae. By the way, Philo helped to popularize Jewish thought through his fame. His style was so similar to Plato that there was a saying about whether Philo Platonizes or Plato Philonizes. Philo's allegorizing of Jewish scripture set the stage for Christianity.
In contrast to the extreme rationalism of Greek philosophy, most people still had a need for religious experience and social ritual. The Mystery religions filled this need (including the needs of many dispersed Jews who partook of the Mysteries). These Mystery religions were a mix of cultures. They heavily used astrological symbolism, but also Neo-Platonism. Some of the Mystery religions took on more philosophical forms. Two of these, Hermeticism and Orphism, were major influences on Gnosticism-Christianity. Orphism is particularly interesting because, along with Orphic mythology (wine, twice-born, etc.), the images of Dionysus/Bacchus were borrowed by Christians. There is even a Roman coin with Dionysus/Bacchus on one side and Yaheweh on the other. Anyways, the solar mythology of the savior figure comes out of the Mystery religions. Scholars have written thousands of pages about the similarities between Jesus and the other solar deities (e.g., Buddha, Krishna, Osiris).
The Alexandrian Age was a part of the larger Axial Age. All of the religions of the ancient world were experience transformations. This was also the time of the Jewish Reformation which was when they were finalizing their scriptrues and also being influenced by Hellenism. The great world religions mostly formed during this time. The religions of the Roman period such as Christianity are considered a later blooming of the Axial Age. The Axial Age includes the entire thousand year reign of Graeco-Roman culture, after which the early Middle Ages (formerly known as the Dark Ages) began.
The Romans took this whole mess and confusion and brought some formalized order to it. The profusion of philosophies and religions caused the Greek thought to lose some of its potency. The Romans weren't as innovative, but they did continue the tradition of diversity. The legalistic mind of the Roman Empire brought a slight dogmatic element. Traditions became formalized and any new tradition would have root itself in an older tradition. Christians were influenced by many traditions, but they had to choose one that would give them legitimacy. The Jewish prophecy of Messiah served as a useful foundation, and Judaism was further useful as Philo had made it respectable. Unfortunately, the Roman tendency to formalize that helped to save Hellenism included a tendency towards dogmatism. As the Empire declined in later centuries, Catholicism came to fully embody this dogmatism and the Catholics nearly destroyed what the Romans had tried to save.
After this, the Graeco-Roman tradition continued to survive in the East which included Islam. Enough of this tradition survived in the West that Graeco-Roman writings were welcomed when they were re-introduced almost a thousand years later. The humanism that came before Christianity was revived and Christians started to remember their own moral origins.
Greek thought had a crises when the Greek city-states lost power. The Greek philosophers had a strong civic sense. Debates happened in public and this was the pride of the culture. A philosopher had great respect and great influence. Philosophy and politics went hand in hand. Also, it was a democratic society where everyone participated. There were no standing armies. When there was a war, every able-bodied person fought. The city-state was upheld by philosopher and common person alike.
This all changed during the Alexandrian Age which was a period of empire-building. The average person wasn't as connected to the workings of politics and philosophy was something for the elite. The philosophers practiced now in schools. Furthermore, Greek thought itself became less directly involved in politics and the sharp focus of the Greek mind became divided by a vast multi-culturalism. And yet this was a time of immense innovation. There was less certainty as society had become more complex. To balance out the probing of the Greek mind was the centralizing power of Egyptian religion. The Egyptians were great synthesizers and this helped guide Greek thought into the wider world (and some have theorized that this was the main mythology at the heart of the early Gnostic-Christian movement). Out of this mix (or maybe clash would be more appropriate) came Hellenism.
I should add that Eastern thought was also an influence during this historical period. I know that Hindus and Buddhists were known as these religions had travelled widely during those tulultuous times. Easterners were also great philosophers and synthesizers, but they weren't the dominant voice of the culture and so their influence has mostly been forgotten (although some, including early Christians, have speculated that the Therapeutae were the earliest Christians and some have further speculated the Therapeutae might've been Buddhist or Buddhist-influenced).
A similarity between Egyptian and Eastern mythology was the heavy use of astrology and astro-theology. Actually, these were heavily used in many of the cultures at that time. For example, Judaism apparently was largely built upon astrological mythologies. Astro-theology was one of the biggest forces of synthesis across cultures because it was a common language that transcended regional differences. The other major synthesizing system was Neo-Platonism which is better remembered today. Christians were influenced by both astro-theology (Christ was often referred to as Sol) and Neo-Platonism (Christ was also often referred to as Logos), but the former wasn't spoken about as openly... although a number of early church fathers wrote about Christianity's similarity to (and in some cases origins in) sun worship, often all the while denouncing it as the product of Satan.
The reason these synthesizing systems were needed is because Greek tradition had splintered. Intellect had become separated from emotion, science from religion, individuality from imperialism.
The Greek tradition promoted rationality and this became a force unto itself. There were two main strains of rational philosophy within Hellenism: Epicureanism and Stoicism. Stoics promoted a strong moral sense rooted in Natural Law and denounced the passions. In the Roman era, the Stoics would influence Christianity and many Stoics converted to Christianity. Some of the supposed sayings of Jesus are actually traditional Stoic sayings. The Stoics and Christians were so similar that the earliest observers couldn't tell them apart. Based on this, some have assumed that Christianity was simply a Judaized form of Stoicism. This is entirely possible as many Jews had Hellenistic educations, Philo being the most famous example and Philo being the one who wrote about the Therapeutae. By the way, Philo helped to popularize Jewish thought through his fame. His style was so similar to Plato that there was a saying about whether Philo Platonizes or Plato Philonizes. Philo's allegorizing of Jewish scripture set the stage for Christianity.
In contrast to the extreme rationalism of Greek philosophy, most people still had a need for religious experience and social ritual. The Mystery religions filled this need (including the needs of many dispersed Jews who partook of the Mysteries). These Mystery religions were a mix of cultures. They heavily used astrological symbolism, but also Neo-Platonism. Some of the Mystery religions took on more philosophical forms. Two of these, Hermeticism and Orphism, were major influences on Gnosticism-Christianity. Orphism is particularly interesting because, along with Orphic mythology (wine, twice-born, etc.), the images of Dionysus/Bacchus were borrowed by Christians. There is even a Roman coin with Dionysus/Bacchus on one side and Yaheweh on the other. Anyways, the solar mythology of the savior figure comes out of the Mystery religions. Scholars have written thousands of pages about the similarities between Jesus and the other solar deities (e.g., Buddha, Krishna, Osiris).
The Alexandrian Age was a part of the larger Axial Age. All of the religions of the ancient world were experience transformations. This was also the time of the Jewish Reformation which was when they were finalizing their scriptrues and also being influenced by Hellenism. The great world religions mostly formed during this time. The religions of the Roman period such as Christianity are considered a later blooming of the Axial Age. The Axial Age includes the entire thousand year reign of Graeco-Roman culture, after which the early Middle Ages (formerly known as the Dark Ages) began.
The Romans took this whole mess and confusion and brought some formalized order to it. The profusion of philosophies and religions caused the Greek thought to lose some of its potency. The Romans weren't as innovative, but they did continue the tradition of diversity. The legalistic mind of the Roman Empire brought a slight dogmatic element. Traditions became formalized and any new tradition would have root itself in an older tradition. Christians were influenced by many traditions, but they had to choose one that would give them legitimacy. The Jewish prophecy of Messiah served as a useful foundation, and Judaism was further useful as Philo had made it respectable. Unfortunately, the Roman tendency to formalize that helped to save Hellenism included a tendency towards dogmatism. As the Empire declined in later centuries, Catholicism came to fully embody this dogmatism and the Catholics nearly destroyed what the Romans had tried to save.
After this, the Graeco-Roman tradition continued to survive in the East which included Islam. Enough of this tradition survived in the West that Graeco-Roman writings were welcomed when they were re-introduced almost a thousand years later. The humanism that came before Christianity was revived and Christians started to remember their own moral origins.
The Early Roman Catholic Church
Christianity of the fourth and fifth centuries took the carrot and stick approach of the Roman Empire, but applied it to more dogmatic ends. Rome was ruthless to its enemies, and yet a conquered people if they were willing to submit gained great prosperity and stability by becoming a part of the Empire. Within the Empire, there were profound moral and spiritual philosophies which were carryovers from the Hellenism of the Alexandrian Age. However, the Empire was built upon conquest and slavery.
Then Constantine legalized Christianity. Carrying on the moral tradition of Stoicism (Natural Law), Christians began to counter some of the atrocities of Roman culture, but not very quickly and adding some of their own atrocities in the process. In the immediate, all the Catholics did was exchange a Roman elite for a church orthodoxy elite, and the politics were no less treacherous. Still, many Christian preachers spoke of ideals that were very attractive to the common person (even though the church often didn’t live up to those ideals).
Christians turned out to be very bad administrators of the Roman Empire and they (along with destabilizing influx of Germans) helped run it into the ground, but for the common person life was in some ways easier with Roman authority waning. The Christians eventually replaced slavery with serfdom which was moderately better, and more importantly they ended the gladiatorial fights. In the Christianized Middle Ages, life was relatively good as long as you were cautiously submissive to those who ruled over you and never questioned orthodoxy. The intellectual, scientific, and religious greatness of Rome was gone, but the simple agrarian life of serfdom wasn’t too bad except for the constant warring of the fiefdoms.
Despite Christianity’s idealizations of God’s love and grace, the Catholic church was often more brutally intolerant than was the Pagan Roman Empire. For certain, the Pagan Romans never came close to persecuting Christians to the degree that the Catholic church did. The Catholic Church had less power than the Roman Empire and so they had to use what power they had more forcefully. A Roman citizen had great freedom, but absolute conformity was demanded of the Catholic. It wasn’t an age of morality…. not what we’d call morality in the modern world. Any means were considered justified if they served the ends demanded by the church. Many of the early church fathers admitted to and advocated lying and deceit if it would help to convert people and help maintain the authority of the church. Of course, lying and deceit were the least worse activities the church was involved with.
One seeming advantage of the Fall of the Roman Empire was the return to city-states. Greek thought arose out of city-states and out of that Hellenism was born. Later on in Europe, the Italian city-states for instance led to a renewed cultural creativity. Maybe imperialism is always untenable in the long run, but sadly when if fails it leads to truly oppressive regimes such as the Catholic church. The one truly good thing the Romans gave was systematization of Hellenistic philosophies. It was because Rome spread Hellenistic ideas so widely that the Catholic church wasn’t able to entirely wipe it all out.
The strange thing is that Hellenism survived in the Eastern Empire much longer. I’m not sure why that was. Was the Eastern Orthodox church less oppressive or just less powerful? What makes the Catholic church so unique in its early brutality? Greek thought arose out of a diversity of thinking. The Alexandrian Age brought that diversity into an even larger context of cultures. Even the Romans, despite their legalistic systematizing, encouraged great diversity in the early centuries of their rule. Why did that diversity start to wane and why did this encourage a social system like that of Catholicism in the fourth and fifth centuries? How could the greatness of a thousand years of Graeco-Roman brilliance fall under the ignorant tyranny of the early Catholic church?
The funny thing is that Christians were fuling the Empire when Rome was sacked and it was sacked by Christians. The Catholic church had started to get heavy-handed in its persecutions near the end of the fourth century. One of the heresies was Arianism. The German Visigoths had been converted to Arianism and they came in and kicked the Catholic Empire in the balls. When you think about it, the German Christians kept on causing problems for many centuries to come. Its interesting that Protestantism later arose where the heretical Christians last took refuge. And what is even more interesting is the era of the return of the popularity of heretical thought starting around the twelfth century which led to the Reformation and the Renaissance. Diversity and cultural creativity decreased as the power of Catholicism increased, and then diversity and cultural creativity increased as the power of Catholicism decreased.
Then Constantine legalized Christianity. Carrying on the moral tradition of Stoicism (Natural Law), Christians began to counter some of the atrocities of Roman culture, but not very quickly and adding some of their own atrocities in the process. In the immediate, all the Catholics did was exchange a Roman elite for a church orthodoxy elite, and the politics were no less treacherous. Still, many Christian preachers spoke of ideals that were very attractive to the common person (even though the church often didn’t live up to those ideals).
Christians turned out to be very bad administrators of the Roman Empire and they (along with destabilizing influx of Germans) helped run it into the ground, but for the common person life was in some ways easier with Roman authority waning. The Christians eventually replaced slavery with serfdom which was moderately better, and more importantly they ended the gladiatorial fights. In the Christianized Middle Ages, life was relatively good as long as you were cautiously submissive to those who ruled over you and never questioned orthodoxy. The intellectual, scientific, and religious greatness of Rome was gone, but the simple agrarian life of serfdom wasn’t too bad except for the constant warring of the fiefdoms.
Despite Christianity’s idealizations of God’s love and grace, the Catholic church was often more brutally intolerant than was the Pagan Roman Empire. For certain, the Pagan Romans never came close to persecuting Christians to the degree that the Catholic church did. The Catholic Church had less power than the Roman Empire and so they had to use what power they had more forcefully. A Roman citizen had great freedom, but absolute conformity was demanded of the Catholic. It wasn’t an age of morality…. not what we’d call morality in the modern world. Any means were considered justified if they served the ends demanded by the church. Many of the early church fathers admitted to and advocated lying and deceit if it would help to convert people and help maintain the authority of the church. Of course, lying and deceit were the least worse activities the church was involved with.
One seeming advantage of the Fall of the Roman Empire was the return to city-states. Greek thought arose out of city-states and out of that Hellenism was born. Later on in Europe, the Italian city-states for instance led to a renewed cultural creativity. Maybe imperialism is always untenable in the long run, but sadly when if fails it leads to truly oppressive regimes such as the Catholic church. The one truly good thing the Romans gave was systematization of Hellenistic philosophies. It was because Rome spread Hellenistic ideas so widely that the Catholic church wasn’t able to entirely wipe it all out.
The strange thing is that Hellenism survived in the Eastern Empire much longer. I’m not sure why that was. Was the Eastern Orthodox church less oppressive or just less powerful? What makes the Catholic church so unique in its early brutality? Greek thought arose out of a diversity of thinking. The Alexandrian Age brought that diversity into an even larger context of cultures. Even the Romans, despite their legalistic systematizing, encouraged great diversity in the early centuries of their rule. Why did that diversity start to wane and why did this encourage a social system like that of Catholicism in the fourth and fifth centuries? How could the greatness of a thousand years of Graeco-Roman brilliance fall under the ignorant tyranny of the early Catholic church?
The funny thing is that Christians were fuling the Empire when Rome was sacked and it was sacked by Christians. The Catholic church had started to get heavy-handed in its persecutions near the end of the fourth century. One of the heresies was Arianism. The German Visigoths had been converted to Arianism and they came in and kicked the Catholic Empire in the balls. When you think about it, the German Christians kept on causing problems for many centuries to come. Its interesting that Protestantism later arose where the heretical Christians last took refuge. And what is even more interesting is the era of the return of the popularity of heretical thought starting around the twelfth century which led to the Reformation and the Renaissance. Diversity and cultural creativity decreased as the power of Catholicism increased, and then diversity and cultural creativity increased as the power of Catholicism decreased.
St. Augustine: online material
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rdwallin/syl/GreatBooks/202.W99/Augustine/AugustineChron.html
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-43050.html
Thus, this is not the only paradox that Origen engages in. Origen absolutely rejected the Docetists, yet his teachings on the nature of Christ borrowed heavily from Docetism. He argued against Gnosticism, yet accepted the Emanation theory of creation, and the concept of the Logos. He rejected Plotinist Dualism, yet accepted material as an "accidental" creation caused by the fall--thus matter was not evil, but was never intended.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/
In the long and difficult controversy with the Pelagians, Augustine found his own earlier writings on the will cited by his opponents as evidence that he himself once advocated the view he came so vehemently to oppose [see Retractationes I.9.3-6]. What is more, he dies just as the Vandals are besieging the gates of Hippo, leaving unfinished yet another work against Julian of Eclanum, a Pelagian opponent of considerable intellectual resources who had, among other things, accused Augustine of holding views indistinguishable from those of the Manicheans whom Augustine had opposed so many years before [Bonner, 1999]. And here, perhaps, is an irony as cruel as it is intriguing: eleven centuries later, when the Church to which Augustine had devoted the last four and a half decades of his life was to split in a manner that still shows no signs of reconciliation, both sides would appeal to Augustine as an authority on questions of doctrine [Muller 1999; Grossi 1999].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
Augustine did not develop an independent mariology, but his statements on Mary surpass in number and depths those of other early writers. [46] The Virgin Mary “conceived as virgin, gave birth as virgin and stayed virgin forever [47] Even before the Council of Ephesus, he defended the ever Virgin Mary as the mother of God, who, because of her virginity, is full of grace [48] She was free of any temporal sin, [49] Because of a woman, the whole human race was saved. [50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up. [7]
In The City of God, Augustine also defended the idea of a young Earth. Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings:
"Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed." (Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, The City of God, Book 12: Chapt. 10 [AD 419]).
St. Augustine also comments on the word "day" in the creation week, admitting the interpretation is difficult:
"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (City of God, Book 11: Chapt. 6).
http://ecole.evansville.edu/articles/allegory.html
Several points should be noted about Augustine's composite allegorization. First, although he used the Martha/Mary pair that he inherited from Origen more frequently (it has indeed been called his "favorite illustration" [Mason, 36]), the Leah/Rachel pair serves to complement the other one rather well. While he uses the Martha/Mary pair to show the superiority and eternity of the contemplative life, Augustine uses the Leah and Rachel pair as Origen had used the figure of Peter at the Transfiguration: to show that the two lives are complementary, with both being necessary, a point that he returns to several times, as in City of God, viii, 4, "To Plato is given the praise of having perfected philosophy by combining both parts [the active and the contemplative] into one" (cf. de Cons. Evang. i, 12; de Civ. Dei xix, 1, 2, 3, 19). Since both sisters were wives of Jacob (who represents the human soul in both Philo and Augustine), they also offered such a complementary relationship: "No one desires this life for its own sake, as Jacob desired not Leah, who yet was brought to him, and became his wife, and the mother of children. Though she could not be loved of herself, the Lord made her be borne with as a step to Rachel, and then she came to be approved on account of her children" (contra Faustum xxii, 52). (Augustine may be stressing Leah's role of bearing children since Christ is descended from her, not Rachel.) The fact that one sister was married first and therefore the relationships were sequential also worked well in the allegory (perhaps, Augustine thought, better than the Martha/Mary or Peter/John pairs). It also determined that it would be Leah who would represent the active life; to this end, Augustine, like Philo, quotes Gen 29:26, though for Augustine this is to show the correctness of marrying Leah first. For Augustine, the active life leads to the reward of the contemplative, as marriage to Leah leads to the reward of the beloved Rachel: "So, in the discipline of man, the toil of doing the work of righteousness precedes the delight of understanding the truth" (contra Faustum xxii, 52). (Augustine may also have been influenced in his choice of Leah as the active life by the earlier allegorizations of Justin and Irenaeus [Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 134; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.] that identified Rachel with the Church and Leah with Israel; since for the Fathers, the Church is superior to Israel, as Rachel is superior to Leah, so here she must represent the superior life of contemplation.) Unlike the Martha/Mary or Peter/John pairs, the Leah/Rachel pair offers an image for the active and contemplative lives in which they are successive and necessary stages, the second of which is the superior, more beloved, and more divine.
http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/114/10/327
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/melanchthon-aga.html
Origen and Erasmus agree on an exegetical point that was unwelcome to Augustinian thinkers. Erasmus was the first Western exegete to point out that the eph’hô in Romans 5:12 does not mean ‘in whom all had sinned’ but ‘in that all had sinned’. He notes that when Origen says that ‘the death which had come to him from the transgression consequently passed through to them as well, who were dwelling in his loins’ (V, 1.201-3; S 1.311; M 1010) he is not talking of original sin inherited by infants but is ‘showing why the blessed Paul makes neither the devil nor Eve the author of sin’ (Erasmus, 143), and the continuation of Origen’s text shows he is thinking of human imitation of the sin of Adam. Origen argues, in a way Erasmus finds ‘forced’, that ‘sin was passed down only in the world, that is, to those of a worldly spirit’ (see V, 1.215-32; M 1010). This is echoed by Pelagius, in a text ascribed to Jerome: ‘it passed to all those who lived in a human way, rather than divine... to all those who transgressed the natural law... They sinned through the example of Adam’ (Erasmus, 142).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen
He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist.[5] Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God.[5] He imagined even demons being reunited with God.
---
A strict adherent of the Church, Origen yet distinguished sharply between the ideal and the empirical Church, representing "a double church of men and angels", or, in Platonic phraseology, the lower church and its celestial ideal. The ideal Church alone was the Church of Christ, scattered over all the earth; the other provided also a shelter for sinners. Holding that the Church, as being in possession of the mysteries, affords the only means of salvation, he was indifferent to her external organization, although he spoke sometimes of the office-bearers as the pillars of the Church, and of their heavy duties and responsibilities.
More important to him was the idea borrowed from Plato of the grand division between the great human multitude, capable of sensual vision only, and those who know how to comprehend the hidden meaning of Scripture and the diverse mysteries, church organization being for the former only.
---
For quite some time, Origen was counted as one of the most important church fathers and his works were widely used in the Church. His exegetical method was standard of the School of Alexandria and the Origenists were an important party in the 4th century debates on Arianism.
http://www.helsinki.fi/collegium/english/staff/Sihvola/Sihvola%5B1%5D..Aristotle,%20the%20Stoics.pdf
Augustine applied Stoic moral psychology in a rather straightforward way and interpreted, it from a theological viewpoint. For the Church Father, the aim of human life was the, union with God, and he described the nature of this union in very emotional, even erotic, terms. However, the union with God corresponded with the Stoic ideal of apatheia in the, sense that it, too, required the extirpation of all desires and emotions that disturbed, virtuous activity in the full command of reason.4,
Augustine differed in an important respect from Aristotle and the Stoics as well as from, all pagan philosophy in the antiquity. The Church Father did not hold it as possible even, in principle for the human beings to reach perfect happiness in the fusion with God by, their own efforts. The differences between Aristotle, the Stoics, and Augustine are rather, subtle here, so I try to express them clearly. All three views agree that there are not too, many humans who are virtuous and wise, but disagree on the explanations of this fact., The rareness of the virtuous is explained by the pagan philosophers, especially Aristotle, by the external circumstances that prevent the natural rational and moral capacities and, inclinations from their development. The Christian tradition represented by Augustine did, not blame circumstances but the original sin. The Christians claimed that the human, moral capacities were internally corrupted in The Fall. The differences between the three, views can also be expressed as follows. For Aristotle, natural human inclinations are, directed towards the good, and the function of virtue is to complete the natural, development. The later Stoics introduced the idea that there are irrational ones among the, natural inclinations, but they still insisted that the humans at least in principle have, resources to combat these inclinations. Augustine held that even the resources to combat, the irrational inclinations are seriously corrupted in all of us.
4 On the influence of ancient psychological theories to the Christian tradition, see especially Simo, Knuuttila, Emotions in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon 2004.
In the Augustinean view, the natural movements of the body and soul tear the human, beings away from what is right and from God by necessity, even if the humans may know, the will of God by their reason or by revelation. This is all due to the original sin. The, original sin and its expressions in natural inclinations would not be particularly, reprehensible and the acts of human beings would not be counted as further sins, if they, immediately used their free will to extirpate the passions raised by those appearances that, have a power to move their natural inclinations. Unfortunately, the original sin did not, only corrupt our natural desires, it also corrupted our capacity to use of our free will to, control those desires. Augustine insists that our will is free, and we are responsible for, our use of it. The will weakened by the original sin is, however, only able to express itself, in choices between the different varieties of vice. Virtue is quite beyond reach by our, own efforts.
The Augustinean conception of humanity is painted in much darker colors than its, predecessors in the pagan antiquity. The Stoic influence is still prominent. Human, susceptibility to emotions and impulses that disturb the rational command of life, and the, distinction between two types of psychological movements, those that are direct, consequences of the human nature, and those that are results from voluntary acts of the, will, are to a large extent ideas derived from and expressed in the vocabulary of the Stoic, framework.
Augustine held that if there were no power to control the human beings a violent anarchy, would emerge. However, he made two important amendments that somewhat mitigated, the disastrous consequences of human sinfulness. First, God had established the secular, authority the function of which is to uphold social order and prevent a full chaos, although it cannot make human life any more acceptable to God. Second, God has in his, grace decided to save a modest number of human beings through the Christ to an eternal, happiness without any desert of their own. Salvation is a predestined part of the divine, plan, and human beings possess no capacity to understand why God has decided to do, what he has done. We do not even know, who will be saved and who will be doomed to, an eternal damnation. Even the saved themselves do not know this for certain.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/neostoic.htm
The existence of a forged correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul, accepted as genuine by St. Augustine and St. Jerome, may well have contributed to the thought that it was possible to combine Stoic ethics with Christian teaching.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_augustine_copan.html
The atmosphere of North African Christendom in which Augustine grew up reflected the influential thought of Tertullian (d. ca. 220), who asked, "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?"5 The porch of Solomon, where Jesus would customarily teach, was sufficient for him. Tertullian then added: "I have no use for a Stoic or a Platonic or a dialectic Christianity. After Jesus we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research."
Although Tertullian did utilize stoic philosophy, pre-Socratic philosophers, and even Aristotle (who studied at Plato's academy in Athens, which apparently had more to do with Jerusalem than Tertullian let on), his aversion to philosophy was no secret.6 His fideistic comment, "I believe because it is foolish,"7 was not merely idiosyncratic with Tertullian. Along with his theological successor Cyprian, who was slightly less strident than his master, Tertullian exerted a powerful influence upon North African Christendom's antiintellectualism.8 Such a remark by Tertullian typified the antiintellectual Christianity among the Catholic clergy of this entire region. For instance Augustine addressed the council of bishops of the African Church in October of 393, an address preserved in his Faith and the Creed. Rather than utilize heavy theological language he had to resort to very plain speech and follow the basic creedal statements of Christianity even for high-ranking church officials.9 In 412 Augustine received a letter from Consentius, a fellow bishop, who reflected this lack of appreciation for the intellect: "God is not to be sought after by reason but followed through authority."10
Such narrow-mindedness and lack of theological and intellectual rigor are easier to understand when we consider the historical context of the North African Church. By necessity Christians devoted their energies to enduring opposition and even martyrdom up until Constantine's conversion to Christianity and his making Christianity the official religion of the empire. Christians had been understandably more concerned to gather together to pray and encourage one another than engage in scholarly discussion. But by the time of Augustine, Christians still had not devoted much time and energy to theological reflection or interaction with the intellectual ideas circulating around the Mediterranean region.
The lack of theological rigor had detrimental side effects, one of which was the infiltration of Manichean beliefs into the Church. The Donatists would mock the African Catholic congregations because of the proliferation of Manichean heresies within them. Even Augustine mentioned a subdeacon within the Catholic Church who had concurrently been a member of the Manichees for years. He aroused no one's suspicion.11 Such a heretical presence within North African Catholicism was commonplace. John O'Meara elaborates:
Men could change their allegiance from Christianity to Manicheism - and vice versa - without attracting as much attention as they would if they had changed to the Donatists. It even happened that Christian ministers were, after many years' performance of their functions, discovered to have been Manichees all the time.12
The dearth of theological endeavor had yet another negative side effect: authoritarianism and antiintellectualism among North African Catholic clergy. Closemindedness seemed to be characteristic among these Church leaders. Augustine urges the inquirer who desires to find the truth not to despair when he encounters antiintellectualism among the Church leadership:
And should the inquirer meet with some, whether bishops or presbyters, or any officials or ministers of the Catholic Church, who either avoid in all cases opening up mysteries, or, content with simple faith, have no desire for more recondite knowledge, he must not despair of finding the knowledge of the truth in a case where neither are all able to teach to whom the inquiry is addressed, nor are all inquirers worthy of learning the truth. Diligence and piety are both necessary: on the one hand, we must have knowledge to find truth, and on the other hand, we must deserve to get the knowledge.13
Augustine had once been a seeker in just this atmosphere—an authoritarian one in which church leaders offered questioners no reasoned answers but rather intimidated the laity to blindly accept Church teaching without question.14 Eugene Teselle characterizes Augustine's conservative Catholic environment as stressing "reverence for divine authority at the expense of rational inquiry" and perhaps even "inclined to counsel blind faith."15 So when the questions Augustine was raising were not answered by the Catholic clergy he looked elsewhere for intellectual satisfaction.
http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol6/augustine.html
The most important texts of Augustine’s later period are the so-called ‘anti-Pelagian’ writings (dated 400 onwards) and the monumental City of God (completed in 426). The Pelagian conflict splits Augustine’s work through the middle, separating his earlier more "humanist" work (On Free Will, completed 388) from his later, more theocentric thought (Retractations, The City of God).
The controversy stems from what Augustine regards as a serious misinterpretation of his work by Pelagius, in particular Pelagius’ reading of On Free Will. In this latter text, Augustine is addressing the issue of "the origin of evil" and as such his emphasis is on the responsibility for this evil which attaches exclusively to the "free will" of the individual human being. In this context, he makes no reference to "God’s grace" insofar as, for Augustine, God is not responsible in any way for the existence of evil.
However, Pelagius reads this emphasis on free will as a sign that Augustine wishes to make humanity independent of God when it comes to moral action. In other words, Pelagius interprets Augustine’s claim that free will is responsible for evil as a claim that free will can choose between good and evil. This would make free will the basis of moral as well as immoral action and would credit the individual with the ability to be virtuous, independently of God’s grace.
We have already seen in our discussion of On Free Will that there are good textual grounds for such a claim and yet it is precisely this claim which Augustine wishes to unequivocally refute:
Hence the recent Pelagian heretics, who hold a theory of free choice of will which leaves no place for the grace of God, since they hold it is given in accordance with our merits, must not boast of my support (Retractations, Book 1 Chapter 9).
Pelagius has apparently interpreted Augustine’s emphasis on the autonomy of the will out of context. Augustine is now claiming that the will has an exclusively negative autonomy. That is, it is capable of doing wrong on its own volition but not capable of doing good on its own volition. Indeed Augustine tries to show that he has already clarified this very issue in the text On Free Will:
But, though man fell through his own will, he cannot rise through his own will. Therefore, let us believe firmly that God’s arm, that is, Our Lord Jesus Christ, is stretched out to us from on high (2.20.54).
There has been much debate and disagreement about the truth of this situation. Did Pelagius interpret Augustine correctly? Is Augustine being honest about his intentions in On Free Will, or rather did he over-stress human will and seek to pretend otherwise in hindsight? This is a fascinating and ongoing hermeneutic question, but I want to move on from the specifics of it here and address its primary importance from the point of view of our own thematic.
http://www.lost-history.com/fallofrome.php
Much of Rome’s previous cultural identity was destroyed during Theodosius’ reign as he sought to transform the pagan west into the Christian east. Despite the fact that it had been less than 80 years since Emperors Diocletian and his cohort Galerius had inaugurated the worst of the great persecutions against Christianity, the entire empire was now expected to instantly convert to the once-despised religion. Constantine had spent a great amount of time and energy in unifying the church, but now that the church was more unified in structure and popularity, the emperor Theodosius found himself being beckoned by the church rather than the other way around. When Theodosius conducted a massacre of some 10,000 people from Thessalonica in revenge for an uprising, St. Ambrose excommunicated him and refused him communion until he acknowledged his sin of shedding innocent blood. At first Theodosius refused, but was eventually forced into several months of public penance at Milan’s cathedral, giving ample proof of the church‘s political power.The laws banning the traditional gods from the Roman Empire soon took the form of destroying any and all things pagan. Even though Theodosius was at first against this, arguing that Pagan statues should be left intact and temples should be converted into public buildings, he soon bowed to the church’s pressure. The Theodosian Decrees he issued in 391, which are believed to have been heavily influenced by or credited to St. Ambrose, brought about the destruction of the gigantic Serapeum temple in Egypt and its adjacent library, built in the 200s B.C. in honor of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis. The Latin theologian and historian Tyrannius Rufinus located the destruction in the city of Canopus, but the church historians Sozomen and Socrates of Constantinople placed it in Alexandria. All three make mention of a story, from either 389 or 391, in which the looting Christians were surprised to find symbols so close to the cross: the ankh, the familiar Egyptian symbol of eternal life, and the Tau cross, symbol of Tammuz and root of the letter T. Socrates gives further particulars in his Ecclesiastical History, saying:
“Whilst they were demolishing and despoiling the temple of Serapis, they found characters, engraved in stone, of the kind called hieroglyphics, the which chracters had the figure of the cross. When the Christians and the [Pagan] Greeks saw this, they referred the signs to their own religions. The Christians, who regarded the cross as the symbol of the salutary passion of Christ, thought that this character was their own. But the Greeks said it was common to Christ and Serapis; though this cruciform character is, in fact, one thing to the Christians, and another to the Greeks. A controversy having arisen, some of the Greeks converted to Christianity, who understood the hieroglyphics, interpreted the cross-like figure to signify ‘The Life to come.’ The Christians, seizing on this as in favor of their religion, gathered boldness and assurance; and as it was shown by other sacred characters that the temple of Serapis was to have an end when was brought to light this cruciform character, signifying ‘The Life to come,’ a great number were converted and were baptized, confessing their sins.”
---
In the 18th century classic, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon provides an exhaustive analysis of the factors leading the empire’s demise. Chief among these reasons is the supplanting of the classical tradition of the Roman community with Christian beliefs. No doubt influenced by works like that of St. Augustine, Gibbon saw Christianity as bringing about a mystical ambivalence that translated into neglect towards the real world. In the 38th chapter, Gibbon writes:
"As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear, without surprise or scandal, that the introduction, or at least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the cloister; a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes, who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country. Yet party-spirit, however pernicious or absurd, is a principle of union as well as of dissension. The bishops, from eighteen hundred pulpits, inculcated the duty of passive obedience to a lawful and orthodox sovereign; their frequent assemblies, and perpetual correspondence, maintained the communion of distant churches: and the benevolent temper of the gospel was strengthened, though confined, by the spiritual alliance of the Catholics. The sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly embraced by a servile and effeminate age; but, if superstition had not afforded a decent retreat, the same vices would have tempted the unworthy Romans to desert, from baser motives, the standard of the republic. Religious precepts are easily obeyed, which indulge and sanctify the natural inclinations of their votaries; but the pure and genuine influence of Christianity may be traced in its beneficial, though imperfect, effects on the Barbarian proselytes of the North. If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Marius_Victorinus
Victorinus at some unknown point left Africa for Rome (hence some modern scholars have dubbed him Afer), probably for a position teaching, and had great success in his career, eventually being promoted to the lowest level of the senatorial order. That promotion probably came at the time when he received an honorific statue in the Forum of Trajan in 354 (Jerome supplied biographical information but was not his student). Victorinus' conversion from a Platonist to Roman Catholic (c. 355)--"at an advanced old age" according to Jerome-- made a great impression on Augustine of Hippo, as recounted in Book 8[1] of the latter's Confessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caelestius
It is believed Caelestius met Pelagius in the late 4th century in the city of Rome. Pelagius taught that a rigorous moral asceticism was required of Christians by God, Who they said required Christians to struggle against evil behavior using, for the most part, the teachings of the Bible and the example of the Christian saints.
For several decades before the doctrine of sin was fully worked out by the Roman Catholic Church, this teaching brought both of them into numerous theological disputes about the nature of sin with several Christian leaders in the church.
Among them were the Bishop of the northern African Roman province of Hippo, Augustine, (later known as "Saint Augustine,") and the theologian Jerome. Augustine especially did more than any other Father of the Church to develop the doctrine of Original sin, mostly in reaction to his disputes with Pelagius and Caelestius, which remain in Augustine's numerous writings.
---
After they left Rome when it was attacked and burned by the Visigoths in 410, Pelagius and Caelestius faced constant attacks against their teachings by Augustine, Jerome and their followers, who sought to have the Pope declare their views "heretical," or contrary to Christian teachings.
---
Throughout their career, both Pelagius and Caelestius found a more welcome reception in the Eastern Roman Empire for their teachings than in the west. This same view is also shared by the German Protestant theologian Hans von Campenhausen in his book "The Fathers of Church" when discussing the relationship of pelagianism with the orthodox champion Saint Augustine.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Alexandria
Theophilus of Alexandria, (died 412) was Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt from 385 to 412. He is regarded as a saint by the Coptic Orthodox Church.
He was a Coptic Pope at a time of conflict between the newly dominant Christians and the pagan establishment in Alexandria, each supported by a segment of the Alexandrian populace.
In 391, Theophilus (according to Rufinus and Sozomen) discovered a hidden pagan temple. He and his followers mockingly displayed the pagan artifacts to the public which offended the pagans enough to provoke an attack on the Christians. The Christian faction counter-attacked, forcing the pagans to retreat to the Serapeum. A letter was sent by the emperor that Theophilus should grant the offending pagans pardon, but destroy the temple.
The destruction of the Serapeum was seen by many ancient and modern authors as representative of the triumph of Christianity over other religions. When the philosopher Hypatia was lynched by an Alexandrian mob, they acclaimed Theophilus's nephew and successor Cyril as "the new Theophilus, for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city".[1]
Theophilus turned on the followers of Origen after having supported them for a time. He was accompanied by his nephew Cyril to Constantinople in 403 and there presided at the "Synod of the Oak" that deposed John Chrysostom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom
Saint John Chrysostom (c. 347–407, Greek: Ιωάννης ο Χρυσόστομος), archbishop of Constantinople, was an important Early Church Father. He is known for his eloquence in preaching and public speaking, his denunciation of abuse of authority by both ecclesiastical and political leaders, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and his ascetic sensibilities.
---
Chrysostom held Jews responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus and deicide (killing God, see "Jewish deicide" for the subject) and added that they continued to rejoice in Jesus's death.[37] He compared the synagogue to a pagan temple, representing it as the source of all vices and heresies.[38] He described it as a place worse than a brothel and a drinking shop; it was a den of scoundrels, the repair of wild beasts, a temple of demons, the refuge of brigands and debauchees, and the cavern of devils, a criminal assembly of the assassins of Christ.[39] Palladius, Chrysostom's contemporary biographer, also recorded his claim that among the Jews the priesthood may be purchased and sold for money.[40] Finally, he declared that he - in accordance with the sentiments of the saints - hated both the synagogue and the Jews.[41]
---
Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos homilies have been circulated by many groups to foster anti-Semitism.[48] James Parkes called the writing on Jews "the most horrible and violent denunciations of Judaism to be found in the writings of a Christian theologian".[49] His sermons against Jews gave momentum to the idea that Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Jesus.[50] British historian Paul Johnson claimed that Chrysostom's homilies "became the pattern for anti-Jewish tirades, making the fullest possible use (and misuse) of key passages in the gospels of Saints Matthew and John. Thus a specifically Christian anti-Semitism, presenting the Jews as murderers of Christ, was grafted on to the seething mass of pagan smears and rumours, and Jewish communities were now at risk in every Christian city."[51] During World War II, the Nazi Party in Germany abused his work in an attempt to legitimize the Holocaust in the eyes of German and Austrian Christians. His works were frequently quoted and reprinted as a witness for the prosecution.[48]
After World War II, the Christian churches denounced Nazi use of Chrysostom's works, explaining his words with reference to the historical context. According to Laqueur, it was argued that in the 4th century, the general discourse was brutal and aggressive and that at the time when the Christian church was fighting for survival and recognition, mercy and forgiveness were not in demand.[48] According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late fourth century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an "anti-Semite" is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.[52]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_I
It was during Innocent I's papacy that the siege of Rome by Alaric I (395-410) and the Visigoths (408) took place, when, according to an anecdote of Zosimus, the ravages of plague and famine were so frightful, and divine help seemed so far off, that papal permission was granted to sacrifice and pray to the pagan deities. The pope, however, happened to be absent from the city on a mission to Honorius at Ravenna at the time of the sack in 410.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Anastasius_I
Pope Saint Anastasius I was pope from November 27, 399 to 401.
He condemned the writings of the Alexandrian theologian Origen shortly after their translation into Latin.
Among his friends were Augustine, Jerome, and Paulinus. Jerome speaks of him as a man of great holiness who was rich in his poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Aurelius_Symmachus
Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (c. 340 – c. 402), the cultured and prominent son of a prominent father, Lucius Aurelius Avianius Symmachus, in the patrician gens Aurelia, held the offices of proconsul of Africa in 373, urban prefect of Rome in 384 and 385, and consul in 391. A representative of the traditional cursus honorum, Symmachus was a pagan at a time when the senatorial aristocracy was rapidly converting to Christianity.
In 382, the Emperor Gratian, a Christian, ordered the Altar of Victory removed from the Curia, the Roman Senate house in the Forum. Symmachus led a delegation of protest, which the emperor refused to receive. Two years later, Gratian was assassinated in Lugdunum, and Symmachus, now Prefect of Rome, renewed the appeal to Gratian's successor, Valentinian II, in a famous dispatch that was rebutted by Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. In an age when all religious communities credited the divine power with direct involvement in human affairs, Symmachus argues that the removal of the altar had caused a famine and its restoration would be beneficial in other ways. Subtly he pleads for tolerance for traditional cult practices and beliefs that Christianity was poised to suppress in the Theodosian edicts of 391.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose
Ambrose's influence upon Theodosius is credited with eliciting the enactment of the "Theodosian decrees" of 391 (see entry Theodosius I).
---
One interpretation of Ambrose's writings is that he was a Christian universalist.[12] It has been noted that Ambrose's theology was significantly influenced by that of Origen and Didymus the Blind, two other early Christian universalists.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome
He seems to have abstained for a considerable time from the study of the classics and to have plunged deeply into that of the Bible, under the impulse of Apollinaris of Laodicea, then teaching in Antioch and not yet suspected of heresy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orosius
After entering the priesthood, he took an interest in the Priscillianist controversy then going on in his native country. He went to consult with Augustine at Hippo (now Annaba in Algeria) in 413 or 414, possibly in connection with this controversy. After staying for some time in North Africa as Augustine's disciple, he was reportedly sent by him in 415 to Palestine with a letter of introduction to Jerome, then living in Bethlehem.
The ostensible purpose of his mission (apart from the typical intent of pilgrimage and perhaps relic-hunting) was that he might gain further instruction from Jerome on the points raised by the Priscillianists and Origenists. In reality, it would seem that his business was to assist Jerome and others against Pelagius, who, after the synod of Carthage in 411, had been living in Palestine, and finding some acceptance there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscillian
Priscillian, bishop of Ávila (died 385), a theologian from Roman Gallaecia (in the Iberian Peninsula), was the first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy (though the civil charges were for the practice of magic). He founded an ascetic group that, in spite of persecution, continued to subsist in Hispania and Gaul until the later 6th century.
---
The long prevalent estimation of Priscillian as a heretic and Manichaean rested upon Augustine, Turibius of Astorga, Leo the Great and Orosius (who quotes a fragment of a letter of Priscillian's), although at the Council of Toledo in 400, fifteen years after Priscillian's death, when his case was reviewed, the most serious charge that could be brought was the error of language involved in a misrendering of the word innascibilis ("unbegettable").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscillianism
Priscillianism is a Christian doctrine developed in the Iberian Peninsula (the Roman Hispania) in the 4th century by Priscillian, derived from the Gnostic-Manichaean doctrines taught by Marcus, an Egyptian from Memphis, and later considered a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turibius_of_Astorga
Priscillian's ascetic beliefs, which originated in Galicia[4], spread over the Tierra de Campos ruled by the Arian Visigoths, and was opposed by him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Gaul
The Church of Gaul passed through three dogmatic crises. Its bishops seem to have been greatly preoccupied with Arianism; as a rule they clung to the teaching of the Council of Nicaea, in spite of a few temporary or partial defections. Athanasius, who had been exiled to Trier (336-38), exerted a powerful influence on the episcopate of Gaul; one of the great champions of orthodoxy in the West was Hilary of Poitiers, who also suffered exile for his constancy. Priscillianism had a greater hold on the masses of the faithful. It was above all a method, an ideal of Christian life, which appealed to all, even to women. It was condemned (380) at the Synod of Saragossa where the Bishops of Bordeaux and Agen were present; none the less it spread rapidly in Central Gaul, Eauze in particular being a stronghold. When in 385 the usurper Maximus put Priscillian and his friends to death, St. Martin was in doubt how to act, but repudiated with horror communion with the bishops who had condemned the unfortunates. Priscillianism, indeed, was more or less bound up with the cause of asceticism in general. Finally the bishops and monks of Gaul were long divided over Pelagianism. Proculus, Bishop of Marseille, had obliged Leporius, a disciple of Pelagius, to leave Gaul, but it was not long before Marseille and Lérins, led by Cassian, Vincent and Faustus, became hotbeds of a teaching opposed to St. Augustine's and known as Semipelagianism. Prosper of Aquitaine wrote against it, and was obliged to take refuge at Rome. It was not until the beginning of the sixth century that the teaching of Augustine triumphed, when a monk of Lérins, Caesarius of Arles, an almost servile disciple of Augustine, caused it to be adopted by the Council of Orange (529).
---
The barbarians, however, were on the march. The great invasion of 407 made the Goths masters of all the country to the south of the Loire, with the exception of Bourges and Clermont, which did not fall into their hands until 475; Arles succumbed in 480. Then the Visigoth kingdom was organized, Arian in religion, and at first hostile to Catholicism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism
Beginning with Augustine[5], many have seen a connection to Noahide Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audianism
Audianism was a fourth-century Christian heresy, named after the leader of the sect, Audius (or Audaeus).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcellions
The circumcellions were fanatical bands of predatory peasants that flourished in North Africa in the 4th century.[1] They preferred to be known as agonistici ("fighters(for Christ)").[1] At first they were concerned with remedying social grievances, but they became linked with the Donatist sect.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism
The Donatists (named for the Berber Christian Donatus Magnus) were followers of a belief considered a schism by the broader churches of the Catholic tradition, and most particularly within the context of the religious milieu of the provinces of Roman North Africa in Late Antiquity. They lived in the Roman province of Africa and flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
In 375, Epiphanius records the settlement of Ebionites on Cyprus, but by the mid-5th century, Theodoret of Cyrrhus reported that they were no longer present in the region.[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euchites
The Euchites or Messalians were a sect condemned as heretical in a synod of 383CE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
However, the strictures against Marcionism predate the authority, claimed by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, to declare what is heretical against the Church.
---
Marcionism continued in the West for 300 years, although Marcionistic ideas persisted much longer.[3]
The organization continued in the East for some centuries later, particularly outside the Byzantine Empire in areas which later would be dominated by Manichaeism. This is no accident: Mani is believed to have been a Mandaean, and Mandaeanism is related to Marcionism in several ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
Into the late fourth century, the Bishop known as Ambrose of Milan had millennial leanings (Ambrose of Milan. Book II. On the Belief in the Resurrection, verse 108).
---
Chiliasm was, however, according to the interpretation of non-chiliasts, condemned as a heresy in the 4th century by the Church, which included the phrase whose Kingdom shall have no end in the Nicene Creed in order to rule out the idea of a Kingdom of God which would last for only 1000 literal years.[8] Despite some writers' belief in millennialism, it was a decided minority view, as expressed in the nearly universal condemnation of the doctrine over a gradual period of time, beginning with Augustine of Hippo. It is vigorously disputed whether or not caesaropapism had a role in the virtual annihilation of millennialism from the 4th Century onwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism
Although orthodox Nicene Christianity prevailed against Montanism within a few generations, labeling it a heresy, the sect persisted in some isolated places into the 8th century. Some people have drawn parallels between Montanism and modern Pentecostalism (which some call Neo-Montanism). The most widely known Montanist was undoubtedly Tertullian, who was the foremost Latin church writer before he converted to Montanism.
---
A letter of Jerome to Marcella, written in 385, refutes the claims of Montanists that had been troubling her (letter 41) [1].
A group of "Tertullianists" continued to exist at Carthage. The anonymous author of Praedestinatus records that a preacher came to Rome in 388 where he made many converts and obtained the use of a church for his congregation on the grounds that the martyrs to whom it was dedicated had been Montanists.[2] He was obliged to flee after the victory of Theodosius I. Augustine records that the Tertullianist group dwindled to almost nothing in his own time, and finally was reconciled to the church and handed over their basilica.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism
Pelagianism was opposed by Augustine of Hippo, who is known today as a Church Father of Catholicism. Augustine was converted to Christianity out of the Gnostic sect Manicheanism. When Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life because of free will, Augustine counteracted this by saying that perfection was impossible because we are born sinners with a sinful flesh. The Pelagians charged Augustine with teaching Gnosticism by teaching original sin, because the Gnostics taught that the flesh was sinful, which was why they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. Augustine also taught that a person's salvation comes solely through an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, and that no free choice was involved in salvation. The debate of Pelagius vs. Augustine was free will vs. original sin. Augustine was not successful in having Pelagius condemned by the Church. He therefore had the political powers severely persecute him.[citation needed] Years after Pelagius died, Pelagianism was condemned, aided by the fact that Pelagius could not defend himself against Augustine's charges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentianism
Disciples of Valentinus continued to be active into the fourth century CE, after the Roman Empire was declared to be Christian[2].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinarism
Apollinarism or Apollinarianism was a view proposed by Apollinaris of Laodicea (died 390) that Jesus had a human body and lower soul (the seat of the emotions) but a divine mind.
---
It was declared to be a heresy in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople, since Christ was officially depicted as fully human and fully God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
The controversy over Arianism began to rise in the late 3rd century and extended over the greater part of the 4th century and involved most church members, simple believers, priests and monks as well as bishops, emperors and members of Rome's imperial family. Yet, such a deep controversy within the Church could not have materialized in the 3rd and 4th centuries without some significant historical influences providing the basis for the Arian doctrines. Most orthodox or mainstream Christian historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and a handful of rogue bishops engaging in heresy. Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, only three bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed. However to minimize the extent of Arianism ignores the fact that extremely prominent Emperors such as Constantius II, the first Christian Emperor, and Valens were Arians, as well as prominent Gothic, Vandal and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and that none of these groups were out of the mainstream of the Roman Empire in the 4th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
In the contra epistulam fundamenti, Augustine of Hippo makes reference to the Manichaeans believing that Jesus was Docetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians_(religious_group)
The Macedonians were a Christian sect of the 4th century AD, named after Bishop Macedonius I of Constantinople. They professed a belief similar[1][dubious – discuss] to that of Arianism, but apparently denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit,[2] and regarding the substance of Jesus Christ as being the same in kind as that of God the Father. They are regarded to have taught that the Holy Spirit was a creation of the Son, and a servant of the Father and the Son. This is what prompted the addition of “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets,” into the Nicene Creed at the second ecumenical council. [3]
---
Their teachings were formally condemned in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople. The Council responded to the theological challenge of the Macedonians by revising the Nicene Creed into present form used in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and prohibited[citation needed] any further alteration of the Creed without the assent of an Ecumenical Council. The Macedonian heresy was subsequently suppressed by the emperor Theodosius I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutychianism
Eutychianism refers to a set of Christian theological doctrines derived from the ideas of Eutyches of Constantinople (c. 380—456).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism
Nestorius (c. 386–c. 451) was a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch in Syria (modern Turkey) and later became Archbishop of Constantinople.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilanthropism
In Christology, Psilanthropism is the view that Jesus was merely human. The expression "merely human" can refer either to Jesus' substance (nothing more than a man) or to his existence in time (no existence prior to his becoming a man), or both. The presumed etymology of "psilanthropism" stems from the Greek psilo (merely, only) and anthropos (man, human being).
Psilanthropism was rejected by the ecumenical councils, especially in the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened to deal directly with this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism
Epiphanius (Haeres 62) about 375 AD notes that the adherents of Sabellius were still to be found in great numbers, both in Mesopotamia and at Rome.[4]
http://www.soaringoaks.org/userFiles/File/resources/ancient_church_history/Ancient%20Church%20History%20Part%2014%20Lecture%20Notes.doc
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-43050.html
Thus, this is not the only paradox that Origen engages in. Origen absolutely rejected the Docetists, yet his teachings on the nature of Christ borrowed heavily from Docetism. He argued against Gnosticism, yet accepted the Emanation theory of creation, and the concept of the Logos. He rejected Plotinist Dualism, yet accepted material as an "accidental" creation caused by the fall--thus matter was not evil, but was never intended.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/
In the long and difficult controversy with the Pelagians, Augustine found his own earlier writings on the will cited by his opponents as evidence that he himself once advocated the view he came so vehemently to oppose [see Retractationes I.9.3-6]. What is more, he dies just as the Vandals are besieging the gates of Hippo, leaving unfinished yet another work against Julian of Eclanum, a Pelagian opponent of considerable intellectual resources who had, among other things, accused Augustine of holding views indistinguishable from those of the Manicheans whom Augustine had opposed so many years before [Bonner, 1999]. And here, perhaps, is an irony as cruel as it is intriguing: eleven centuries later, when the Church to which Augustine had devoted the last four and a half decades of his life was to split in a manner that still shows no signs of reconciliation, both sides would appeal to Augustine as an authority on questions of doctrine [Muller 1999; Grossi 1999].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
Augustine did not develop an independent mariology, but his statements on Mary surpass in number and depths those of other early writers. [46] The Virgin Mary “conceived as virgin, gave birth as virgin and stayed virgin forever [47] Even before the Council of Ephesus, he defended the ever Virgin Mary as the mother of God, who, because of her virginity, is full of grace [48] She was free of any temporal sin, [49] Because of a woman, the whole human race was saved. [50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up. [7]
In The City of God, Augustine also defended the idea of a young Earth. Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings:
"Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed." (Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, The City of God, Book 12: Chapt. 10 [AD 419]).
St. Augustine also comments on the word "day" in the creation week, admitting the interpretation is difficult:
"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (City of God, Book 11: Chapt. 6).
http://ecole.evansville.edu/articles/allegory.html
Several points should be noted about Augustine's composite allegorization. First, although he used the Martha/Mary pair that he inherited from Origen more frequently (it has indeed been called his "favorite illustration" [Mason, 36]), the Leah/Rachel pair serves to complement the other one rather well. While he uses the Martha/Mary pair to show the superiority and eternity of the contemplative life, Augustine uses the Leah and Rachel pair as Origen had used the figure of Peter at the Transfiguration: to show that the two lives are complementary, with both being necessary, a point that he returns to several times, as in City of God, viii, 4, "To Plato is given the praise of having perfected philosophy by combining both parts [the active and the contemplative] into one" (cf. de Cons. Evang. i, 12; de Civ. Dei xix, 1, 2, 3, 19). Since both sisters were wives of Jacob (who represents the human soul in both Philo and Augustine), they also offered such a complementary relationship: "No one desires this life for its own sake, as Jacob desired not Leah, who yet was brought to him, and became his wife, and the mother of children. Though she could not be loved of herself, the Lord made her be borne with as a step to Rachel, and then she came to be approved on account of her children" (contra Faustum xxii, 52). (Augustine may be stressing Leah's role of bearing children since Christ is descended from her, not Rachel.) The fact that one sister was married first and therefore the relationships were sequential also worked well in the allegory (perhaps, Augustine thought, better than the Martha/Mary or Peter/John pairs). It also determined that it would be Leah who would represent the active life; to this end, Augustine, like Philo, quotes Gen 29:26, though for Augustine this is to show the correctness of marrying Leah first. For Augustine, the active life leads to the reward of the contemplative, as marriage to Leah leads to the reward of the beloved Rachel: "So, in the discipline of man, the toil of doing the work of righteousness precedes the delight of understanding the truth" (contra Faustum xxii, 52). (Augustine may also have been influenced in his choice of Leah as the active life by the earlier allegorizations of Justin and Irenaeus [Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 134; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.] that identified Rachel with the Church and Leah with Israel; since for the Fathers, the Church is superior to Israel, as Rachel is superior to Leah, so here she must represent the superior life of contemplation.) Unlike the Martha/Mary or Peter/John pairs, the Leah/Rachel pair offers an image for the active and contemplative lives in which they are successive and necessary stages, the second of which is the superior, more beloved, and more divine.
http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/114/10/327
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/melanchthon-aga.html
Origen and Erasmus agree on an exegetical point that was unwelcome to Augustinian thinkers. Erasmus was the first Western exegete to point out that the eph’hô in Romans 5:12 does not mean ‘in whom all had sinned’ but ‘in that all had sinned’. He notes that when Origen says that ‘the death which had come to him from the transgression consequently passed through to them as well, who were dwelling in his loins’ (V, 1.201-3; S 1.311; M 1010) he is not talking of original sin inherited by infants but is ‘showing why the blessed Paul makes neither the devil nor Eve the author of sin’ (Erasmus, 143), and the continuation of Origen’s text shows he is thinking of human imitation of the sin of Adam. Origen argues, in a way Erasmus finds ‘forced’, that ‘sin was passed down only in the world, that is, to those of a worldly spirit’ (see V, 1.215-32; M 1010). This is echoed by Pelagius, in a text ascribed to Jerome: ‘it passed to all those who lived in a human way, rather than divine... to all those who transgressed the natural law... They sinned through the example of Adam’ (Erasmus, 142).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen
He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist.[5] Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God.[5] He imagined even demons being reunited with God.
---
A strict adherent of the Church, Origen yet distinguished sharply between the ideal and the empirical Church, representing "a double church of men and angels", or, in Platonic phraseology, the lower church and its celestial ideal. The ideal Church alone was the Church of Christ, scattered over all the earth; the other provided also a shelter for sinners. Holding that the Church, as being in possession of the mysteries, affords the only means of salvation, he was indifferent to her external organization, although he spoke sometimes of the office-bearers as the pillars of the Church, and of their heavy duties and responsibilities.
More important to him was the idea borrowed from Plato of the grand division between the great human multitude, capable of sensual vision only, and those who know how to comprehend the hidden meaning of Scripture and the diverse mysteries, church organization being for the former only.
---
For quite some time, Origen was counted as one of the most important church fathers and his works were widely used in the Church. His exegetical method was standard of the School of Alexandria and the Origenists were an important party in the 4th century debates on Arianism.
http://www.helsinki.fi/collegium/english/staff/Sihvola/Sihvola%5B1%5D..Aristotle,%20the%20Stoics.pdf
Augustine applied Stoic moral psychology in a rather straightforward way and interpreted, it from a theological viewpoint. For the Church Father, the aim of human life was the, union with God, and he described the nature of this union in very emotional, even erotic, terms. However, the union with God corresponded with the Stoic ideal of apatheia in the, sense that it, too, required the extirpation of all desires and emotions that disturbed, virtuous activity in the full command of reason.4,
Augustine differed in an important respect from Aristotle and the Stoics as well as from, all pagan philosophy in the antiquity. The Church Father did not hold it as possible even, in principle for the human beings to reach perfect happiness in the fusion with God by, their own efforts. The differences between Aristotle, the Stoics, and Augustine are rather, subtle here, so I try to express them clearly. All three views agree that there are not too, many humans who are virtuous and wise, but disagree on the explanations of this fact., The rareness of the virtuous is explained by the pagan philosophers, especially Aristotle, by the external circumstances that prevent the natural rational and moral capacities and, inclinations from their development. The Christian tradition represented by Augustine did, not blame circumstances but the original sin. The Christians claimed that the human, moral capacities were internally corrupted in The Fall. The differences between the three, views can also be expressed as follows. For Aristotle, natural human inclinations are, directed towards the good, and the function of virtue is to complete the natural, development. The later Stoics introduced the idea that there are irrational ones among the, natural inclinations, but they still insisted that the humans at least in principle have, resources to combat these inclinations. Augustine held that even the resources to combat, the irrational inclinations are seriously corrupted in all of us.
4 On the influence of ancient psychological theories to the Christian tradition, see especially Simo, Knuuttila, Emotions in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon 2004.
In the Augustinean view, the natural movements of the body and soul tear the human, beings away from what is right and from God by necessity, even if the humans may know, the will of God by their reason or by revelation. This is all due to the original sin. The, original sin and its expressions in natural inclinations would not be particularly, reprehensible and the acts of human beings would not be counted as further sins, if they, immediately used their free will to extirpate the passions raised by those appearances that, have a power to move their natural inclinations. Unfortunately, the original sin did not, only corrupt our natural desires, it also corrupted our capacity to use of our free will to, control those desires. Augustine insists that our will is free, and we are responsible for, our use of it. The will weakened by the original sin is, however, only able to express itself, in choices between the different varieties of vice. Virtue is quite beyond reach by our, own efforts.
The Augustinean conception of humanity is painted in much darker colors than its, predecessors in the pagan antiquity. The Stoic influence is still prominent. Human, susceptibility to emotions and impulses that disturb the rational command of life, and the, distinction between two types of psychological movements, those that are direct, consequences of the human nature, and those that are results from voluntary acts of the, will, are to a large extent ideas derived from and expressed in the vocabulary of the Stoic, framework.
Augustine held that if there were no power to control the human beings a violent anarchy, would emerge. However, he made two important amendments that somewhat mitigated, the disastrous consequences of human sinfulness. First, God had established the secular, authority the function of which is to uphold social order and prevent a full chaos, although it cannot make human life any more acceptable to God. Second, God has in his, grace decided to save a modest number of human beings through the Christ to an eternal, happiness without any desert of their own. Salvation is a predestined part of the divine, plan, and human beings possess no capacity to understand why God has decided to do, what he has done. We do not even know, who will be saved and who will be doomed to, an eternal damnation. Even the saved themselves do not know this for certain.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/neostoic.htm
The existence of a forged correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul, accepted as genuine by St. Augustine and St. Jerome, may well have contributed to the thought that it was possible to combine Stoic ethics with Christian teaching.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_augustine_copan.html
The atmosphere of North African Christendom in which Augustine grew up reflected the influential thought of Tertullian (d. ca. 220), who asked, "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?"5 The porch of Solomon, where Jesus would customarily teach, was sufficient for him. Tertullian then added: "I have no use for a Stoic or a Platonic or a dialectic Christianity. After Jesus we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research."
Although Tertullian did utilize stoic philosophy, pre-Socratic philosophers, and even Aristotle (who studied at Plato's academy in Athens, which apparently had more to do with Jerusalem than Tertullian let on), his aversion to philosophy was no secret.6 His fideistic comment, "I believe because it is foolish,"7 was not merely idiosyncratic with Tertullian. Along with his theological successor Cyprian, who was slightly less strident than his master, Tertullian exerted a powerful influence upon North African Christendom's antiintellectualism.8 Such a remark by Tertullian typified the antiintellectual Christianity among the Catholic clergy of this entire region. For instance Augustine addressed the council of bishops of the African Church in October of 393, an address preserved in his Faith and the Creed. Rather than utilize heavy theological language he had to resort to very plain speech and follow the basic creedal statements of Christianity even for high-ranking church officials.9 In 412 Augustine received a letter from Consentius, a fellow bishop, who reflected this lack of appreciation for the intellect: "God is not to be sought after by reason but followed through authority."10
Such narrow-mindedness and lack of theological and intellectual rigor are easier to understand when we consider the historical context of the North African Church. By necessity Christians devoted their energies to enduring opposition and even martyrdom up until Constantine's conversion to Christianity and his making Christianity the official religion of the empire. Christians had been understandably more concerned to gather together to pray and encourage one another than engage in scholarly discussion. But by the time of Augustine, Christians still had not devoted much time and energy to theological reflection or interaction with the intellectual ideas circulating around the Mediterranean region.
The lack of theological rigor had detrimental side effects, one of which was the infiltration of Manichean beliefs into the Church. The Donatists would mock the African Catholic congregations because of the proliferation of Manichean heresies within them. Even Augustine mentioned a subdeacon within the Catholic Church who had concurrently been a member of the Manichees for years. He aroused no one's suspicion.11 Such a heretical presence within North African Catholicism was commonplace. John O'Meara elaborates:
Men could change their allegiance from Christianity to Manicheism - and vice versa - without attracting as much attention as they would if they had changed to the Donatists. It even happened that Christian ministers were, after many years' performance of their functions, discovered to have been Manichees all the time.12
The dearth of theological endeavor had yet another negative side effect: authoritarianism and antiintellectualism among North African Catholic clergy. Closemindedness seemed to be characteristic among these Church leaders. Augustine urges the inquirer who desires to find the truth not to despair when he encounters antiintellectualism among the Church leadership:
And should the inquirer meet with some, whether bishops or presbyters, or any officials or ministers of the Catholic Church, who either avoid in all cases opening up mysteries, or, content with simple faith, have no desire for more recondite knowledge, he must not despair of finding the knowledge of the truth in a case where neither are all able to teach to whom the inquiry is addressed, nor are all inquirers worthy of learning the truth. Diligence and piety are both necessary: on the one hand, we must have knowledge to find truth, and on the other hand, we must deserve to get the knowledge.13
Augustine had once been a seeker in just this atmosphere—an authoritarian one in which church leaders offered questioners no reasoned answers but rather intimidated the laity to blindly accept Church teaching without question.14 Eugene Teselle characterizes Augustine's conservative Catholic environment as stressing "reverence for divine authority at the expense of rational inquiry" and perhaps even "inclined to counsel blind faith."15 So when the questions Augustine was raising were not answered by the Catholic clergy he looked elsewhere for intellectual satisfaction.
http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol6/augustine.html
The most important texts of Augustine’s later period are the so-called ‘anti-Pelagian’ writings (dated 400 onwards) and the monumental City of God (completed in 426). The Pelagian conflict splits Augustine’s work through the middle, separating his earlier more "humanist" work (On Free Will, completed 388) from his later, more theocentric thought (Retractations, The City of God).
The controversy stems from what Augustine regards as a serious misinterpretation of his work by Pelagius, in particular Pelagius’ reading of On Free Will. In this latter text, Augustine is addressing the issue of "the origin of evil" and as such his emphasis is on the responsibility for this evil which attaches exclusively to the "free will" of the individual human being. In this context, he makes no reference to "God’s grace" insofar as, for Augustine, God is not responsible in any way for the existence of evil.
However, Pelagius reads this emphasis on free will as a sign that Augustine wishes to make humanity independent of God when it comes to moral action. In other words, Pelagius interprets Augustine’s claim that free will is responsible for evil as a claim that free will can choose between good and evil. This would make free will the basis of moral as well as immoral action and would credit the individual with the ability to be virtuous, independently of God’s grace.
We have already seen in our discussion of On Free Will that there are good textual grounds for such a claim and yet it is precisely this claim which Augustine wishes to unequivocally refute:
Hence the recent Pelagian heretics, who hold a theory of free choice of will which leaves no place for the grace of God, since they hold it is given in accordance with our merits, must not boast of my support (Retractations, Book 1 Chapter 9).
Pelagius has apparently interpreted Augustine’s emphasis on the autonomy of the will out of context. Augustine is now claiming that the will has an exclusively negative autonomy. That is, it is capable of doing wrong on its own volition but not capable of doing good on its own volition. Indeed Augustine tries to show that he has already clarified this very issue in the text On Free Will:
But, though man fell through his own will, he cannot rise through his own will. Therefore, let us believe firmly that God’s arm, that is, Our Lord Jesus Christ, is stretched out to us from on high (2.20.54).
There has been much debate and disagreement about the truth of this situation. Did Pelagius interpret Augustine correctly? Is Augustine being honest about his intentions in On Free Will, or rather did he over-stress human will and seek to pretend otherwise in hindsight? This is a fascinating and ongoing hermeneutic question, but I want to move on from the specifics of it here and address its primary importance from the point of view of our own thematic.
http://www.lost-history.com/fallofrome.php
Much of Rome’s previous cultural identity was destroyed during Theodosius’ reign as he sought to transform the pagan west into the Christian east. Despite the fact that it had been less than 80 years since Emperors Diocletian and his cohort Galerius had inaugurated the worst of the great persecutions against Christianity, the entire empire was now expected to instantly convert to the once-despised religion. Constantine had spent a great amount of time and energy in unifying the church, but now that the church was more unified in structure and popularity, the emperor Theodosius found himself being beckoned by the church rather than the other way around. When Theodosius conducted a massacre of some 10,000 people from Thessalonica in revenge for an uprising, St. Ambrose excommunicated him and refused him communion until he acknowledged his sin of shedding innocent blood. At first Theodosius refused, but was eventually forced into several months of public penance at Milan’s cathedral, giving ample proof of the church‘s political power.The laws banning the traditional gods from the Roman Empire soon took the form of destroying any and all things pagan. Even though Theodosius was at first against this, arguing that Pagan statues should be left intact and temples should be converted into public buildings, he soon bowed to the church’s pressure. The Theodosian Decrees he issued in 391, which are believed to have been heavily influenced by or credited to St. Ambrose, brought about the destruction of the gigantic Serapeum temple in Egypt and its adjacent library, built in the 200s B.C. in honor of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis. The Latin theologian and historian Tyrannius Rufinus located the destruction in the city of Canopus, but the church historians Sozomen and Socrates of Constantinople placed it in Alexandria. All three make mention of a story, from either 389 or 391, in which the looting Christians were surprised to find symbols so close to the cross: the ankh, the familiar Egyptian symbol of eternal life, and the Tau cross, symbol of Tammuz and root of the letter T. Socrates gives further particulars in his Ecclesiastical History, saying:
“Whilst they were demolishing and despoiling the temple of Serapis, they found characters, engraved in stone, of the kind called hieroglyphics, the which chracters had the figure of the cross. When the Christians and the [Pagan] Greeks saw this, they referred the signs to their own religions. The Christians, who regarded the cross as the symbol of the salutary passion of Christ, thought that this character was their own. But the Greeks said it was common to Christ and Serapis; though this cruciform character is, in fact, one thing to the Christians, and another to the Greeks. A controversy having arisen, some of the Greeks converted to Christianity, who understood the hieroglyphics, interpreted the cross-like figure to signify ‘The Life to come.’ The Christians, seizing on this as in favor of their religion, gathered boldness and assurance; and as it was shown by other sacred characters that the temple of Serapis was to have an end when was brought to light this cruciform character, signifying ‘The Life to come,’ a great number were converted and were baptized, confessing their sins.”
---
In the 18th century classic, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon provides an exhaustive analysis of the factors leading the empire’s demise. Chief among these reasons is the supplanting of the classical tradition of the Roman community with Christian beliefs. No doubt influenced by works like that of St. Augustine, Gibbon saw Christianity as bringing about a mystical ambivalence that translated into neglect towards the real world. In the 38th chapter, Gibbon writes:
"As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear, without surprise or scandal, that the introduction, or at least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the cloister; a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes, who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country. Yet party-spirit, however pernicious or absurd, is a principle of union as well as of dissension. The bishops, from eighteen hundred pulpits, inculcated the duty of passive obedience to a lawful and orthodox sovereign; their frequent assemblies, and perpetual correspondence, maintained the communion of distant churches: and the benevolent temper of the gospel was strengthened, though confined, by the spiritual alliance of the Catholics. The sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly embraced by a servile and effeminate age; but, if superstition had not afforded a decent retreat, the same vices would have tempted the unworthy Romans to desert, from baser motives, the standard of the republic. Religious precepts are easily obeyed, which indulge and sanctify the natural inclinations of their votaries; but the pure and genuine influence of Christianity may be traced in its beneficial, though imperfect, effects on the Barbarian proselytes of the North. If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Marius_Victorinus
Victorinus at some unknown point left Africa for Rome (hence some modern scholars have dubbed him Afer), probably for a position teaching, and had great success in his career, eventually being promoted to the lowest level of the senatorial order. That promotion probably came at the time when he received an honorific statue in the Forum of Trajan in 354 (Jerome supplied biographical information but was not his student). Victorinus' conversion from a Platonist to Roman Catholic (c. 355)--"at an advanced old age" according to Jerome-- made a great impression on Augustine of Hippo, as recounted in Book 8[1] of the latter's Confessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caelestius
It is believed Caelestius met Pelagius in the late 4th century in the city of Rome. Pelagius taught that a rigorous moral asceticism was required of Christians by God, Who they said required Christians to struggle against evil behavior using, for the most part, the teachings of the Bible and the example of the Christian saints.
For several decades before the doctrine of sin was fully worked out by the Roman Catholic Church, this teaching brought both of them into numerous theological disputes about the nature of sin with several Christian leaders in the church.
Among them were the Bishop of the northern African Roman province of Hippo, Augustine, (later known as "Saint Augustine,") and the theologian Jerome. Augustine especially did more than any other Father of the Church to develop the doctrine of Original sin, mostly in reaction to his disputes with Pelagius and Caelestius, which remain in Augustine's numerous writings.
---
After they left Rome when it was attacked and burned by the Visigoths in 410, Pelagius and Caelestius faced constant attacks against their teachings by Augustine, Jerome and their followers, who sought to have the Pope declare their views "heretical," or contrary to Christian teachings.
---
Throughout their career, both Pelagius and Caelestius found a more welcome reception in the Eastern Roman Empire for their teachings than in the west. This same view is also shared by the German Protestant theologian Hans von Campenhausen in his book "The Fathers of Church" when discussing the relationship of pelagianism with the orthodox champion Saint Augustine.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Alexandria
Theophilus of Alexandria, (died 412) was Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt from 385 to 412. He is regarded as a saint by the Coptic Orthodox Church.
He was a Coptic Pope at a time of conflict between the newly dominant Christians and the pagan establishment in Alexandria, each supported by a segment of the Alexandrian populace.
In 391, Theophilus (according to Rufinus and Sozomen) discovered a hidden pagan temple. He and his followers mockingly displayed the pagan artifacts to the public which offended the pagans enough to provoke an attack on the Christians. The Christian faction counter-attacked, forcing the pagans to retreat to the Serapeum. A letter was sent by the emperor that Theophilus should grant the offending pagans pardon, but destroy the temple.
The destruction of the Serapeum was seen by many ancient and modern authors as representative of the triumph of Christianity over other religions. When the philosopher Hypatia was lynched by an Alexandrian mob, they acclaimed Theophilus's nephew and successor Cyril as "the new Theophilus, for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city".[1]
Theophilus turned on the followers of Origen after having supported them for a time. He was accompanied by his nephew Cyril to Constantinople in 403 and there presided at the "Synod of the Oak" that deposed John Chrysostom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom
Saint John Chrysostom (c. 347–407, Greek: Ιωάννης ο Χρυσόστομος), archbishop of Constantinople, was an important Early Church Father. He is known for his eloquence in preaching and public speaking, his denunciation of abuse of authority by both ecclesiastical and political leaders, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and his ascetic sensibilities.
---
Chrysostom held Jews responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus and deicide (killing God, see "Jewish deicide" for the subject) and added that they continued to rejoice in Jesus's death.[37] He compared the synagogue to a pagan temple, representing it as the source of all vices and heresies.[38] He described it as a place worse than a brothel and a drinking shop; it was a den of scoundrels, the repair of wild beasts, a temple of demons, the refuge of brigands and debauchees, and the cavern of devils, a criminal assembly of the assassins of Christ.[39] Palladius, Chrysostom's contemporary biographer, also recorded his claim that among the Jews the priesthood may be purchased and sold for money.[40] Finally, he declared that he - in accordance with the sentiments of the saints - hated both the synagogue and the Jews.[41]
---
Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos homilies have been circulated by many groups to foster anti-Semitism.[48] James Parkes called the writing on Jews "the most horrible and violent denunciations of Judaism to be found in the writings of a Christian theologian".[49] His sermons against Jews gave momentum to the idea that Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Jesus.[50] British historian Paul Johnson claimed that Chrysostom's homilies "became the pattern for anti-Jewish tirades, making the fullest possible use (and misuse) of key passages in the gospels of Saints Matthew and John. Thus a specifically Christian anti-Semitism, presenting the Jews as murderers of Christ, was grafted on to the seething mass of pagan smears and rumours, and Jewish communities were now at risk in every Christian city."[51] During World War II, the Nazi Party in Germany abused his work in an attempt to legitimize the Holocaust in the eyes of German and Austrian Christians. His works were frequently quoted and reprinted as a witness for the prosecution.[48]
After World War II, the Christian churches denounced Nazi use of Chrysostom's works, explaining his words with reference to the historical context. According to Laqueur, it was argued that in the 4th century, the general discourse was brutal and aggressive and that at the time when the Christian church was fighting for survival and recognition, mercy and forgiveness were not in demand.[48] According to Patristics scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late fourth century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos, whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an "anti-Semite" is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.[52]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_I
It was during Innocent I's papacy that the siege of Rome by Alaric I (395-410) and the Visigoths (408) took place, when, according to an anecdote of Zosimus, the ravages of plague and famine were so frightful, and divine help seemed so far off, that papal permission was granted to sacrifice and pray to the pagan deities. The pope, however, happened to be absent from the city on a mission to Honorius at Ravenna at the time of the sack in 410.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Anastasius_I
Pope Saint Anastasius I was pope from November 27, 399 to 401.
He condemned the writings of the Alexandrian theologian Origen shortly after their translation into Latin.
Among his friends were Augustine, Jerome, and Paulinus. Jerome speaks of him as a man of great holiness who was rich in his poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Aurelius_Symmachus
Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (c. 340 – c. 402), the cultured and prominent son of a prominent father, Lucius Aurelius Avianius Symmachus, in the patrician gens Aurelia, held the offices of proconsul of Africa in 373, urban prefect of Rome in 384 and 385, and consul in 391. A representative of the traditional cursus honorum, Symmachus was a pagan at a time when the senatorial aristocracy was rapidly converting to Christianity.
In 382, the Emperor Gratian, a Christian, ordered the Altar of Victory removed from the Curia, the Roman Senate house in the Forum. Symmachus led a delegation of protest, which the emperor refused to receive. Two years later, Gratian was assassinated in Lugdunum, and Symmachus, now Prefect of Rome, renewed the appeal to Gratian's successor, Valentinian II, in a famous dispatch that was rebutted by Ambrose, the bishop of Milan. In an age when all religious communities credited the divine power with direct involvement in human affairs, Symmachus argues that the removal of the altar had caused a famine and its restoration would be beneficial in other ways. Subtly he pleads for tolerance for traditional cult practices and beliefs that Christianity was poised to suppress in the Theodosian edicts of 391.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose
Ambrose's influence upon Theodosius is credited with eliciting the enactment of the "Theodosian decrees" of 391 (see entry Theodosius I).
---
One interpretation of Ambrose's writings is that he was a Christian universalist.[12] It has been noted that Ambrose's theology was significantly influenced by that of Origen and Didymus the Blind, two other early Christian universalists.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome
He seems to have abstained for a considerable time from the study of the classics and to have plunged deeply into that of the Bible, under the impulse of Apollinaris of Laodicea, then teaching in Antioch and not yet suspected of heresy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orosius
After entering the priesthood, he took an interest in the Priscillianist controversy then going on in his native country. He went to consult with Augustine at Hippo (now Annaba in Algeria) in 413 or 414, possibly in connection with this controversy. After staying for some time in North Africa as Augustine's disciple, he was reportedly sent by him in 415 to Palestine with a letter of introduction to Jerome, then living in Bethlehem.
The ostensible purpose of his mission (apart from the typical intent of pilgrimage and perhaps relic-hunting) was that he might gain further instruction from Jerome on the points raised by the Priscillianists and Origenists. In reality, it would seem that his business was to assist Jerome and others against Pelagius, who, after the synod of Carthage in 411, had been living in Palestine, and finding some acceptance there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscillian
Priscillian, bishop of Ávila (died 385), a theologian from Roman Gallaecia (in the Iberian Peninsula), was the first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy (though the civil charges were for the practice of magic). He founded an ascetic group that, in spite of persecution, continued to subsist in Hispania and Gaul until the later 6th century.
---
The long prevalent estimation of Priscillian as a heretic and Manichaean rested upon Augustine, Turibius of Astorga, Leo the Great and Orosius (who quotes a fragment of a letter of Priscillian's), although at the Council of Toledo in 400, fifteen years after Priscillian's death, when his case was reviewed, the most serious charge that could be brought was the error of language involved in a misrendering of the word innascibilis ("unbegettable").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscillianism
Priscillianism is a Christian doctrine developed in the Iberian Peninsula (the Roman Hispania) in the 4th century by Priscillian, derived from the Gnostic-Manichaean doctrines taught by Marcus, an Egyptian from Memphis, and later considered a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turibius_of_Astorga
Priscillian's ascetic beliefs, which originated in Galicia[4], spread over the Tierra de Campos ruled by the Arian Visigoths, and was opposed by him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Gaul
The Church of Gaul passed through three dogmatic crises. Its bishops seem to have been greatly preoccupied with Arianism; as a rule they clung to the teaching of the Council of Nicaea, in spite of a few temporary or partial defections. Athanasius, who had been exiled to Trier (336-38), exerted a powerful influence on the episcopate of Gaul; one of the great champions of orthodoxy in the West was Hilary of Poitiers, who also suffered exile for his constancy. Priscillianism had a greater hold on the masses of the faithful. It was above all a method, an ideal of Christian life, which appealed to all, even to women. It was condemned (380) at the Synod of Saragossa where the Bishops of Bordeaux and Agen were present; none the less it spread rapidly in Central Gaul, Eauze in particular being a stronghold. When in 385 the usurper Maximus put Priscillian and his friends to death, St. Martin was in doubt how to act, but repudiated with horror communion with the bishops who had condemned the unfortunates. Priscillianism, indeed, was more or less bound up with the cause of asceticism in general. Finally the bishops and monks of Gaul were long divided over Pelagianism. Proculus, Bishop of Marseille, had obliged Leporius, a disciple of Pelagius, to leave Gaul, but it was not long before Marseille and Lérins, led by Cassian, Vincent and Faustus, became hotbeds of a teaching opposed to St. Augustine's and known as Semipelagianism. Prosper of Aquitaine wrote against it, and was obliged to take refuge at Rome. It was not until the beginning of the sixth century that the teaching of Augustine triumphed, when a monk of Lérins, Caesarius of Arles, an almost servile disciple of Augustine, caused it to be adopted by the Council of Orange (529).
---
The barbarians, however, were on the march. The great invasion of 407 made the Goths masters of all the country to the south of the Loire, with the exception of Bourges and Clermont, which did not fall into their hands until 475; Arles succumbed in 480. Then the Visigoth kingdom was organized, Arian in religion, and at first hostile to Catholicism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism
Beginning with Augustine[5], many have seen a connection to Noahide Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audianism
Audianism was a fourth-century Christian heresy, named after the leader of the sect, Audius (or Audaeus).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcellions
The circumcellions were fanatical bands of predatory peasants that flourished in North Africa in the 4th century.[1] They preferred to be known as agonistici ("fighters(for Christ)").[1] At first they were concerned with remedying social grievances, but they became linked with the Donatist sect.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism
The Donatists (named for the Berber Christian Donatus Magnus) were followers of a belief considered a schism by the broader churches of the Catholic tradition, and most particularly within the context of the religious milieu of the provinces of Roman North Africa in Late Antiquity. They lived in the Roman province of Africa and flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
In 375, Epiphanius records the settlement of Ebionites on Cyprus, but by the mid-5th century, Theodoret of Cyrrhus reported that they were no longer present in the region.[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euchites
The Euchites or Messalians were a sect condemned as heretical in a synod of 383CE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
However, the strictures against Marcionism predate the authority, claimed by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, to declare what is heretical against the Church.
---
Marcionism continued in the West for 300 years, although Marcionistic ideas persisted much longer.[3]
The organization continued in the East for some centuries later, particularly outside the Byzantine Empire in areas which later would be dominated by Manichaeism. This is no accident: Mani is believed to have been a Mandaean, and Mandaeanism is related to Marcionism in several ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
Into the late fourth century, the Bishop known as Ambrose of Milan had millennial leanings (Ambrose of Milan. Book II. On the Belief in the Resurrection, verse 108).
---
Chiliasm was, however, according to the interpretation of non-chiliasts, condemned as a heresy in the 4th century by the Church, which included the phrase whose Kingdom shall have no end in the Nicene Creed in order to rule out the idea of a Kingdom of God which would last for only 1000 literal years.[8] Despite some writers' belief in millennialism, it was a decided minority view, as expressed in the nearly universal condemnation of the doctrine over a gradual period of time, beginning with Augustine of Hippo. It is vigorously disputed whether or not caesaropapism had a role in the virtual annihilation of millennialism from the 4th Century onwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism
Although orthodox Nicene Christianity prevailed against Montanism within a few generations, labeling it a heresy, the sect persisted in some isolated places into the 8th century. Some people have drawn parallels between Montanism and modern Pentecostalism (which some call Neo-Montanism). The most widely known Montanist was undoubtedly Tertullian, who was the foremost Latin church writer before he converted to Montanism.
---
A letter of Jerome to Marcella, written in 385, refutes the claims of Montanists that had been troubling her (letter 41) [1].
A group of "Tertullianists" continued to exist at Carthage. The anonymous author of Praedestinatus records that a preacher came to Rome in 388 where he made many converts and obtained the use of a church for his congregation on the grounds that the martyrs to whom it was dedicated had been Montanists.[2] He was obliged to flee after the victory of Theodosius I. Augustine records that the Tertullianist group dwindled to almost nothing in his own time, and finally was reconciled to the church and handed over their basilica.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism
Pelagianism was opposed by Augustine of Hippo, who is known today as a Church Father of Catholicism. Augustine was converted to Christianity out of the Gnostic sect Manicheanism. When Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life because of free will, Augustine counteracted this by saying that perfection was impossible because we are born sinners with a sinful flesh. The Pelagians charged Augustine with teaching Gnosticism by teaching original sin, because the Gnostics taught that the flesh was sinful, which was why they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. Augustine also taught that a person's salvation comes solely through an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, and that no free choice was involved in salvation. The debate of Pelagius vs. Augustine was free will vs. original sin. Augustine was not successful in having Pelagius condemned by the Church. He therefore had the political powers severely persecute him.[citation needed] Years after Pelagius died, Pelagianism was condemned, aided by the fact that Pelagius could not defend himself against Augustine's charges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentianism
Disciples of Valentinus continued to be active into the fourth century CE, after the Roman Empire was declared to be Christian[2].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinarism
Apollinarism or Apollinarianism was a view proposed by Apollinaris of Laodicea (died 390) that Jesus had a human body and lower soul (the seat of the emotions) but a divine mind.
---
It was declared to be a heresy in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople, since Christ was officially depicted as fully human and fully God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
The controversy over Arianism began to rise in the late 3rd century and extended over the greater part of the 4th century and involved most church members, simple believers, priests and monks as well as bishops, emperors and members of Rome's imperial family. Yet, such a deep controversy within the Church could not have materialized in the 3rd and 4th centuries without some significant historical influences providing the basis for the Arian doctrines. Most orthodox or mainstream Christian historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and a handful of rogue bishops engaging in heresy. Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, only three bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed. However to minimize the extent of Arianism ignores the fact that extremely prominent Emperors such as Constantius II, the first Christian Emperor, and Valens were Arians, as well as prominent Gothic, Vandal and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and that none of these groups were out of the mainstream of the Roman Empire in the 4th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
In the contra epistulam fundamenti, Augustine of Hippo makes reference to the Manichaeans believing that Jesus was Docetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians_(religious_group)
The Macedonians were a Christian sect of the 4th century AD, named after Bishop Macedonius I of Constantinople. They professed a belief similar[1][dubious – discuss] to that of Arianism, but apparently denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit,[2] and regarding the substance of Jesus Christ as being the same in kind as that of God the Father. They are regarded to have taught that the Holy Spirit was a creation of the Son, and a servant of the Father and the Son. This is what prompted the addition of “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets,” into the Nicene Creed at the second ecumenical council. [3]
---
Their teachings were formally condemned in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople. The Council responded to the theological challenge of the Macedonians by revising the Nicene Creed into present form used in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and prohibited[citation needed] any further alteration of the Creed without the assent of an Ecumenical Council. The Macedonian heresy was subsequently suppressed by the emperor Theodosius I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutychianism
Eutychianism refers to a set of Christian theological doctrines derived from the ideas of Eutyches of Constantinople (c. 380—456).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism
Nestorius (c. 386–c. 451) was a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch in Syria (modern Turkey) and later became Archbishop of Constantinople.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilanthropism
In Christology, Psilanthropism is the view that Jesus was merely human. The expression "merely human" can refer either to Jesus' substance (nothing more than a man) or to his existence in time (no existence prior to his becoming a man), or both. The presumed etymology of "psilanthropism" stems from the Greek psilo (merely, only) and anthropos (man, human being).
Psilanthropism was rejected by the ecumenical councils, especially in the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened to deal directly with this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism
Epiphanius (Haeres 62) about 375 AD notes that the adherents of Sabellius were still to be found in great numbers, both in Mesopotamia and at Rome.[4]
http://www.soaringoaks.org/userFiles/File/resources/ancient_church_history/Ancient%20Church%20History%20Part%2014%20Lecture%20Notes.doc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
