> [Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB] 4 **For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit**, 5 **and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come**, 6 **and then have fallen away**, to restore them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. > [Hebrews 10:26-31 NASB] 26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, **and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace**? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. > [2 Peter 2:20-22 NASB] 20 For if, **after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first**. 21 **For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them**. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” And other similar passages: > [Galatians 5:1-5 NASB] It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore **keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery**. 2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. 4 **You have been severed from Christ**, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; **you have fallen from grace**. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, **but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [John 15:5-6 NASB] 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; the one who remains in Me, and I in him bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 **If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned**. > [Romans 11:18-22 NASB] 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: **to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness**; **for otherwise you too will be cut off**. > [1 Corinthians 9:24-27] 24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? **Run in such a way that you may win**. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. So they do it to obtain a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way as not to run aimlessly; I box in such a way, as to avoid hitting air; 27 **but I strictly discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified**. > [Revelation 3:5 NASB] The **one who overcomes** will be clothed the same way, in white garments; and **I will not erase his name from the book of life**, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. > [Revelations 22:19 NASB] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, **God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city**, which are written in this book. How were passages typically quoted to refute OSAS interpreted by the early Church? You can find more passages here: * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87015/117426 * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12097/117426

About what ancient temples does Clement of Alexandria talk about in (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46) - (It sounds to be the pagan temples?) and additionally he mentions (facing the images) what are these images? - there seems to be similarity in the book - **De architectura Chapter V** As far as I know from what I have read it seems that God had only one temple - the Jerusalem Temple Deuteronomy 12:5-14; 1 Kings 9:3; 2 Chronicles 6:6; Psalm 132:13-14; 1 Kings 8:29-30; 2 Chronicles 6:20-21; and the Jewish prayed towards the Hollie of Holies in the temple, if I am not mistaken, this is towards the West when the person is in the Jerusalem Temple and pray towards the Hollie of Holies, this person may have faced West I think? The Jerusalem Temple had entrance from the East, so in the temple people may have prayed towards the West - towards the Hollie of Holies where I think was God's presence Leviticus 16:2; Exodus 25:22; Numbers 7:89; - I think that this was the reason the Jewish prayed towards the Jerusalem Temple - because of the Hollie of Holies where should have been God's presence? - if they turned to pray towards the East (Ezekiel 8:15-16) in the Jerusalem Temple they may have prayed turned with their backs to the Hollie of Holies (*Spiritually Jeremiah 32:31-33 and Physically Ezekiel 8:15-16*?) - where God's presence should have been? If I am wrong somewhere please let me know. (Clement here is talking about temples not single temple, so I assume that he is talking about the pagan temples. Also he says - "the most ancient temples looked towards the west" this is the opposite of the Jerusalem Temple that looked towards East since the entrance was from the East I think - if this is the case then why would any true Christian look to the pagan temples in order to be taught to pray towards the East facing the images ?) - ("the most ancient temples looked towards the west") - ("that people might be taught to turn to the east") - ("when facing the images") **(Comparing this with the pagan - De architectura CHAPTER V)** > CHapter V How the Temple should Face > > 1. **THE quarter toward which temples of the immortal gods ought to face** is to be determined on the principle that, if there is no reason to hinder and the choice is free, the temple and the statue placed in the cella **should face the western quarter of the sky**. This will enable those who approach the altar with offerings or sacrifices **to face the direction of the sunrise in facing the statue in the temple**, and thus those who are undertaking vows look **toward the quarter from which the sun comes forth,** and **likewise the statues themselves appear to be coming forth out of the east to look upon them as they pray and sacrifice.** > > 2. But if the nature of the site is such as to forbid this, then the principle of determining the quarter should be changed, so that the widest possible view of the city may be had from the sanctuaries of > the gods. > > - [The Ten Books of Architecture](https://www.chenarch.com/images/arch-texts/0000-Vitruvius-50BC-Ten-Books-of-Architecture.pdf) **Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46;** > In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are > made looking towards the sunrise in the east. 2. Whence also the most > ancient temples looked towards the west,**(Pagan temples?)** **(Maybe - (De > architectura CHAPTER V))** 3. that people might be taught to turn to the > east when facing the images. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46; **The book:** [Clement of Alexandria *The Stromata*](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book7.html) - [The Stromata (Book VII)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02107.htm) (Should I understand that Clement of Alexandria here is teaching that the Christian is taught to pray towards East by the orientation of the pagan temples?)(So the pagan temples are pointed as reason?) **If this is the case what could we say about** **2 Cor. 6:15-18** > **15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial?** or **what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?** > **16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?** for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in > them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my > people. > **17 Wherefore come out from among them,** and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 > And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, > saith the Lord Almighty. How should we understand this. - is this practice pagan or Christian? - is it appropriate for a Christian to practice it or is it not? Having in mind Matthew 15:9; Matthew 15:13; Matthew 7:19. The most wide and accepted interpretation today I think is the second coming from East as reason for praying towards the East. But this interpretation seems to be not that ancient, I have yet not found ancient church father that mentions the second coming from East as reason for the worship towards the East - since Basil and the rest before him does not mention that Christ will come from East and that this is the reason to pray towards the East. It seems that this interpretation gets widespread after John Damascus, but I am not sure. Maybe he was influenced by the Didascalia from probably around 4c.AD. But I still can not find any ancient church father that points to the Didascalia or mentions this interpretation, the first that mentions this is I think John Damascus after the Didascalia.

## Many Catholic Depictions of Christ Crucified Show the Piercing into the Right Side. ## **Here are some examples of crucifixes from monastery.com:** - **Crucifixion Icon ** - **Byzantine Crucifix ** And - **San Damiano Crucifix ** It was from the image of Christ in the crucifix at **San Damiano** which miraculously spoke these words to **St. Francis of Assisi**: > **"Go repair My Church."** ## What is the Catholic Basis and Support from the *depositum Fidei* for the Depiction of the Piercing into the Right Side of Christ? ## The **best answer** will have arguments from the **72 Books of the Catholic Bible** and **from the writings of the Church Fathers**. *If there is any relevant supporting information on the topic, such as from the well known private revelations, that may be included in an Endnote.*

Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia referring to the eternal Word that, '[B]efore He was begotten ... He was not, for He was not without beginning.'1 Where he qualified his argument on the fact that the Son has an eternal beginning from the Father who alone has no beginning.2 Arius seems trying to say that the Son does not exist apart from being begotten. An idea he claimed to be shared by Church fathers before him. There is a debate on whether or not precursor to Arianism can be found among the earliest church fathers before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. Among the early Christian authors whom the early Church considered authoritative we can find some whose teachings are similar with the Arians that were used by the Arians to assert that their theology is patristic. What then differentiate these Ante Nicene Fathers3 from the Arians in terms of their Christology? --- 1 Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, NPNF II:3:41. 2 '[The Son] being begotten apart from time before all things.' NPNF II,4:458. 3 Ante Nicene refer to before the Council of Nicaea in 325. They're early Church fathers who are venerated in the 24 sui juris Catholic churches, 16 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, 6 canonical Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East. Such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St Lucian of Antioch.

How did the early church fathers accepting the doctrine of the Trinity regard Christians who didn't accept the doctrine of the Trinity? By early I'm mean 2nd century or before. Constantine changes the picture of government interference. My understanding is they accepted them as Christians but heretical (a schism). But I'm not familiar enough with the church fathers to answer this. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107892/as-a-jewish-believer-in-jesus-i-view-him-as-my-messiah-the-son-of-god-but-not

Edward Healy Thompson, *The Life and Glories of St. Joseph*, ch. 14 "Joseph's Vow of Virginity", p. 89 states that: >Athanasius spoke these short but weighty words of Joseph and Mary: that “both remained intact, as was proved by many testimonies.”11. *De Incarnatione [*On the Incarnation* ].* I am unable to find this quote in the *De Incarnatione*. Is this a real quote or not?

Many moons ago, I was surfing through the ocean of Wikipedia and found the page for "[Great Lent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent) ." While reading, I found [this quote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent#:~:text=The%20Church%20Fathers%5Bwhich%3F%5D%20have%20referred%20to%20fasting%20without%20prayer%20as%20%22the%20fast%20of%20the%20demons%22%5Bcitation%20needed%5D%20since%20the%20demons%20do%20not%20eat%20according%20to%20their%20incorporeal%20nature%2C%20but%20neither%20do%20they%20pray.) : > "The Church Fathers have referred to fasting without prayer as "the fast of the demons" since the demons do not eat according to their incorporeal nature, but neither do they pray." I have absolutely fallen in love with this idea but have completely failed to find where it came from. I have a feeling it is hidden somewhere in the depths of the PG or PL and even the most advanced AIs can not find it. Does anyone happen to know where this quote has come from?

There is a famous quote from [sermon 23](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360323.htm) on the Feast of the Nativity by [Leo the Great](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I) , the bolded text among the paragraph context below: > Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours. And by ours we mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning, and what He undertook to repair. For what the deceiver brought in, and man deceived committed, had no trace in the Saviour; nor because He partook of man's weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. **He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the divine: for that emptying of Himself, whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, was the bending down of pity, not the failing of power.** The section context (II. The Arians could not comprehend the union of God and man) is clearly an articulation for the proper meaning of Christ's "emptying himself" (Phil 2:7) from his pre-existence, against Arianism. But **what did he mean by "increasing the human"** (part of the bolded text above)? Does it simply mean God "adding human nature" during Incarnation instead of "relinquishing divine nature" (which is unorthodox)? Or does it refer to "healing humanity" (for example: by "taking the sins of the world", [John 1:29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201%3A29&version=CSB) , or by giving new life to us so we can "share in the divine nature", [2 Pet 1:4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201%3A4&version=CSB)) since in the beginning of the paragraph he said something about "undertook to repair"? A good answer should try to do one or more of these: - shed light on possible translation issue from Latin to English - provide a link for a critical edition of the text - discuss how his original audience would have understood the meaning - include consideration that the language he used may not be precise if the sermon has been dated PRIOR to Chalcedon (since his papacy is from 440-461 AD) - include discussion on how the quote could have been cited in Patristic, Medieval, or post-Reformation theological text in discussing Christology. For example, if Aquinas quoted it, what's his understanding of "increasing the human"? - doctrines (maybe related to Eastern Orthodox *theosis*) that use it for support

I'm starting a more thorough journey into understanding Anabaptism and neo-Anabaptism (largely through Hauerwas), but I've not used any "generalist" resources yet and so it's not entirely clear where writers are drawing their ideas from at times. So, my two questions: i) Do Anabaptist thinkers draw heavily upon the church fathers? ii) If so, who is the most notable thinker from the tradition(s)? iii) Is there a resource which attempts to show connections and/or tensions between Anabaptists and the church fathers? Thanks!

I've come across several instances of the Trinitarian explanation that God's one nature (or essence) defines **what** God is, while the three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—define **who** God is. For [example](https://relevantradio.com/2022/10/explaining-the-trinity-nature-and-person/) : > ... To wrap our heads around the Trinity, we have to distinguish the word “nature” from the word “person”. Our nature would be what suggests to us that there is a person, but the person is what possesses the nature. A person could not exist without his or her nature but ultimately, the person possesses their nature. > > Patrick applied this to Frank, his caller. Frank’s person tells us *who* he is. He is Frank and that is his person. Frank’s nature tells us *what* he is. He is a human being with a soul, intellect, and free will. Therefore, he has a human nature. When Jesus became incarnate, He had two natures, one human and one divine. He never ceased being God the Son. I’d like to understand more precisely how this distinction is made within Trinitarian theology. I’m particularly interested in how this is supported by both scripture and the historical teachings of the Church. For example, the **Fourth Lateran Council (1215)** declared: >"For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit: but the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal." This seems to affirm the distinction between person (who) and essence (what), but I’d like help unpacking it more fully. How do Trinitarian theologians interpret this distinction, and how does it help preserve both monotheism and the full divinity of each person? I’m looking for answers from a classical Trinitarian perspective, whether Western (Catholic/Protestant) or Eastern Orthodox, and would appreciate scriptural, conciliar, or patristic sources that explore this topic.

In c. A.D. 189, St. Irenaeus wrote: > Since, however, it would be very tedious . . . to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and **universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul**; also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere [*Against Heresies* 3:3:2] Why did St. Irenaeus say the Church was founded and organized in Rome by Peter and Paul? I'd understand if he was speaking of the lowercase 'c' church in Rome, but he spoke of "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church," so—correct me if I'm wrong—he was speaking of the entire Church rather than the singular church in Rome. So what does he mean exactly?

> Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was **because of a revelation** that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. - **Galatians 2:1-2, NASB** I am wondering ***what*** Paul's revelation was? Do we have any scripture, tradition, or writings from church fathers which might help answer this?

Did early Christian writers teach apostolic succession or reject it? How do their teachings on this topic compare with contemporary and significant historical understandings of apostolic succession?

Bishop Josephus Meile (†1957) claims in *Die jungfräulichen Seelen in der Welt* (*The Virgin Souls in the World* ) p. 28 that >At the time of the *wedding at Cana*, as the Fathers of the Church testify, Mary was married as the new Eve to Christ as the New Adam. The new wine of Cana symbolizes the love that unites the King and the Queen.
Bei der *Hochzeit zu Kana*, so bezeugen uns die Kirchenväter, ist Maria als neue Eva mit Christus als neuem Adam vermählt worden. Durch den neuen Wein von Kana wird die Liebe versinnbildet, welche den König und die Königin verbindet. Which "Fathers of the Church" say the **wedding at Cana** was that of the **New Eve marrying the New Adam?**

I am planning on leading a Bible Study and want to try and provide some commentary by people such as Augustine, St John Chrysostom, etc. I've tried looking around and found it very difficult to find anything and it seems a lot of the references are implicit rather than explicit from my searching. I found Augustine's "On Grace and Free Will" which has some good references but I'd like to find more if possible.

What are the most striking disagreements (if any) between Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus? The unanimity of the early Church Fathers is something that is often presented as an indisputable fact. However, while they were all in agreement about some major points of faith, there might have been some disagreements on some minor things. So, the question is about that.

Are there any early or ancient sources suggesting Mary was descended from David? I found an argument in Tertullian’s *Against Marcion, Book III* indicating that Christ’s descent from the “seed” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8) and “bowels” (2 Sam. 7:12) of David could only be fulfilled through Mary. Moreover, because Joseph was descended from Jechoniah—whom God cursed so that none of his “seed” would prosper on David’s throne (Jer. 22:30)—Jesus could not be regarded as the “seed” of David through Joseph. I have also come across arguments suggesting Mary might have been of Aaron’s lineage. First, Elizabeth, who was married to a Levite, is explicitly mentioned as Mary’s close relative (Luke 1:36). Second, there is the promise of an “everlasting priesthood” from the seed of Phinehas (Num. 25:13). I’m somewhat confused by these claims and would appreciate any links or references to authoritative or early sources that discuss these points. Later Addition: I have also found that some early writers took a reading of Num. 36:6–7 that implied all inter-tribal marriage was to be prohibited. From what I have been able to track down, this was proposed by St. John of Damascus in *Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (De Fide Orth.), Book IV, ch. 14* and later cited by Aquinas in the *Summa Theologica III, question 31, article 3*

Marcion, by all accounts, was a very early and popular Christian leader. He lived and worked hundreds of years prior to the existence of Catholicism. What, if anything, did he have to say about Jesus and/or the "Holy Ghost" being completely equal to God?

> **1 Corinthians 14:39 (NIV)** > > Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not > forbid speaking in tongues. In the early church, the gift of tongues was a common gift which almost everyone received, as we see in the church in Corinth as an example. Paul had to give advice on how to utilize their spiritual gifts in an orderly manner in the church. However, I can't find any specific method/instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues. If I want to receive the gift of tongues, what must I do? Is there any **instructions** given by the early **church fathers** on how to receive the gift of tongues? Since the New Testament doesn't give any specific instructions on how to receive the gift of tongues, there must be some writings from the church fathers on this issue.

One of the arguments made by those who believe that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased (cessationists) is that the "tongues" spoken of in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 are "real" human languages. For example, C. Norman Sellers, in *Biblical Tongues*, writes: > The New Testament references to tongues require that we understand them as referring to real languages [...] There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are the same as those in Acts chapter 2 and refer to real languages. Charismatics will generally reject this analysis; J. Rodman Williams, for example, argues that "it would have been pointless to speak foreign languages" at Caesarea ([Acts 10:45–46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10%3A45-46&version=ESV)) and Ephesus ([Acts 19:6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+19%3A6&version=ESV)) in *Renewal Theology* (II, p214). In light of this disagreement, I wonder – **did any church fathers clearly and specifically indicate that the "speaking in tongues" of either Acts or 1 Corinthians was *not* a "real" human language?** Here are some clarifying parameters: - I'm interested in church fathers as typically defined – those who followed the apostles up to John of Damascus. I'm fine with including Tertullian and Origen in this group. - From my reading I don't think any pre-Augustine authors clearly make this connection, so I'm asking about church fathers more broadly. But writings of the early fathers would be particularly interesting. - By "clearly and specifically," I mean that the writer *goes beyond* the biblical text and indicates that the "tongues" were not human languages. - Charismatics might argue that the biblical text itself is clear on this point, and that therefore if a church father merely quotes the biblical text, it indicates that he believes that "tongues" were not exclusively human language. I want more than that.