Archive for category Polycarp of Smyrna
The Paschal Feast – Are we to follow the Apostles?
Posted by Joel in Church Fathers, Irenaeus, Polycarp of Smyrna on March 29, 2010
The Lord’s Passover approaches. It is a time for Christians to joyously celebrated that single moment in all of history which changed humanity’s fate. It is also one to reflect on the ancient traditions of the Church. We are connected to the Apostles not merely by the name that we wear, and the doctrine that we teach, but also by the Traditions that we share.
The Feast Day of the Blessed Martyr Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna
Posted by Joel in Church Fathers, Polycarp of Smyrna on February 23, 2010
Today, 23 February, several communions celebrate the death of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna on the date that Tradition has delivered to us as the day that he was burned alive for his faith.
Smyrna speaks – Greek Scriptures found in Izmir
Posted by Joel in Church Fathers, Polycarp of Smyrna, Religious News on January 14, 2009
Dr. West notes that during the recent digs at Agora, Greek Scriptures were found – Agora is in the Izmir region of Turkey – Izmir is the biblical city of Smyrna – home of Polycarp. (Although much prefer the mountains of West Virginia these days)
The article barely mentions such an historical find.
Some scriptures written in Greek as well as some drawings pertaining to the Roman and Hellenistic times are expected to give clues about the daily life at the time. The mosaic work found in the area also has great importance for İzmir’s history and the city will take the work under protection.
Could there be more? Perhaps some actual writings of Polycarp? Why won’t they tell us more! My speculation is that they have found proof that Polycarp was a greater saint than we have been led to believe and that their is an international, interdenominational, Baptist led conspiracy to keep the man down.
HT, Dr. West.
Romans 13.1-7 – Government and Authority
Posted by Joel in Debate/Discussion, Polycarp of Smyrna, Religion and Politics, Romans on November 11, 2008
In the mouth of the opposition to the current president-elect are the words ‘don’t trust the government’, but the bible is clear – the Government is God’s minister. People who would label themselves Christian have taken up with the spirit of fear, and have insisted that we must not trust nor should we place our hope in the Government. Does the bible, which many claim to base their Christianity on, permit a general mistrust, fear, or even rebellion against the Government?
Let every man be subject to the high power — for there is no authority but from God; the authorities that exist have been appointed by God. Accordingly, he that opposes the authority opposes the command of God, and they that oppose it shall receive unto themselves the judgment. For those that rule are not terrors to good works, but to those who do evil. Do you then want to stop being afraid of the authority? Work that which is good and you will have the praise from him. For he is the servant of God to you for the good; however, if you continue to do that which is evil, be afraid — for he wears not the sword in vain, for he is a servant of God, an executor of justice, to visit wrath to the evil doer. For this reason, there is a necessity to be subject, not for the wrath, but also because of your conscience. Then, for this reason, pay your taxes also. For they are ministers of God’s service, and on this very thing, they continue steadfastly. Therefore, render to all that is their due — taxes to whom taxes is due, revenues to whom revenues, fear to whom fear, and honor to who honor is due. (Romans 13:1-7 CTV-NT)
This is not just a mere passing thought of the Apostle Paul in hopes of securing from Rome some measure of peace, but indeed, this commandment runs throughout the New Testament and may be found in 1st Timothy 2.1-2; Titus 3.1; and 1st Peter 2.13-17. By the mouths of those that had held the name, we hear,
Justin Martyr (Apology 1:17) writes, “Everywhere, we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes, both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Jesus. We worship only God, but in other things we will gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that, with your kingly power, you may be found to possess also sound judgment.”
Athenagoras, pleading for peace for the Christians, writes (chapter 37): “We deserve favour because we pray for your government, that you may, as is most equitable, receive the kingdom, son from father, and that your empire may receive increase and addition, until all men become subject to your sway.”
Tertullian (Apology 30) writes at length: “We offer prayer for the safety of our princes to the eternal, the true, the living God, whose favour, beyond all other things, they must themselves desire…. Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection for the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest-whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish.” He goes on to say that the Christian cannot but look up to the emperor because he “is called by our Lord to his office.” And he ends by saying that “Caesar is more ours than yours because our God appointed him.” (Barclay’s DSB)
We must be reminded that the governments of this world are not their own, but ours – as Tertullian – because just as we are of God, they are appointed by God to carry out His plan and His will. It is not that we have a confident expectation in the Government or even faith that they will do what is morally and scripturally right, but we must hope, trust, and know that the same God that we serve has appointed these governments for a specific purpose, and if He has done so, then we can trust that they will serve us in the manner that we need them to do so.
Does this mean that we accept what governments do, or will there come a time in which civil disobedience becomes the order of the day? I believe that when the government interferes with the Church, then it must be resisted. We can find such an example in Daniel, who served the King, but resisted his command to cease the worship of the God of the Jews. Again, the Three Young men, who had served the King up until the time it came to worship a false god.
Then we have the much heralded example of Polycarp (chapter 9 and 10), who led no political rebellion against Rome, but insisted on his service to the Christian King and Savior,
Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, “Be strong, and show thyself a man, O Polycarp!” No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice. And as he was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On his confessing that he was, the proconsul sought to persuade him to deny Christ, saying, “Have respect to thy old age,” and other similar things, according to their custom, such as, “Swear by the fortune of Caesar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists.” But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, “Away with the Atheists.” Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, “Swear, and I will set thee at liberty, reproach Christ;” Polycarp declared, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?”
And when the proconsul yet again pressed him, and said, “Swear by the fortune of Caesar,” he answered, “Since thou art vainly urgent that, as thou sayest, I should swear by the fortune of Caesar, and pretendest not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn what the doctrines of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and thou shalt hear them.” The proconsul replied, “Persuade the people.” But Polycarp said, “To thee I have thought it right to offer an account of my faith; for we are taught to give all due honour (which entails no injury upon ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God. But as for these, I do not deem them worthy of receiving any account from me.”
Therefore we see that the proper examples of Christian men who would rebel rebel only against the infringements of the Government upon the Church. What does this mean for the founding of the American Republic who, in mob rule fashion, decided that representation in Parliament was a suiting reason for open and armed rebellion against the King of England, claiming God for their banner? Can an open rebellion, not only against the King of England, but against the very word of God, be considered a Christian act especially if that rebellion was held on the issue of taxes?
What then of God’s sovereignty? Might, and victory, does not make right. I am reminded that Nero fiddled while Rome burned and the Christian’s were blamed or that Christ suffered and died while the nations rejoiced. The Death of Christ was indeed the righteous thing, for all of us, but how many of us would have participated in the murder of the Righteous Man?
The idea that we cannot trust the government is foreign both to the Scriptures and Tradition, and should be foreign from our pulpits. In a government that we feel stands in opposition to our morality, we must consider what Paul tell us, that is to work good things, to earn praise instead of delve into fear. Do not read into this as that we hold the government as we would God, but instead, understand that a basic fear of government is not necessary.
For the Christians are distinguished from other men – The Epistle to Diognetus
Posted by Joel in Church Fathers, Polycarp of Smyrna on October 10, 2008
It has been speculated that the writer of this Epistle was Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. I am not sure it is or not, however, it does add a special touch to it if he is indeed the writer. What we must remember in this time of politics, is that Christians are commanded not to be apart of this world and not to entangle ourselves in the affairs of this world. The Christians during the time of the writing of this epistle (125) took those commandments to heart. I believe that it is a healthy reminder that Christians are not supposed to entangle the sanctity of the Cross with the sin of man.
For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not cast away fetuses. They have a common table, but not a common bed.They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven.They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.
Hunting Heresies in the Fathers
Posted by Joel in Church Fathers, Debate/Discussion, Marcellus of Ancyra, Polycarp of Smyrna on September 30, 2008
hyperekperissou: Hunting Heresies in the Fathers.
I am a biblical fundamentalist; I am an Economist, believing that Jesus Christ is God, according to the Economy of God. I do not believe in doctrinal development past the point of the Apostles. I do not believe in new revelations, historical Tradition, or the that tradition defines and develops Doctrine. I stand with Marcellus of Ancyra in appreciating the early Church Fathers, but finding the sole source of Doctrine as the Scriptures from the Apostles and Prophets. I do not give any doctrinal significance to the Councils, nor will I call anyone a Saint, except for the broader body of the Church. I see no greatness in Rome or the so-called Apostolic Church which she leads.
To be honest, I relish the thought of being a heretic hunter, of stamping out false doctrines where they arise, with a steady word and a heavy hand. The Church has no room to allow these cancers to grow. I have no problem, as many would read this blog, of stating that this one or that one is a false prophet and a heretic.
However, in my study of the Church Fathers, I have come to a deep appreciation of their writings and their tribute to biblical studies and would rarely use the word ‘heretic’ (except for maybe Origen). I have been criticized for my use of them, however, I will continue to use them and their quotes in my own development and maturity as a Christian.
John Chrysostom has become a favorite of mine, as has Irenaeus, Tertullian, and even Cyprian. Most of these men I would have disagree with in nearly every way, yet, they have measures of Truth. I fully recognize
“So, we see Justin Martyr accused of ditheism and/or subordinationism. Or, we see Gregory Nazianzus accused of proto-Nestorianism.”
However, in doing so, I also recognize that there was not a sudden shift from what I would consider orthodox doctrine (except maybe Origen), and these men still have a measure of contribution to every self-proclaimed theologian – or otherwise – not in refuting any doctrine, or building any doctrine, but in tracing what theological development took place and when and in understanding the Christian community in a historical viewpoint.
Let me say quickly that if you believe that Christianity suddenly ceased after Peter and Paul and that Rome immediately appeared, then you have no faith in Christ or His Church. If Christianity ceased after the Apostles, then Gamaliel was right, and we have all been wrong for nearly 2000 years.
I find that Irenaeus, who is roundly despised by biblical fundamentalists, must be understood as the defender of the faith against well-learned Gnostics, versed and steeped in the Bible. He defended the Faith as one would in these circumstances, and more often than not, stayed within the pattern established by Ignatius and Polycarp. We have Justin, who I find in error as a ditheist, who has great strength in defending the Church against the Jews and further in defending the Septuagint. Tertullian provides us with a rigorous approach to Christian living while Cyprian fought for Church unity against the rising power in Rome. This is not to say that I judge them Christian, as that is in God’s hands, but even the most radical anti-Catholic (which rarely makes any sense) can see that some measure of Truth existed in this learned men.
Personally, I agree that
“Tertullian’s extreme temperament led him to rigid views about asceticism and prophecy which drove him from the orthodox church.”
Except for the part about the prophecy and his Montanist days, I find little wrong in Tertullian’s rigidness. I do however, find a great deal wrong with Origen and the entire school from Alexandria. I find it a break from Orthodoxy, no matter the century and cannot rightly see him in any positive light.
Returning to the others, however, I realize that many of them do not share the doctrines that I might hold, in total; however, it does not erase their value. We have to remember that History is rarely kind to even Inspired Writings, much less the writings and thoughts of men, albeit inspired men. (Look at the war that history as waged on the epistles from Ignatius) Interpretation of these writings is the same way. Do not take them in the light of theologians 1800 years removed from them, but attempt to understand them in the world in which they wrote. Unlike the Bible, their words are not timeless, and must be understood against the world that they fought.
I agree with the writer of the above post when he says,
A second less innocent motive is heresy hunting in the context of inter-denominational apologetics and polemics. In this kind of heresy hunt, we see writers (often, but not always Protestant) search the Fathers in order to find something wrong in what they are saying. What they are doing in reading the Fathers isn’t reading them to understand them or to take insight from them, but rather they are reading them the way that a lawyer reads a hostile brief-they are looking for dirt and evidence to beat the other side with.
There a few things that I no longer like to see, and that is anyone on my ‘side’ calling the theologians of the 2nd and 3rd century, Roman Catholic. Most them would have rebelled against the idea of the Roman Church as we know it now. Instead, we must look at these as cousins, rather distant, and stop the labeling, often times done in error. We must not succumb to the ‘violence’ of apologetics, but instead place these people in their respective places, learning and valuing their input.
Finally, even Paul used non-Christians to highlight Christianity, and if we dismiss the entire corpus of post-Apostle’s writing simply because they might not agree with us in every way, then we do a great deservice to the Church.
Polycarp and Irenaeus on Sound Doctrine
Posted by Joel in Church Fathers, Polycarp of Smyrna, Quotes on September 23, 2008
To deny Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is to be Antichrist. To contradict the evidence of the Cross is to be of the devil. And to pervert the Lord’s words to suit our own wishes, by asserting that there are no such things as resurrection or judgment, is to be a first-begotten of Satan. So let us have no more of this nonsense from the gutter, and these lying doctrines, and turn back to the Word originally delivered to us. — St. Polycarp, Epistle, par. 7
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself. — St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 2, Par. 1
