Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 5   [ 92 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:02 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Wikipedia's entry on II Clement says:
Quote:
The earliest external reference to 2 Clement is found in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History...:
"But it must be observed also that there is said to be a second epistle of Clement. But we do not know that this is recognized like the former, for we do not find that the ancients have made any use of it."
So while it's ascribed to Clement of Rome, it's not known for sure who the real author was.
II Clement can be found online here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm

Christopher Tuckett writes:
Quote:
The text of 2 Clement... was... evidently highly respected and even canonical for some, it was rejected as not used by the ancients by others.... The existence of the text and its implied association with 1 Clement may be attested earlier [than by Eusebius in the 4th c.] by Irenaeus [in the 2nd c.]
(2 Clement: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, by Christopher Tuckett)

II Clement is used in the Alexandrian Codex of the Bible and is mentioned in the book of Apostolic rules to be used for general reading.

(Question 1) Do you agree that "fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving is better than both"?
Robert M. Grant writes about II Clement:
Quote:
The theology is not altogether clear, and the author soon turns to the state that he has "given no trivial counsel about self-control," leading into his practical appeal for repentence and going so far as to say that "fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving is better than both" (16:4).
(The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, p. 1061)

Chapter 16 in Roberts' Translation says:
Quote:
CHAP. XVI--PREPARATION FOR THE DAY OF JUDGMENT.

So, then, brethren, having received no small occasion to repent, while we have opportunity, let us turn to God who called us, while yet we have One to receive us. For if we renounce these indulgences and conquer the soul by not fulfilling its wicked desires, we shall be partakers of the mercy of Jesus. Know ye that the day of judgment draweth nigh like a burning oven, and certain of the heavens and all the earth will melt, like lead melting in fire; and then will appear the hidden and manifest deeds of men. Good, then, is alms as repentance from sin; better is fasting than prayer, and alms than both; "charity covereth a multitude of sins,"(1 Peter 4:4) and prayer out of a good conscience delivereth from death. Blessed is every one that shall be found complete in these; for alms lightens the burden of sin.
I think that the sense is that the day of judgment is coming on and so prayer is good, but fasting is even better as preparation (maybe it has a penitential, ascetic aspect). So I think that this means that almsgiving and fasting are better than prayer for asceticism, penance, and/or preparation for the day of judgment.
Lightfoot's translation goes:
Quote:
Almsgiving therefore is a good thing, even as repentance from sin
Fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving better than both. And
love covereth a multitude of sins, but prayer out of a good
conscience delivereth from death. Blessed is every man that is found
full of these. For almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin.

(Question 2) If we are still conscious after death, why couldn't we repent or continue our repentance after death?
2 Clement says that after we leave this world, we can't confess or repent, and consequently we should repent now.
Chapter 8 says:
Quote:
The Necessity of Repentance While We are on Earth

As long, therefore, as we are upon earth, let us practise repentance, for we are as clay in the hand of the artificer. For as the potter, if he make a vessel, and it be distorted or broken in his hands, fashions it over again; but if he have before this cast it into the furnace of fire, can no longer find any help for it: so let us also, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil deeds we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet an opportunity of repentance. For after we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will there belong to us.
As I understand it, in Catholicism, the stay of the faithful sinners in Purgatory is limited in duration. While there, they are conscious, and so I think that they could be in a state of repentance or penitence.
In Eastern Orthodoxy, the righteous don't suffer Purgatory, but to my knowledge there is a debate or uncertainty over whether the wicked who are confined to hell could at some point be redeemed from it. That is, it's true that Hell involves eternal punishment, but since God is all-powerful and all-loving, then somehow their souls could redeemed from Hell. It's not the position of the Orthodox Church, but some Orthodox theologians (like Alexei I. Osipov) seriously consider the possibility of something like this.

Maybe then, the teaching that one must repent while on Earth because it can't happen afterwards is true in a general way because this time is given to us to do righteousness, but it's not necessarily true in an absolute sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:25 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80714
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
It's true in an absolute sense. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben12/b12bdeus.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:23 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Dear Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Thanks for replying about Question 2. Let me better explain what I meant in my question ("If we are still conscious after death, why couldn't we repent or continue our repentance after death?").

God gives us this time on earth to do righteousness, and what we do afterwards is not included in our time on earth. So one should repent while on Earth. I also understand the teaching in "Benedictus Deus" that you quoted that if a person dies in mortal sin, they go to hell immediately and then appear on the Day of Judgment to give an accounting and receive good or evil based on their deeds in the flesh.

Nonetheless, even if these statements are all true, then:
(A) Why can't a person repent of their sins after they died? Repentance means a turning of the heart and mind from their sins. Couldn't a good, pious person who died and went to Purgatory or Heaven repent or turn their heart and mind from their venial sins of which they hadn't repented?
Couldn't a person in hell repent or turn their hearts from their mortal sin? In the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, didn't the Rich Man repent of his sin of rejecting the poor, even though the parable doesn't say that his post-mortem repentance was effective?
I suppose that the rich man could be in the pre-Christian state of Hades that existed before the resurrection when Jesus brought out those there like Adam. The passage says "Hades" in Greek, not "Hell". But the Catholic Encyclopedia interprets the passage to be about the place of the damned (Hell).
(B) Supposing that a person is in hell, why couldn't the Lord, who is all-powerful, transcends time, and has eternal love for His creatures, find a way to save them? For example he could use His Holy Spirit to go back in time and warn the person clearly and sufficiently enough so that they would avoid their mortal sin or repent of it in time?

Let me share with you under I and II below what I found in a brief search online:
I. The idea that Hell is forever
In describing Hell, Professor Jeff Speaks of Notre Dame cites the Catholic Catechism's passage on hell (#1038), which uses the terms "Last Judgment" and "eternal punishment", and comments:
Quote:
This certainly seems like a picture according to which, after death, God passes judgement on all of us, and on the basis
of our life, decides that some of us will got to heaven forever, and some others to hell forever. (If not ‘forever’, then the
talk of the last judgement wouldn’t make much sense.)
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/20 ... 1-hell.pdf


The online book "Catholic Notes" has a section saying:
Quote:
It is also due to the Great Mercy of God that Hell is Eternal. It takes a great fear and reality of Hell to motivate many to strive for Heaven. Without the Fear of Hell most would not even bother to strive for Heaven. For this reason, it is a Great Evil to play down the torments of Hell. It is a Great Evil to fool people into believing that the suffering in Hell is not forever and ever. Church leaders that do this are not friends of God but tools of Satan. They steal from their victims, sufficient fear of Hell, to bring them back into the Catholic Church and The Sacraments. They lull their victims into a false sense of security and dull their awareness of the great danger they are in.

“But the security of the wicked arises from pride and presumption; and will end in deceiving themselves.” From My Imitation of Christ, by Thomas a’ Kempis, Book 1, Chapter 20.

SOURCE: https://sites.google.com/site/catholicnotes/donate


Commenting on the Evangelical Pastor Bell's theory about Hell, Brandon Vogt writes:
Quote:
Despite these similarities, however, there are two major areas where Bell and Catholics diverge. First, Bell suggests that hell is not permanent, something the Church has explicitly denied. (CITATION: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1035) We have one life, says the Church, to choose our eternal destiny and there will be no second choice on the other side of death.
https://brandonvogt.com/love-wins-catholic-review-part-2-of-2/

Vogt cites #1035 in the Catholic Catechism (Second edition) for support, which says:
Quote:
II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS
...
393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."(Footnote 272)
[Cross Reference: 1033-1037, 1022; Footnote Citation 272: St. John Damascene, De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877.]

I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT
...
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.596
"At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love."597
...
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
[Cross reference: #393]

#393 in the Catechism is clear that there is no repentance after death. But why is that?
#393 cites: An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St John Damascene 2,4: and J.P. Migne, ed., Patroligia Greaca (Paris, 1867-1866), 94,877. In his exposition of the Faith, St. John Damascene writes: "Note, further, that what in the case of man is death is a fall in the case of angels. For after the fall there is no possibility of repentance for them, just as after death there is for men no repentance." But he doesn't explain why there isn't post-mortem repentance. The citation to Migne's Patro. Greaca is just where St. John Damascene's quotation can be found in Greek (https://books.google.com/books?id=x8AUA ... &q&f=false).
Regarding #1035, I understand that the punishment is "eternal separation", but why couldn't God find some way to overcome this "eternal separation", since He himself transcends time?

I found the following quote by St. Cyprian interesting in that on one hand, it appears to suggest that grief and prayer could continue in hell, but that they would be "useless" and "ineffectual":
Quote:
St. Cyprian:

To Demetrian 24:

"An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life."

This is confusing, because if a person is weeping and in grief and praying, why couldn't they also repent?

II. The idea that Hell might not be forever in every sense of the word, or that God could overcome it.
Fr. Aidan Kimel questions whether souls will be in Hell forever and looks at the Greek words used in the Bible related to this topic in his article: "Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope" (Which you can find in a Google Search for the Title. However, Fr. Aidan is Orthodox and so I'm not citing him as an authority on the Church's teaching, but rather to give an example of this view.

Also on another thread, Jay Dyer mentioned that St. Maximus believed in a version of apokatastasis (meaning "restoration") that differed from Origen’s, although Jay Dyer didn't give details.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:20 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Obi-Wan,
Thanks for replying on the other thread about Question 1. Let me give my answer about it here:

II Clement is presenting almsgiving as a way to cover sins. The context of the passage is the way to deal with repentance before the Last Judgment. Here is K. Lake's translation in the Loeb Classics Series, which is usually one of the best translations:
Quote:
Almsgiving is therefore good even as penitence for sin; fasting is better than prayer, but the giving of alms is better than both; and love ("AGAPE" in Greek) 'covers a multitude of sins,' but prayer from a good conscience rescues from death. Blessed is every man who is found full of these things; for almsgiving lightens sin.

Roberts had mistakenly translated "love covers a multitude of sins" as "charity" covering the sins.

Here is the Greek text:
Quote:
3. γινώσκετε δέ, ὅτι ἔρχεται ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως ὡς κλίβανος καιόμενος, καὶ τακήσονταί τινες τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ὡς μόλιβος ἐπὶ πυρὶ τηκόμενος· καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ κρύφια καὶ φανερὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 4. καλὸν οὖν ἐλεημοσύνη ὡς μετάνοια ἁμαρτίας· κρείσσων νηστεία προσευχῆς, ἐλεημοσύνη δὲ ἀμφοτέρων· ἀγάπη δὲ καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, προσευχὴ δὲ ἐκ καλῆς συνειδήσεως ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται. μακάριος πᾶς ὁ εὑρεθεὶς ἐν τούτοις πλήρης· ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ κούφισμα ἁμαρτίας γίνεται.
SOURCE: https://archive.org/details/TheApostoli ... /page/n167

So it is saying that Almsgiving is better than prayer or fasting for repentance/penitence. He is specifically talking about the way to deal with addressing one's sins. With sinning, a person often aims at hurting another person (although sometimes it's aimed at oneself). So almsgiving is a way to address this by making it up to them and helping them materially. I think that this makes sense- a stronger penance than just praying to God is giving out charity.

If the writer was just talking in general about the best way to prepare for the Last Judgment, then one might weigh alms vs prayer differently. I think that I solved Question 1, thanks for thinking about it with me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:40 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80714
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
:salut:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:26 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Obi-Wan,
I appreciate you helping me thinking through this issue and bringing quotations and ideas to my attention.

It looks like I probably didn't have a good enough translation of II Clement Chapter 8. K. Lake's translation in the Loeb's Classics is usually one of the best, and it's side by side with the Greek. It says:
"Let us repent then while we are on the earth... For after we have departed from this world, we can no longer make confession or repent any more in that place."
μετὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐξελθεῖν ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου οὐκέτι δυνάμεθα ἐκεῖ ἐξομολογήσασθαι ἢ μετανοεῖν ἔτι.
You can read it with the Greek here: https://archive.org/details/TheApostoli ... /page/n153
Preobrazhensky's Russian translation has the same sense:
"Ибо по отшествии нашем из мира мы уже не можем там исповедаться или покаяться."
ie. word for word "we cannot there confess or repent", which grammatically means that neither can be done there in the world, since we've departed it. Since we've left the world, we can't confess or repent in the world.

On the other hand, in the preceding two verses, he seems to say that in the afterlife God won't fix us any more because our state will be like clay in an oven fire. Here is Lake's translation:
Quote:
For we are clay in the hand of the workman; for just as the potter, if he make a vessel, and it be bent or broken in his hand, models it afrash, but if he has come so far as to put it into the fiery oven, he can do nothing to mend it any more; so also let us, so long as we are in this world, repent with all our heart of the wicked deeds which we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have a time for repentance.

The last phrase above implies that there might not be time in the afterlife to repent, either because it would be impossible or because it would be ineffective.

As for whether repentance is actually possible in the afterlife, it looks like there are a range of views. On one hand, the Catholic Catechism, citing St. John of Damascus's Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II.4, says simply "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death." (SOURCE: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1035) St. Thomas Aquinas takes the view that the wicked can repent in the afterlife, but he appears to view their repentance as purely pragmatic, regretting their sin as foolish because it led to their punishment, and not because they find the sin immoral. On the other hand, Catholic Straight Answers, quoting St. Faustina, proposes that the wicked do suffer remorse due to their conscience and that this is one of their main punishments:
Quote:
Blessed Sister Faustina described hell as follows: “Today I was led by an Angel to the chasms of hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw: The first torture that constitutes hell is the loss of God; the second is perpetual remorse of conscience..."
(SOURCE: http://catholicstraightanswers.com/does-hell-exist) Despite Thomas Aquinas' view that in Wisdom 5 the wicked repented in only a pragmatic way that didn't recognize the immorality of their deeds, it looks to me that in Wisdom 5 the wicked do recognize their wickedness and immorality, as when the wicked say:
Quote:
We, then, have strayed from the way of truth,
and the light of righteousness did not shine for us,
and the sun did not rise for us.
...
Even so, once born, we abruptly came to nought
and held no sign of virtue to display,
but were consumed in our wickedness.


Similarly, on one hand the Catholic and Orthodox Churches rejected Origen's theory of Apokatastasis (restoration) that allowed the wicked to be released from their eternal punishment, the Catholic Church teaches that there is a "Final Judgment" and "Eternal Punishment" for the wicked, and so catholic writers today generally seem to reject the idea of the restoration or salvation of the wicked who suffer in hell. On the other hand, St. Maximus (a saint in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) taught a version of apokatastasis that he distinguished from Origen's and the Orthodox writers today appear less dogmatic on the topic than the Catholic ones: some Orthodox scholars today suggest the possibility that the wicked might be released from hell.

I don't have much of an opinion because the afterlife is a realm that is so different from our own current one that it's hard for me to know what it would be like regarding such issues as free will and changes in judgment. For example, even on the question of whether people have free will in the afterlife, the Catholic Encyclopedia notes opposing Catholic views, with most suggesting that the soul goes into a "final state" that would in effect freeze the ability of the wicked to do good, whereas others suggest that the wicked do have that free ability but are deterred from using it due to their suffering. ("Impenitence of the Damned", Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm). My guess at this point is that since the person is still alive after death and can do things like pray, get information, praise God, suffer for sins, get rewards, etc. that the person's final state is not really totally fixed and frozen, and that even an extremely wicked person could conceivably also recognize that they did something sinful and regret their sinful mistake at a moral level, and then as a result of this recognition, God could find a supernatural way to save them, as He is all-loving and transcends time and space.

If I wanted to give the Catholic position, it looks to me like there is no "repentance" in the afterlife in the fullest formal sense of an effective recognition of the immorality of the sins together with regret for the sins' occurrence, a recognition of personal guilt, and with a turning to God to ask for forgiveness that God then gives the person. But there may be "repentance" in other senses like St. Faustina's ("remorse of conscience"), Michael Pakaluk's (ie. a sense of "self-recrimination" that does not involve turning to God), or St. Thomas Aquinas' (ie. a purely pragmatic regret for the act because the person recognizes that it resulted in punishment). (See: Pakaluk, On Needing God, https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/1 ... ng-on-hell)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:37 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10373
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
https://http4281.wordpress.com/2019/06/ ... -mean-all/

Perhaps I could get an answer to this question which has been bothering me for a while. Did the Living Word come to save all, just a small portion, or just "the elect?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:57 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10373
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
rako wrote:
Wikipedia's entry on II Clement says:
Quote:
The earliest external reference to 2 Clement is found in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History...:
"But it must be observed also that there is said to be a second epistle of Clement. But we do not know that this is recognized like the former, for we do not find that the ancients have made any use of it."
Shuo while it's ascribed to Clement of Rome, it's not known for sure who the real author was.
II Clement can be found online here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm

Christopher Tuckett writes:
Quote:
The text of 2 Clement... was... evidently highly respected and even canonical for some, it was rejected as not used by the ancients by others.... The existence of the text and its implied association with 1 Clement may be attested earlier [than by Eusebius in the 4th c.] by Irenaeus [in the 2nd c.]
(2 Clement: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, by Christopher Tuckett)

II Clement is used in the Alexandrian Codex of the Bible and is mentioned in the book of Apostolic rules to be used for general reading.

(Question 1) Do you agree that "fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving is better than both"?
Robert M. Grant writes about II Clement:
Quote:
The theology is not altogether clear, and the author soon turns to the state that he has "given no trivial counsel about self-control," leading into his practical appeal for repentence and going so far as to say that "fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving is better than both" (16:4).
(The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, p. 1061)

Chapter 16 in Roberts' Translation says:
Quote:
CHAP. XVI--PREPARATION FOR THE DAY OF JUDGMENT.

So, then, brethren, having received no small occasion to repent, while we have opportunity, let us turn to God who called us, while yet we have One to receive us. For if we renounce these indulgences and conquer the soul by not fulfilling its wicked desires, we shall be partakers of the mercy of Jesus. Know ye that the day of judgment draweth nigh like a burning oven, and certain of the heavens and all the earth will melt, like lead melting in fire; and then will appear the hidden and manifest deeds of men. Good, then, is alms as repentance from sin; better is fasting than prayer, and alms than both; "charity covereth a multitude of sins,"(1 Peter 4:4) and prayer out of a good conscience delivereth from death. Blessed is every one that shall be found complete in these; for alms lightens the burden of sin.
I think that the sense is that the day of judgment is coming on and so prayer is good, but fasting is even better as preparation (maybe it has a penitential, ascetic aspect). So I think that this means that almsgiving and fasting are better than prayer for asceticism, penance, and/or preparation for the day of judgment.
Lightfoot's translation goes:
Quote:
Almsgiving therefore is a good thing, even as repentance from sin
Fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving better than both. And
love covereth a multitude of sins, but prayer out of a good
conscience delivereth from death. Blessed is every man that is found
full of these. For almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin.

(Question 2) If we are still conscious after death, why couldn't we repent or continue our repentance after death?
2 Clement says that after we leave this world, we can't confess or repent, and consequently we should repent now.
Chapter 8 says:
Quote:
The Necessity of Repentance While We are on Earth

As long, therefore, as we are upon earth, let us practise repentance, for we are as clay in the hand of the artificer. For as the potter, if he make a vessel, and it be distorted or broken in his hands, fashions it over again; but if he have before this cast it into the furnace of fire, can no longer find any help for it: so let us also, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil deeds we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet an opportunity of repentance. For after we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will there belong to us.
As I understand it, in Catholicism, the stay of the faithful sinners in Purgatory is limited in duration. While there, they are conscious, and so I think that they could be in a state of repentance or penitence.
In Eastern Orthodoxy, the righteous don't suffer Purgatory, but to my knowledge there is a debate or uncertainty over whether the wicked who are confined to hell could at some point be redeemed from it. That is, it's true that Hell involves eternal punishment, but since God is all-powerful and all-loving, then somehow their souls could redeemed from Hell. It's not the position of the Orthodox Church, but some Orthodox theologians (like Alexei I. Osipov) seriously consider the possibility of something like this.

Maybe then, the teaching that one must repent while on Earth because it can't happen afterwards is true in a general way because this time is given to us to do righteousness, but it's not necessarily true in an absolute sense.


Brad Jersek begins, and lays the foundation, in one simple statement which the legal-minded Western theologians pushed to the back of the hermeneutical bus - God is love. Once you contemplate this fact, vividly shown at the Cross, every doctrine becomes fair game for inspection.

Remember that the Byzantine Empire was part of the greater Roman Empire. Therefore, those Fathers of the united Church could not help but to be influenced by Western thinking and Western philosophy. While North Africa had one school of theology which taught eternal conscious torment, the East had three schools teaching Apokatastasis. They existed together for almost 500 years without anyone screaming "heresy" about either school, or, more importantly, calling for a council to settle the issue.

Food for thought. And, no, Constantinople II doesn't count because of the meddling of Justinian. I don't count someone who murdered 4500 men in cold blood as someone to whom I should particularly listen regarding theological issues. Modern historians note his interference with Constantinople II, which was an unwarranted intrusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:16 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80714
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Ed, I thought you were giving up name-calling arguments.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:27 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10373
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Ed, I thought you were giving up name-calling arguments.


Father, are you talking about the fact that I mentioned that Justinian murdered 4500 of his opponents? Other than that I don't see where I called anybody names.

Would you listen to the theology of someone whose actions were steeped in sin and disobedient to Christ's commands?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:57 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80714
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
No, I'm objecting to "legal-minded Western historians pushed to the back of the bus." For the nth time, I will ask you to think how you respond when people take potshots at Eastern thinkers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:24 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10373
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
No, I'm objecting to "legal-minded Western historians pushed to the back of the bus." For the nth time, I will ask you to think how you respond when people take potshots at Eastern thinkers.


I'm sorry you consider that name calling. If you talk to just about any good, solid Orthodox theologian, they will tell you that the difference between Eastern and Western thinking is the Roman courtroom thinking which is at the heart of Western thinking. My continued examination of writings, posts, videos, blogs, etc, reinforces this in my mind. Everything seems to be about keeping rules rather than theosis (divinization). Even the eschatological framework of the West is bound up in this manner, with the emphsis being on paying off legal debt rather than intilogical change. From everything I've read, this is the basis of Pugatory - debt repayment based in hours spent and actions taken to mitigate that debt. This is far diifferent from the Eastern understanding of after dath purgation in which the soul comes into the very presence of Christ and His fiery, passionate love burns away all that is not like Him, changing the soul into His likeness rather thsn paying a debt.

It was this legal framework which drove Luther nuts becausehe realized that standing before a judge, he would always be guilty.

Now if I was using words like "moron" " idiot" "screwball" etc you would have a case against me. But what I have written is simple fact - the Western mind thinks in legal terms when it comes to salvation. Probably the worst thing I ever did - if I wanted to maintain a friendly relationship with Roman Catholic theology - was to go to seminary and find these things out for myself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:57 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80714
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
I am at a loss for words. I do not want to go over this with you for the umpteenth time. You have your picture of "the West" and apparently nothing I or anyone else can say will change your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:00 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4989
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Image

I feel ya, bruh. I feel ya.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:26 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 9:15 am
Posts: 4878
Religion: Catholic
.


Last edited by HalJordan on Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:52 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6109
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
Before people reply to your question on repentance, rako, could you please define the word?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:04 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Light of the East wrote:
Did the Living Word come to save all, just a small portion, or just "the elect?"

The Orthodox view is that Christ came to save humanity and that people have a choice whether to accept this. God chose all people in general for salvation in general, but not everyone accepts the offer, and God particularly chose for the 1st century disciples to be Christ's disciples and apostles. Hence the verses about the Israelites and Christians as God's chosen.
The Calvinist view, as I understand it, is extremely Deterministic, and according to this view, God chose/"elected" certain persons for salvation, and that He bestows irresistible grace on them, so that they don't have a practical choice.
I expect that the Catholic view agrees with the Orthodox view, and if not, that it at least is not dogmatic on the question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:09 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80714
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
The relationship between grace and free will is controversial to the present day; while there is a prevailing Catholic view, other schools of thought are still acceptable as long as they don't deny either God's sovereignty or human freedom, both as rightly understood. I happen to hold to one of those other schools of thought, as I think that the prevailing view doesn't sufficiently protect God's sovereignty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:12 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:10 pm
Posts: 31
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Light of the East wrote:
And, no, Constantinople II doesn't count because of the meddling of Justinian.

Constantinople II counts, and so, strictly speaking, the Orthodox Church has rejected some version of Apokastasis that it attributed to Origen. But the Orthodox Church isn't as dogmatic as the Catholic Church I think when it comes to the canons, or to parts of the Ecumenical Councils besides the main ideas and theology. For example, there are alot of canons, like the ones against having a non-Christian Jewish doctor, that the Church in practice doesn't hold people to.
I am not saying that the Orthodox Church allows whatever kind of apokastasis that Constantinople II rejected, but rather that it would be more open to allowing the view that the Council rejected.
I suspect that the Catholic Church might also be open to reconsidering views rejected in the canons of councils that were not a main part of the Council. But I don't feel that I have the authority to say that, not being Catholic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: II CLEMENT (95-140 AD) Questions
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:22 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 80714
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Disciplinary canons like the one you mention are mutable.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 5   [ 92 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: