Fallen Angels, reprised

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
15,336
Reaction score
4,861
Points
108
Location
London UK
"As regards eating from sacrifices made to idols, we know that an idol within the cosmos is nothing, and that none is God except the One. For even though there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father – out of whom come all things, and we for him – and one Lord, Jesus the Christ – through whom come all things, and we through him."
1 Corinthians 8:4-6

Before discussing fallen angels, it's worth noting that scholarship more and more is bringing out what appears to be a sound case to say that most Jews, Christians and educated pagans of late antiquity saw an absolute distinction between the one High God, a meta-cosmic being and the source of all existence, and the hierarchies of spiritual or divine powers that inhabit and rule the cosmos, whom Paul refers to as "archons", “powers on high,” and to whom Christ refers as "the Archon of this World" in John.

These “archons,” angelic governors of the cosmos, appear often either rebellious or incompetent. In Paul's time, this would be an interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which describes God as dividing the nations among the “sons of God (EI)", as well as 32:43, in which these same sons of God are called to make obeisance.

+++
 
Among the influential texts for both Jews and Christians were 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, which recount the rebellion, fall and punishment of various angels and their offspring in the days after the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden, and the subsequent evils they visited upon the world – the ultimate consequence of which was the flood, sent by God to rescue the world from the iniquity they had set loose.

In these narratives known to the earliest Christians, the rebellion was of the 'sons of Elohim', or angels, who, according to Genesis 6:2, lusted after "the daughters of men” and wed them, their offspring being the mysterious nefilim (giants) of Genesis 6:6.

According to 1 Enoch some 200 leaders among the angelic orders, followed their leader called variously Semyaza or Azazel, resulting in, presumably, hundreds and angels becoming subject to the wrath of God.

Not only did they father the nefilim, but taught the practice sorcery, the manufacture of weapons, jewelery, and cosmetics.

Informed of this dreadful state of the world, God sent the Archangel Michael to imprison the celestial dissidents in the darkness below the earth and to slay the nefilim, the ghosts of whom then became the demons that now haunt the world.

According to the book of Jubilees, the angels who became enchanted with the beauty of human women were angels of a lower order assigned to govern the natural elements of the cosmos. In that version of the tale, the celestial angels imprison the fallen cosmic angels in the dark below to await the final judgment, while the nefilim were driven to fall upon and kill one another. After the flood, however, the ghosts of the nefilim wandered the earth as demons under their leader, Satan and/or Mastema or Beliar (possibly the same figure). When God ordered these
bound in prison as well, Mastema prevailed on him to allow a tenth of their number to continue roaming the world till the last day, so as to test
humanity and punish the wicked; and thus Mastema comes to serve as “a satan” (that is, an Accuser) in this age.

The reference in the Epistle of Peter to Christ journeying to these spirits to proclaim the gospel to them (1 Peter 3:19, after his crucifixion, but prior to his resurrection), seems to echo the account of Enoch journeying to their abode in order to proclaim God’s condemnation upon them (1 Enoch 12-15).
 
Last edited:
This, from another deuterocanonical source, The Life of Adam and Eve

12.1 Groaning, the Devil said: "O Adam, all my enmity, jealousy, and resentment is towards you, since on account of you I was expelled and alienated from my glory, which I had in heaven in the midst of the angels. On account of you I was cast out upon the earth."
12.2 Adam answered: "What have I done to you?
12.3 What fault do I have against you? Since you have not been harmed nor injured by us, why do you persecute us?"
13.1 The Devil answered: "Adam what are you saying to me? On account of you I was cast out from heaven.
13.2 When you were formed, I was cast out from the face of God and was sent forth from the company of the angels. When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God, Michael led you and made you worship in the sight of God. The Lord God then said: 'Behold, Adam, I have made you in our image and likeness.'
14.1 Having gone forth Michael called all the angels saying: 'Worship the image of the Lord God, just as the Lord God has commanded.'
14.2 Michael himself worshipped first then he called me and said: 'Worship the image of God Jehovah.'
14.3 I answered: 'I do not have it within me to worship Adam.' When Michael compelled me to worship, I said to him: 'Why do you compel me? I will not worship him who is lower and posterior to me. I am prior to that creature. Before he was made, I had already been made. He ought to worship me.'
15.1 Hearing this, other angels who were under me were unwilling to worship him.
15.2 Michael said: 'Worship the image of God. If you do not worship, the Lord God will grow angry with you.'
15.3 said: 'If he grows angry with me, I will place my seat above the stars of heaven and I will be like the Most High.'
16.1 Then the Lord God grew angry with me and sent me forth with my angels from our glory. On account of you we were expelled from our dwelling into this world and cast out upon the earth.
16.2 Immediately we were in grief, since we had been despoiled of so much glory,
16.3 and we grieved to see you in such a great happiness of delights. 16:4 By a trick I cheated your wife and caused you to be expelled through her from the delights of your happiness, just as I had been expelled from my glory."
17.1 Hearing this, Adam cried out with a great shout because of the Devil, and said: "O Lord my God, in your hands is my life. Make this adversary of mine be far from me, who seeks to ruin my soul. Give me his glory which he himself lost."
17.2 Immediately the Devil no longer appeared to him.
17.3 Adam truly persevered for forty days standing in penitence in the waters of the Jordan.
 
So far, and now we're in the early Christian era, we have fallen angels, the Devil (Satan, among other names), lesser devils and demons.

We have in fact two falls – the one in the Life of Adam and Eve, the other in Enoch/Jubilees.

And we have references to these books in the Fathers, but in all this, we have scant reference to Lucifer, and any reference to the fallen Lucifer is only in an exegesis of Isaiah.
 
The most infamous Father, as far as Lucifer is concerned, is Jerome's translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin, in Isaiah 14:12.

We have rehearsed that point ad nauseam, so we're not going there again ... but I thought it useful to show how Jerome refers to Lucifer elsewhere in his writings.

In a letter to Pope Damasus in Rome (written 376-377), a rather partisan Jerome decries the disputes that have unsettled the Church:
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, “woven from the top throughout,” since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover “the sealed fountain” and “the garden inclosed,” I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter..."

In the second paragraph he continues:
"In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars..." (reference to Isaiah)

In a letter to Eustochium (384)
"Lucifer fell, Lucifer who used to rise at dawn; and be who was bred up in a paradise of delight had the well-earned sentence passed upon him,
“Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord.”
(Obadiah 1:4) For he had said in his heart, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God,” (Isaiah 14:13) and “I will be like the Most High.” (Isaiah 14:14) Wherefore God says every day to the angels, as they descend the ladder that Jacob saw in his dream, “I have said ye are Gods and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes.” (Psalm 82:6-7) The devil fell first, and since “God standeth in the congregation of the Gods and judgeth among the Gods,” (Psalm 82:1) the apostle writes to those who are ceasing to be Gods — “Whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal and walk as men?” (1 Corinthians 3:3)

Another letter to the above (404)
"For in thee was born the prince begotten before Lucifer. Whose birth from the Father is before all time"

Dialogue against the Pelagians (417)
“the just will shine with the brightness of the sun, and those of the next rank will glow with the splendor of the moon, so that one will be a Lucifer, another an Arcturus, a third an Orion, another Mazzaroth, or some other of the stars ... "For we all,” he says, “must be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad...”

"... In wisdom hast thou made them all.” Lucifer may be indignant because he has not the brightness of the moon. The moon may dispute over her eclipses and ceaseless toil, and ask why she must traverse every month the yearly orbit of the sun. The sun may complain and want to know what he has done that he travels more slowly than the moon. And we poor creatures may demand to know why it is that we were made men and not angels; although your teacher, the Ancient, the fountain from which these streams flow, asserts that all rational creatures were created equal and started fairly, like charioteers, either to succumb halfway, or to pass on rapidly and reach the wished-for goal"

+++


I offer these because Justin names Lucifer in a direct reference to Isaiah (Damasus and 1st Eustochium). In his Dialogue with the Pelagians it's a reference to the Morning Star.

Only in his second mention in Eustochium does he link Lucifer to a reference outside of Isaiah, and that is to the Hebrew apocypha.

Whereas he mentions "the Devil" 154 times, and Satan 63 times.

+++
 
To continue ... any infamy on the topic attributed to Jerome is unfair and erroneous – below is a list of the appearances of Lucifer in the writings of the early Fathers.

Melito of Sardis (c100-180) "The Key"
"The womb of the Lord
—the hidden recess of Deity out of which He brought forth His Son. In the Psalm: “Out of the womb, before Lucifer, have I borne Thee.""
A reference to Psalm 110:3, specifically (in Hebrew) "from the womb of the morning".
The Greek LXX reads:
"μετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου ἐν ταῖς λαμπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ('Heosphoros') ἐξεγέννησά σε"
"With you is the beginning in the day of your power in the splendour of the saints, from the womb before Heosphoros you were born."

Jerome will later translate the Septuagint (LXX) as:
"With you is the beginning in the day of your power in the splendour of the saints, from the womb before Lucifer you were born."

St Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to revise the Old Latin of the four Gospels from the best Greek texts, and by 384 had completed this task, together with a translation of the Psalms. After the death of the Pope, Jerome settled in Bethlehem, where between 390-405, Jerome then anew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible, including a third version of the Psalms, which survives in a very few Vulgate manuscripts. This new translation of the Psalms was labelled by him as "iuxta Hebraeos" ('close to the Hebrews', 'immediately following the Hebrews'), but it was not ultimately used in the Vulgate. (The other 38 books became the Vulgate, so this version is credited to have been the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than via the Greek Septuagint.)

His later rendition was:
"populi tui spontanei erunt in die fortitudinis tuae in montibus sanctis quasi de vulva orietur tibi ros adulescentiae tuae"
"With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee."
It seems he reckoned the 'from the womb before the day star' made more sense as a poetic allusion to 'before the dawn' than than 'the dew of your youth'.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John, III, Chapter 1:15–18.
7 “... let us, however, hear Himself saying, “Even before Abraham, I am.” But Abraham also was born in the midst of the human race: there were many before him, many after him. Listen to the voice of the Father to the Son: “Before Lucifer I have begotten Thee” (Psalm 110:3 Vulgate). He who was begotten before Lucifer Himself illuminates all. A certain one was named Lucifer, who fell; for he was an angel and became a devil; and concerning him the Scripture said, “Lucifer, who did arise in the morning, fell” (Isaiah 14:27). And why was he Lucifer? Because, being enlightened, he gave forth light. But for what reason did he become dark! Because he abode not in the truth. Therefore He was before Lucifer, before every one that is enlightened; since before every one that is enlightened, of necessity He must be by whom all are enlightened who can be enlightened."
Here we see a reference to the Psalm, and then linking to Isaiah, and clearly referring to the fall of angels in 1 Enoch and Jubilees.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) Ten Homilies on the Epistle of John, Homily I, 1 John 1-2:11.
2 "... He before the sun, who made the sun, He before the day-star (ante luciferum), before all the stars, before all angels, the true Creator... "
This makes clear that the Latin speaker understood the distinction between lucifer as 'light-bringer' as a reference to the Day Star, and Lucifer as a person when used figuratively of the Adversary or evil influence.

John Cassian (360-435) Conferences, Conference VIII, 7, Of the origin of principalities or powers.
"Before then that beginning in time ... which according to the historic and Jewish interpretation denotes the age of this world ... before, I say, that beginning of Genesis in time there is no question that God had already created all those powers and heavenly virtues; which the Apostle enumerates in order and thus describes: "For in Christ were created all things both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be angels or archangels, whether they be thrones or dominions, whether they be principalities or powers. All things were made by Him and in Him..."

Conference VIII, 8, Of the fall of the devil and the angels.
"And so we are clearly shown that out of that number of them some of the leaders fell, by the lamentations of Ezekiel and Isaiah, in which we know that the prince of Tyre or that Lucifer who rose in the morning is lamented with a doleful plaint... "
 
Last edited:
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration XXXVIII, On the Theophany, or Birthday of Christ (preached either Dec. 25, 380, or Jan. 6, 381).
IX. "But since this movement of self-contemplation alone could not satisfy Goodness, but Good must be poured out and go forth beyond Itself to multiply the objects of Its beneficence, for this was essential to the highest Goodness, He first conceived the Heavenly and Angelic Powers. And this conception was a work fulfilled by His Word, and perfected by His Spirit. And so the secondary Splendours came into being, as the Ministers of the Primary Splendour; whether we are to conceive of them as intelligent Spirits, or as Fire of an immaterial and incorruptible kind, or as some other nature approaching this as near as may be. I should like to say that they were incapable of movement in the direction of evil, and susceptible only of the movement of good, as being about God, and illumined with the first rays from God—for earthly beings have but the second illumination; but I am obliged to stop short of saying that, and to conceive and speak of them only as difficult to move because of him, who for his splendour was called Lucifer, but became and is called Darkness through his pride; and the apostate hosts who are subject to him, creators of evil by their revolt against good and our inciters."

I think by now we can see that the Fathers generally agreed that those angels who fell did so before before the formation of the world, or if not then during its creation, but earlier enough to tempt Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Thus the Fathers looked for the 'logos behind the mythos', thus in Isaiah's King of Babylon and in Ezekiel's King of Tyre, they saw the human persons as types according to the principle of hubris, he who exalts himself as equal to the gods and who's fate is to fall, as per Proverbs 16:18
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
 
It's worth quoting Ezekiel 28:12-16 (emphasis mine)–
"And say to him (King of Tyre): Thus saith the Lord God: Thou wast the seal of resemblance, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God: every precious stone was thy covering: the sardius, the topaz, and the jasper, the chrysolite, and the onyx, and the beryl, the sapphire, and the carbuncle, and the emerald: gold the work of thy beauty: and thy pipes were prepared in the day that thou wast created. Thou a cherub stretched out, and protecting, and I set thee in the holy mountain of God, thou hast walked in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day of thy creation, until iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise, thy inner parts were filled with iniquity, and thou hast sinned: and I cast thee out from the mountain of God, and destroyed thee, O covering cherub, out of the midst of the stones of fire."

The emphases point to a being set in Eden; of the angelic orders, a cherub.

The Fathers struggled with the unimaginable – how could an angel, a perfect creation of God, corrupt itself? But clearly it is so, and the cause, as it always is, is pride:
"Because thy heart is lifted up as the heart of God" (v6) and
"Wilt thou yet say before them that slay thee: I am God; whereas thou art a man, and not God, in the hand of them that slay thee? Thou shalt die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God." (v9-10)
 
Augustine of Hippo On Christian Doctrine (published 397) Book III Chapter 37— The Seventh Rule of Tichonius

"55. The seventh rule of Tichonius and the last, is about the devil and his body. For he is the head of the wicked, who are in a sense his body, and destined to go with him into the punishment of everlasting fire, just as Christ is the head of the Church, which is His body, destined to be with Him in His eternal kingdom and glory. Accordingly ... For example, what is said in Isaiah, How he is fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning! and the other statements of the context which, under the figure of the king of Babylon, are made about the same person, are of course to be understood of the devil ... "

Again, as Isaiah's King of Babylon is a member of the body, the head of whom is the devil, so too is Ezekiel's King of Tyre.

Taking this on board, we can see Lucifer cannot be simultaneously the head and also a member – along with others – but rather Lucifer, when named as a figure of evil, is used figuratively ... so we might say that Satan, or the Adversary, is Satan, but so too is Lucifer, as likewise was Mephistopheles, a character from German folklore of the 16th century, similar to a tale dating back to the 6th century.

And I found this:
John Cassian (360-435) Conferences, Conference V. Conference of Abbot Serapion. On the Eight Principal Faults. Chapter VI.
Of the manner of the temptation in which our Lord was attacked by the devil


"For it was right that He who was in possession of the perfect image and likeness of God should be Himself tempted through those passions, through which Adam also was tempted ... that is, through gluttony, vainglory, pride ... For it was gluttony through which he took the fruit of the forbidden tree, vainglory through which it was said “Your eyes shall be opened,” and pride through which it was said “Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

With these three sins then we read that the Lord our Saviour was also tempted; with gluttony when the devil said to Him: “Command these stones that they be made bread:” with vainglory: “If Thou art the Son of God cast Thyself down:” with pride, when he showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them and said: “All this will I give to Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me:”

... Lastly the devil only tempted Him to those sins, by which he had deceived the first Adam, inferring that He as man would similarly be deceived in other matters if he found that He was overcome by those temptations by which he had overthrown His predecessor."

But the devil fails in the first (turning stones into bread) gluttony, he did not venture to tempt Him to fornication, but passed on to covetousness, which he knew to be the root of all evils, and when again vanquished in this ... so he passed on to the last passion; viz., pride, by which he knew that those who are perfect and have overcome all other sins, can be affected, and owing to which he remembered that he himself in his character of Lucifer, and many others too, had fallen from their heavenly estate, without temptation from any of the preceding passions."

The key here being "he (the devil) remembered that he himself in his character of Lucifer, and many others too, had fallen from their heavenly estate ..."
 
The Fathers struggled with the unimaginable – how could an angel, a perfect creation of God, corrupt itself? But clearly it is so, and the cause, as it always is, is pride:
Unimaginable... yet not unimaginable... Is it all part of the free will and choice question faced by Adam and Eve?
 
"55. The seventh rule of Tichonius and the last, is about the devil and his body. For he is the head of the wicked, who are in a sense his body, and destined to go with him into the punishment of everlasting fire, just as Christ is the head of the Church, which is His body, destined to be with Him in His eternal kingdom and glory. Accordingly ... For example, what is said in Isaiah, How he is fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning! and the other statements of the context which, under the figure of the king of Babylon, are made about the same person, are of course to be understood of the devil ... "
Definitely not universalists....

Taking this on board, we can see Lucifer cannot be simultaneously the head and also a member – along with others – but rather Lucifer, when named as a figure of evil, is used figuratively ... so we might say that Satan, or the Adversary, is Satan, but so too is Lucifer, as likewise was Mephistopheles, a character from German folklore of the 16th century, similar to a tale dating back to the 6th century.

If he is not the head and also a member (why not? are not heads of organizations also members of such organizations? what is different here?)

But figuratively... in the sense this particular strain of belief was one of those that do not believe in a literal Devil/Satan?


These are interesting...

I hope someday you put up something about different theories of the Atonement... I've always had trouble understanding it at all, but surely some of it comes from the idea of substitionary atonement, and ideas that further developed in Calvinism like double predestination and the elect - (related not the same, I know) But ideas like ransom theory of atonement or Christus Victor make more sense... if the idea could truly be grasped

I'm glad you post threads of sophisticated theology. Interesting. I don't always understand them, but appreciate the material.
 
Definitely not universalists....
St Augustine? No, definitely not.

In City of God, he lists seven differing 'universalist' positions present in the Church (early 5th century), each citing different biblical texts to support its convictions. He dubbed them “misericordi nostri” ('our own compassionate ones'). With the exception of Origen and his followers, he does not regard the other six groups as heretical. Indeed, he could be called cordial towards them:
"I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man’s sins." (XXI.17)

1 All, including the devil and his angels, will be saved, after purgatorial punishments (Origen and others).
2 All human beings (but not devils) will be saved, after punishments of varying duration.
3 All human beings (but not devils) will be saved by the intercession of the saints on the Day of Judgment. No one will be punished at all. Hell is the threat that wickedness deserves, but mercy will overrule it.
4 All who participate in the Christian sacraments, including heretics, will be saved.
5 All who participate in the Catholic eucharist will be saved.
6 All who remain in the Catholic church and hold the Catholic faith will be saved, those who lived wickedly after temporary punishment.
7 All who perform works of mercy will be saved.

+++

St Maximus the Confessor called apocatastasis the doctrine that ought not be named, because many will treat it as a license to do as they so choose, resting on the mercy of God to forgive them all their transgressions.
 
If he is not the head and also a member (why not? are not heads of organizations also members of such organizations? what is different here?)
I think by head here is meant the source and origin?

But figuratively... in the sense this particular strain of belief was one of those that do not believe in a literal Devil/Satan?
I'm not sure I follow?
 
In closing, a reference to Origen ...

Origen of Alexandria (185-253), De Principiis, I, 5, On Rational Natures

"1 ... it follows that we offer a few remarks upon the subject of rational natures, and on their species and orders, or on the offices as well of holy as of malignant powers, and also on those which occupy an intermediate position between these good and evil powers, and as yet are placed in a state of struggle and trial ... There are certain holy angels of God whom Paul ... designating them, from some unknown source, as thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers; and after this enumeration, as if knowing that there were still other rational offices and orders besides those which he had named, he says of the Saviour: “Who is above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.”

"2. Then, in the next place, we must know that every being which is endowed with reason, and transgresses its statutes and limitations, is undoubtedly involved in sin by swerving from rectitude and justice. Every rational creature, therefore, is capable of earning praise and censure ... advance to better things ... if he fall away from the plan and course of rectitude ... he is justly liable to pains and penalties.

And this also is to be held as applying to the devil himself, and those who are with him, and are called his angels. Now the titles of these beings have to be explained, that we may know what they are of whom we have to speak. The name, then, of Devil, and Satan, and Wicked One, who is also described as Enemy of God, is mentioned in many passages of Scripture. Moreover, certain angels of the devil are mentioned, and also a prince of this world, who, whether the devil himself or some one else, is not yet clearly manifest.

Certain spiritual powers of wickedness also, in heavenly places, are spoken of by Paul himself... "

"4. But that we may not appear to build our assertions on subjects of such importance and difficulty on the ground of inference alone ... let us see whether we can obtain any declarations from holy Scripture ... And, firstly, we shall adduce what holy Scripture contains regarding wicked powers ... Now we find in the prophet Ezekiel two prophecies written to the prince of Tyre, the former of which might appear to any one, before he heard the second also, to be spoken of some man who was prince of the Tyrians."

"5. Again, we are taught as follows by the prophet Isaiah regarding another opposing power. The prophet says, “How is Lucifer, who used to arise in the morning, fallen ..." Most evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning. For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, “Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning.” For at one time he was light. Moreover our Lord, who is the truth, compared the power of His own glorious advent to lightning, in the words, “For as the lightning shineth from the height of heaven even to its height again, so will the coming of the Son of man be.” And notwithstanding He compares him to lightning, and says that he fell from heaven, that He might show by this that he had been at one time in heaven, and had had a place among the saints, and had enjoyed a share in that light in which all the saints participate, by which they are made angels of light, and by which the apostles are termed by the Lord the light of the world. In this manner, then, did that being once exist as light before he went astray, and fell to this place, and had his glory turned into dust, which is peculiarly the mark of the wicked, as the prophet also says; whence, too, he was called the prince of this world, i.e. of an earthly habitation: for he exercised power over those who were obedient to his wickedness, since “the whole of this world”—for I term this place of earth, world—“lieth in the wicked one,” and in this apostate.

That he is an apostate, i.e. a fugitive, even the Lord in the book of Job says, “Thou wilt take with a hook the apostate dragon,” i.e. a fugitive. Now it is certain that by the dragon is understood the devil himself. If then they are called opposing powers, and are said to have been once without stain, while spotless purity exists in the essential being of none save the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but is an accidental quality in every created thing; and since that which is accidental may also fall away, and since those opposite powers once were spotless, and were once among those which still remain unstained, it is evident from all this that no one is pure either by essence or nature, and that no one was by nature polluted. And the consequence of this is, that it lies within ourselves and in our own actions to possess either happiness or holiness; or by sloth and negligence to fall from happiness into wickedness and ruin, to such a degree that, through too great proficiency, so to speak, in wickedness (if a man be guilty of so great neglect), he may descend even to that state in which he will be changed into what is called an “opposing power.”
 
In closing, a reference to Origen ...

Origen of Alexandria (185-253), De Principiis, I, 5, On Rational Natures...
Ooo .. my favorite scholar ;)

I won't ask you whether he was an "Arian", of course .. because that is controversial.
 
St Augustine? No, definitely not.
Definitely not, though I had remembered you saying you were or might be, and I had forgotten how many early Christians were.
I'm wondering why conditional immortality/annihilationism is not highlighted, unless it is considered actually non-heretical.
St Maximus the Confessor called apocatastasis the doctrine that ought not be named, because many will treat it as a license to do as they so choose, resting on the mercy of God to forgive them all their transgressions.
Interesting to me, that orthodox Christian doctrine posits that no one can be saved on their own merits, but at the same time there is the thought that behavior counts. Seems... uh... hard to reconcile?? 🤔
 
Taking this on board, we can see Lucifer cannot be simultaneously the head and also a member – along with others – but rather Lucifer, when named as a figure of evil, is used figuratively ... so we might say that Satan, or the Adversary, is Satan, but so too is Lucifer, as likewise was Mephistopheles, a character from German folklore of the 16th century, similar to a tale dating back to the 6th century.
but rather Lucifer, when named as a figure of evil, is used figuratively ... so we might say that Satan, or the Adversary, is Satan, but so too is Lucifer, as likewise was Mephistopheles, a character from German folklore of the 16th century
But figuratively... in the sense this particular strain of belief was one of those that do not believe in a literal Devil/Satan?
I'm not sure I follow?
It sounds like in your earlier comments you were saying that Lucifer, when named as a figure of evil, was used figuratively, which I took to mean not literally, which I took to mean that this was a line of thought in which Satan/Lucifer/The Devil are not considered literal beings.
There are Protestant denomination, I think maybe Christadelphians are one, which posit that Satan is not a literal being.
 
Ooo .. my favorite scholar ;)

I won't ask you whether he was an "Arian", of course .. because that is controversial.
LOL, the proper question is, whether Arius – who was 3 years old when Origen died – properly understood Origen's theology.

With regard to Arius' primary assertion, that regarding the Son, 'there was a time when he was not' – then he did not agree with Origen, and it this is a stamp of 'Arianism', then Origen was not Arian, as he argued the Son is eternally generated of the Father, and is therefore co-eternal with Him.

Nor can he be considered a forerunner of Arianism – see Illaira Ramelli, Origen's Anti-Subordinationism (Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011) 21-49)
 
Definitely not, though I had remembered you saying you were or might be, and I had forgotten how many early Christians were.
Yes, I am.

I'm wondering why conditional immortality/annihilationism is not highlighted, unless it is considered actually non-heretical.
I think it is, by 4, 5 & 6? I don't know if there's a new 'conditional' theology – the US being the US, there probably is.

Interesting to me, that orthodox Christian doctrine posits that no one can be saved on their own merits, but at the same time there is the thought that behavior counts. Seems... uh... hard to reconcile?? 🤔
What it means is salvation comes from God. The offer of salvation comes first (it is, and was, always there) but that does not mean we sit back, put our feet up and think everything's hunky-dory because I'm saved no matter what I do ... there is an expectation that we live up to what we believe in.

I always though the 'faith v works' argument was a nonsense. If you believe, you act accordingly, If you don't act, then what does that say about your beliefs?
 
Back
Top