Hope you guys didn't mind me starting a fresh thread...to get us catch up...
OC, do you feel a connection can be made between neo-Platonism and the East's view of the end times? After the Reformers in West had a good run, it took a while to shake off the neo-Platonism of Augustine (the two Kingdom idea is a direct lift from Plato) and the framework it left. I often here Pastors claim that much of modern theology is post-enlightenment theology which is to say it's mostly concerned with self, I've been reading philosophy the last few weeks to get a better understanding of what they're saying. However, Augustine (and Calvin via Augustine) have done a little borrowing as well, mixing Plato, Plontinus and Aristotelian philosophy (especially on hierarchically ordered and the nature of the soul tri/dichonomy).
How much of Plato exits in the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Is you end time view related to the 3rd and 4th century views of 'Christendom?'
Quote: You've asked a very complex question, not sure I'm up to the task, but that has never stopped me from trying.
If one would characterize our reading of Revelation as crypto-Platonic, then one must view the description of the heavenly Temple and Holy Place in the Hebrews epistle as crypto- or neo-Platonic also...inasmuch as the form is compared to the copy. Some call this 'type and shadow.' Ditto for Paul's statement in 1 Cor 13 "For we see now as through a glass, darkly." (Shadows on a cave wall, anyone?)
But is our eschatology neo-Platonic?
Not if, by neo-Platonic, you are referring to Plotinus. In his philosophy, there is essentially no end time redemption as Christians have envisioned/described. (Orthodox included)
Perhaps you are asking if, given our amillenialist views, we share in the hope for the future restoration and salvation of God's creatures. Assuredly, we do.
I think it's important to distinguish between influence and orientation. We are all influenced by many and diverse thoughts and premises, but our orientation is another matter.
The essential difference between Catholics/Orthodox and most Protestants is the existence of the physical Church vs the concept of the invisible Church. If there is no physical Church to be found on earth, then one can only be part of an undefined ekklesia, and in this sense one is alone 'in the flesh' even as he/she is joined in the spiritual synaxis. The relevance of this is that such an orientation will invariably be futuristic, whereas the Orthodox/Catholic view of One Church, part militant, part triumphant has a certain 'nowness' to it that may appear Plotinian. Please remember that we are not either/or, but both and.
On the contrary, the 3rd and 4th century ideals which found expression specifically in Byzantium were based in no small part in the notion that Church and liturgy were partially realized eschatology, so therefore, could not governance be as well.... Isaiah 9:7 comes to mind.
Plato in the theology of the EO Church is a lengthy and debatable topic- too expansive for our current thread, not to mention too demanding on my current leisure time.
Me again
Thank you OC, I did ask too much of you and maybe not the correct questions when dealing with end times.
Do you believe a sacralist view of society has anything to do with Orthodox understanding of the end times? I've notice much of what we disagree on is based on our view of the Church and it's nature...I believe the Church to be an element of society (corpus christi as the Latin's say) and that's it for me. I've noticed (and correct me if I'm wrong ) the RC's and EO's have a Christian society in view (corpus christianum), am I on the right track? ex. "Heresy shall be construed to be an offence against the civil order." Codes of Justinian, XVI, 5:40
I don't know where exactly I'm going with this, it seems the traditional Churches view the millenium and other end time events in light of it's view of the sacral nature of the Church in society.
Actually, Jason, I don't think we disagree at all regarding sacralism- I utterly reject it. Our view of the Church is of a physical reality and presence- parousia- of Christ through the Church in the world- not of a shared heavenly and worldly kingdom.
The 'city on a hill' then is not a city in political terms, but in relational terms.
Both East and West have been seduced by the other premise enough already, I think, would you not agree?
Both Ancient Apostolic Christianity and Reformed Christianity have had their proponents of sacralism- not the least of whom were Calvin, and as you mentioned, Justinian.
The best question to ask in this regard is twofold:
1. Is Eastern Orthodoxy today sacralistic, and if not,
2. has this effected their (our) eschatology?
1. While there are strongly sacralistic elements that remain in Russian Orthodoxy, I believe that the contemporary consensus- especially in the Americas- is that a pluralistic society actually benefits the Christian enterprise generally, and Orthodoxy in particular.
2. This has only deepened our commitment to Theosis, which is the inbreaking of the kingdom of heaven in this world. Theosis has everything to do with our individual relationship with Christ and the need to be transformed, so as to BE a light.
I think where we disagree is in terms of authority and synaxis within the visible church.
You hit the nail on the head with Calvin and his sacralism, how else would Servetus have been burned or the Anabaptists hunted to almost near extinction? Don't forget Luther and Zwingli, they did the same. Zwingli didn't believe in infant baptism, yet, after a city coucil deemed it proper he relented which is why the Anabaptists left his movement.
Now, back on track.
I believe we can read the history of the Donatists (not the lunatic fringe called Circumcelliones Donatists) and there rejection of the doctrine and philosophy of the new Catholic church of Constantine to show a mark in the direction of the traditional church and it's view of the millenium. The church became a state church, an 'arm of flesh' and adapted what became known in the west as the 'sword of the Spirit' and the 'sword of steel.' Augustine and others took this teaching further, I believe both history and Scripture is on the side of the premillenarian view...
"Our doctrine [of the Kingdom] is traced continuously from the Apostles themselves, see that (Prop.72, Obs. 3, note 1) the first fathers, who present Millenarian views, saw and conversed either with the Apostles or the elders following them. So extensively, so generally was Chiliasm perpetuated, that Justin Martyr positively asserts that all the orthodox adopted and upheld it. Justin's language is explicit (Dial. with Trypho, sec.2); for after stating the Chiliastic doctrine, he asserts: "it to be thoroughly proved that it will come to pass. But I have also signified unto thee, on the other hand, that many -- even those of that race of Christians who follow no godly and pure doctrine -- do not acknowledge it. For I have demonstrated to thee, that these are indeed called Christians; but are atheists and impious heretics, because that in all things they teach what is blasphemous, and ungodly, and unsound" etc. He adds: "But I and whatsoever Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built, adorned and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have promised. For Isaiah saith of this thousand years (ch. 65:17) 'Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind; but be ye glad and rejoice in those which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem to triumph, and my people to rejoice,' etc. Moreover, a certain man among us, whose name is John, being one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that revelation which was shown to him prophesied, that those who believe in our Christ shall fulfil a thousand years at Jerusalem; and after that the general, and, in a word, the everlasting resurrection, and last judgment of all together. Whereof also our Lord spake when He said, that therein they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal with the angels, being made the sons of the resurrection of God." -- The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. I, pg. 480
The full preterist view is the logical out come of the amil position...but I could be wrong and often am...I also see the premil, pretrib view as the logical out come of premillenialism. If only we all could read 'the Theocratic Kingdom'...
peace,
j
OC, do you feel a connection can be made between neo-Platonism and the East's view of the end times? After the Reformers in West had a good run, it took a while to shake off the neo-Platonism of Augustine (the two Kingdom idea is a direct lift from Plato) and the framework it left. I often here Pastors claim that much of modern theology is post-enlightenment theology which is to say it's mostly concerned with self, I've been reading philosophy the last few weeks to get a better understanding of what they're saying. However, Augustine (and Calvin via Augustine) have done a little borrowing as well, mixing Plato, Plontinus and Aristotelian philosophy (especially on hierarchically ordered and the nature of the soul tri/dichonomy).
How much of Plato exits in the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Is you end time view related to the 3rd and 4th century views of 'Christendom?'
Quote: You've asked a very complex question, not sure I'm up to the task, but that has never stopped me from trying.
If one would characterize our reading of Revelation as crypto-Platonic, then one must view the description of the heavenly Temple and Holy Place in the Hebrews epistle as crypto- or neo-Platonic also...inasmuch as the form is compared to the copy. Some call this 'type and shadow.' Ditto for Paul's statement in 1 Cor 13 "For we see now as through a glass, darkly." (Shadows on a cave wall, anyone?)
But is our eschatology neo-Platonic?
Not if, by neo-Platonic, you are referring to Plotinus. In his philosophy, there is essentially no end time redemption as Christians have envisioned/described. (Orthodox included)
Perhaps you are asking if, given our amillenialist views, we share in the hope for the future restoration and salvation of God's creatures. Assuredly, we do.
I think it's important to distinguish between influence and orientation. We are all influenced by many and diverse thoughts and premises, but our orientation is another matter.
The essential difference between Catholics/Orthodox and most Protestants is the existence of the physical Church vs the concept of the invisible Church. If there is no physical Church to be found on earth, then one can only be part of an undefined ekklesia, and in this sense one is alone 'in the flesh' even as he/she is joined in the spiritual synaxis. The relevance of this is that such an orientation will invariably be futuristic, whereas the Orthodox/Catholic view of One Church, part militant, part triumphant has a certain 'nowness' to it that may appear Plotinian. Please remember that we are not either/or, but both and.
On the contrary, the 3rd and 4th century ideals which found expression specifically in Byzantium were based in no small part in the notion that Church and liturgy were partially realized eschatology, so therefore, could not governance be as well.... Isaiah 9:7 comes to mind.
Plato in the theology of the EO Church is a lengthy and debatable topic- too expansive for our current thread, not to mention too demanding on my current leisure time.
Me again
Thank you OC, I did ask too much of you and maybe not the correct questions when dealing with end times.
Do you believe a sacralist view of society has anything to do with Orthodox understanding of the end times? I've notice much of what we disagree on is based on our view of the Church and it's nature...I believe the Church to be an element of society (corpus christi as the Latin's say) and that's it for me. I've noticed (and correct me if I'm wrong ) the RC's and EO's have a Christian society in view (corpus christianum), am I on the right track? ex. "Heresy shall be construed to be an offence against the civil order." Codes of Justinian, XVI, 5:40
I don't know where exactly I'm going with this, it seems the traditional Churches view the millenium and other end time events in light of it's view of the sacral nature of the Church in society.
Actually, Jason, I don't think we disagree at all regarding sacralism- I utterly reject it. Our view of the Church is of a physical reality and presence- parousia- of Christ through the Church in the world- not of a shared heavenly and worldly kingdom.
The 'city on a hill' then is not a city in political terms, but in relational terms.
Both East and West have been seduced by the other premise enough already, I think, would you not agree?
Both Ancient Apostolic Christianity and Reformed Christianity have had their proponents of sacralism- not the least of whom were Calvin, and as you mentioned, Justinian.
The best question to ask in this regard is twofold:
1. Is Eastern Orthodoxy today sacralistic, and if not,
2. has this effected their (our) eschatology?
1. While there are strongly sacralistic elements that remain in Russian Orthodoxy, I believe that the contemporary consensus- especially in the Americas- is that a pluralistic society actually benefits the Christian enterprise generally, and Orthodoxy in particular.
2. This has only deepened our commitment to Theosis, which is the inbreaking of the kingdom of heaven in this world. Theosis has everything to do with our individual relationship with Christ and the need to be transformed, so as to BE a light.
I think where we disagree is in terms of authority and synaxis within the visible church.
You hit the nail on the head with Calvin and his sacralism, how else would Servetus have been burned or the Anabaptists hunted to almost near extinction? Don't forget Luther and Zwingli, they did the same. Zwingli didn't believe in infant baptism, yet, after a city coucil deemed it proper he relented which is why the Anabaptists left his movement.
Now, back on track.
I believe we can read the history of the Donatists (not the lunatic fringe called Circumcelliones Donatists) and there rejection of the doctrine and philosophy of the new Catholic church of Constantine to show a mark in the direction of the traditional church and it's view of the millenium. The church became a state church, an 'arm of flesh' and adapted what became known in the west as the 'sword of the Spirit' and the 'sword of steel.' Augustine and others took this teaching further, I believe both history and Scripture is on the side of the premillenarian view...
"Our doctrine [of the Kingdom] is traced continuously from the Apostles themselves, see that (Prop.72, Obs. 3, note 1) the first fathers, who present Millenarian views, saw and conversed either with the Apostles or the elders following them. So extensively, so generally was Chiliasm perpetuated, that Justin Martyr positively asserts that all the orthodox adopted and upheld it. Justin's language is explicit (Dial. with Trypho, sec.2); for after stating the Chiliastic doctrine, he asserts: "it to be thoroughly proved that it will come to pass. But I have also signified unto thee, on the other hand, that many -- even those of that race of Christians who follow no godly and pure doctrine -- do not acknowledge it. For I have demonstrated to thee, that these are indeed called Christians; but are atheists and impious heretics, because that in all things they teach what is blasphemous, and ungodly, and unsound" etc. He adds: "But I and whatsoever Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built, adorned and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have promised. For Isaiah saith of this thousand years (ch. 65:17) 'Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind; but be ye glad and rejoice in those which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem to triumph, and my people to rejoice,' etc. Moreover, a certain man among us, whose name is John, being one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that revelation which was shown to him prophesied, that those who believe in our Christ shall fulfil a thousand years at Jerusalem; and after that the general, and, in a word, the everlasting resurrection, and last judgment of all together. Whereof also our Lord spake when He said, that therein they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal with the angels, being made the sons of the resurrection of God." -- The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. I, pg. 480
The full preterist view is the logical out come of the amil position...but I could be wrong and often am...I also see the premil, pretrib view as the logical out come of premillenialism. If only we all could read 'the Theocratic Kingdom'...
peace,
j