If you are Eastern Orthodox and living in America, it's likely you've heard of Fr. Stephen De Young. He co-hosts the popular podcast "Lord of Spirits" with Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick on Ancient Faith Radio, and his books are among the best-selling Orthodox titles on Amazon. Many have found his podcast and writings helpful, saying that he re-enchants the world of Scripture for them.
Very good. I like Fr. De Young, but I am constantly annoyed by his podcasts and work--he never cites anything! He never provides concrete sources, especially in Lord of Spirits. What that leaves listeners with is the impression that his particular supernatural view of the world is consensus.
He doesn’t offer any proof and doesn’t sight sources. I’m simply recording the sense and use of word throughout history. He is arguing something patently untrue, not found in scripture, and contradictory to the use of the word by the fathers. You’re not catching the nuance which is hard to offer here accept to scholars, but all would agree. Philo is the only Jew—and in the first century, I’m aware of that uses word hypostasis and he uses it in a different sense than in nicea / Constantinople. The disciples and early church worshipped the father son and Holy Spirit but did not use the language hypostasis. Beyond that fr. Stephen de young offers no proof which is the problem I’m addressing along with the idea that Christ’s coming didnt change the Jewish understanding of God or Paul’s.
I think in many ways this is unfair. Yes, Jesus and the incarnarion is the key to understanding the OT but there seems to be a presupposition that time is strictly linear and that for some reason we can't also interpret Jesus through the OT. Do not Jesus and Gospels themselbes do this with constant reference and outright quotation to the OT? Also the whole thing about being skeptical of trinitarian Jews pre-incarnation (speaking strictly linearly) seems to ignore 2nd temple Jewish literature like the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, testament of the 12 patriarchy, etc which very clearly have some non-unitarian view of God. This was so common that later Rabbinical Judaism has to retcon all these Rabbis because they didn't hold to a unitarian view of God.
On the first point, It’s not we can’t interpret Jesus through reading what were once referred to as the scriptures—the Old Testament. We can. It’s that we can interpret the scriptures as being about Jesus of Nazareth. Of course the word was the name for something closely associated with God and the wisdom of God, but the historical incarnation opens up the scriptures to us as being about and fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth.
"But, if death's ministry by way of scriptures engraved in stones came with glory, so that the sons of Israel were unable to gaze on the face of Moses on account of his face's glory--which is being abolished--how shall the ministry of the spirit not come with more glory? For if there is glory to the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of vindication abounds much more in glory. For even that which was made glorious, compared to the glory that exceeds it, has not been made glorious in this degree. For, if by glory that which is being abolished--much more glory that which endures. Having such a hope, therefore, we venture considerable boldness, unlike Moses, who put a veil on his face so that the sons of Israel should not gaze intently toward the end of what is being abolished. Instead, their thoughts were coarsened. For right up to the present day that same veil remains drawn over the reading of the old covenant, it not being revealed that in the Anointed it is abolished. Rather, to this day, when Moses is being read a veil lies upon their heart; but whenever it turns to the Lord the veil is removed (2 Corinthians 3:7-16)."
On the second point about their being trinitarian Jews before Christs death, I’d respond that there appears to be everything from polytheism to monarchism with subsidiary deities or angels or principles like the logos . But there is no evidence of the Greek word hypostasis being used as we use it or as Fr. Stephen De Young uses it in his book Religion of the Apostles. That didn’t begin to happen until centuries after the ascension of Christ. Also, I do understand that rabbinic Judaism did reinvent Judaism, mostly in response to the ascension of Christianity as the official state religion after the parting of ways.
>> “Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of God not in the sense of contradicting, correcting, or even adding to the previous revelation, but by being God, in Person, whom all previous revelation was describing.”
>Thus, Fr. De Young would argue that the only revelation Christ provides us with is what was already known
That is not what Fr. De Young argued in that excerpt.
“…not in the sense of contradicting, correcting, or even adding to the previous revelation…” is tantamount to saying “and the words (of the Old Testament) became flesh and dwelt among us…”.
I quoted it. What does he argue? You’re placing a burden of proof on me that is stronger than him. He does not offer actual proof and contradicts what we see in the fathers. Again I will have to rewrite essay to offer a more detailed explanation, but he acts as if Christ coming in person fits into Jewish metaphysics and that is not only controversial but untrue and defeats the unique and earth shattering point—Christ coming in person, completely changes how scripture is read. As Paul says, before a veil lied over scripture like the veil Moses had to wear coming down mount sinai, but now with Christ we view scripture with faces unveiled.
Interesting. I have limited exposure to de Young, but something just really turned me off about Lord of Spirits. And I had people at my old parish insisting I needed to listen to the podcast to correct my still former Catholic understanding.
I also commend you for doing this charitably. You offer food for thought.
I am, happily, no longer Orthodox, but I share with you the distaste for De Young/LoS/the whole literary/podcast universe that he and ASD have crafted together.
One small pushback or obligatorily pedantic comment: historical critical methodology does not assume that there is a single authorial intent, nor that this is the appropriate goal of the exegete: authorial intention remains unavailable to us. Instead, historical critics seek to establish the most likely original meaning of a text in the historical context as available to us from the data of the period (textual and archaeological).
What makes SDY/ASD/LoS et al. detrimental, in my opinion, is that it begins not from the data but from the theology they already espouse--as you correctly demonstrate here, *their* version of Orthodoxy, not Orthodoxy as it has traditionally been espoused/articulated/practiced--and then uses a thin veneer of historical-critical methods to try and shape the data to fit those concerns. That's eisegesis on an epic level, but the average listener to their podcast won't know the difference.
Well that’s why I was writing it. I think the reason I put single authorial intent had more to do with the application of it by fundamentalist Christians and that overall the tendency in using it is to see there being one correct reading of it. But your right to push back.
This is spot on. The fact that Our Lord is the cornerstone, the foundation, the entrance, to heaven; is never mentioned in the teachings of Stephen DeYoung who admits that during his life as a Protestant he was rebellious towards the Protestant teachings. DeYoung, in his bitterness towards Protestants, practically plagiarizes the words of Orthodox apologists and uses them against the Protestants because….well…he claims to have grudges against them. For one thing he claims to still be angry because they forbade him from playing D & D which forced him to play secretly?….? The contentious spirit within him seems to be a strong motivator. He contends with Catholics. He contends with Greek speaking Orthodox. He contends with pious Orthodox who “need to lighten up”. He cannot make One might surmise that he will not confess the Lord Jesus Christ as his foundation because he builds himself up on the sandy ground of hubris. He studied Torah ? So what. If a man professes to be an Orthodox Christian he must bow down to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Period. Afterwards the can talk about the Scriptures. A child or illiterate person can bow down to Christ and see heaven. A self proclaimed genius who is old and literate but who will not bow down simply will not see heaven.
I agree. From the moment I opened the first book of his I'd been recommended, I saw something was not right here. It was God is a God of War, and he was arguing none of the fathers doubted the historical accuracy of the old testament. And this simply wasn't the case, and then he goes on to try to present a reading of the Old Testament which fails to take into consideration Christ and how he is in the Old Testament and how his resurrection reveals the truth of the Old it's very problematic. Then with his book on the Religion of the Apostles he writes as one who has not even read the early Father's but only about second Temple Judaism and the reason he doesn't cite his sources, is because there are no sources which would back his unnuanced and grand claims. The problem in the end though is that he appeals to protestant converts to Orthodoxy because he essentially as much as he did not like protestantism still defined by it's desire to make the Old Testament to be read apart from and not through the lens of Christ, but according to literal historia. I have to admit I know less about him than you do probably because I've never desired to watch his podcast, etc..
Well I don’t know if I’ve read many commentaries as much as interpretations of scripture by the early church and the fathers. Bishop Dmitri Royster has some good commentaries. Gregory of nyssa’s life of Moses is a fantastic anogogical reading of Exodus which takes one up the mountain to the divine darkness. John Behr is great for understanding the hermeneutic approach to scripture by early Christians. I love also Maximus the confessor’s theological interpretation of scripture. Iraneous is good both for hermeneutics and interpretation. When reading scripture I’ve found looking at the Greek and multple translations to open up the text in a way our current translations do. Also though I don’t agree with David Bentley Hart on important passages his first translation of the New Testament is eye opening.
I'm not a big fan and don’t care to dig deep into internet drama, but I do think you mistake his claims at times. I'll give an example. For the issue about the knowledge of the hypostasis of the Godhead prior to, say Nicea, Fr. De Young doesn't give a specific quantity for hypostasis. Sources ranging from Philo to old Kabalah (which I may make a claim for the deep antiquity of the oral traditions of the Jews) do make claims of varied quantities of hypostasis in the Godhead - and this was an issue which became apparent in the early gnostic controversies. Quantities differed by sect, but a strict monadic monotheism doesn't hit the mark. The assertion of Fr. De Young ad I've heard it is merely that Paul would have been in a milieu where he'd have encountered notions of multiple hypostasis or persons of the Godhead and that it would not be alien to him. Overstating his claims makes a good strawman to tackle though. Otherwise I'd note your own historiographical assumptions are not necessarily superior - you provide a few counterexamples, but counterexamples are always plentiful and moÿre legwork would be required to appropriately develop a case for a consistent patristic historiography of the Old Testament. Thank you for a thought provoking read.
I understand what you are saying. I haven't tackled it completely and I suppose I should have clarified some things, but I wasn't trying to say that Paul didn't encounter a sense of "multiple persons or hypostasis". Philo does develop something like this with the Logos and powers of God, etc... but my major problem with de young is that the definition at the time of Paul of hypostasis and prsosopon (person in Greek) did not carry the same meaning as it did by the time the doctrine of the Trinity was affirmed at Nicaea or among the Cappadocians. The three hypostasis view of the Trinity wasn't established until Origen. Thus, even though the early church worshipped the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I think it's reductive to prescribe later definitions back upon a different time. For instance Philo sees the Powers of God as hypostasis, but there's a very different meaning to this sense of hypostasis than that which came later. The point I was trying was that Fr. De Young isn't doing the historical work necessary and is obscuring the difficulty of actually understanding how God was understood in second temple Judaism.
My main point though was that the scriptures as read by early Christians, was through the prism of the cross. Christ interpreted himself according to the scriptures and it was this interpretation of the Old Testament, of seeing Christ as the fulfillment of scripture and what scripture is most basically about, which encompasses a great deal of the Gospel and it is notable historically, as a shift in the way the scriptures are interpreted. No one before Christ, thought of the Incarnation and death and crucifixion of the Messiah, as being able to reveal who Christ was.
In De Young's work, thus, it makes it appear as if before Christ there was the full Trinity or understanding of God available, but this is not the case even as much as there were theophanies and God was present in history. This is because the incarnation and death and resurrection of Christ marks a new chapter in history. Moreover, without the incarnation, we would never end up with the possibility of crossing the distance between us and God to be deified. There would be no possibility of the analogy of being, etc...
Perhaps. I don't know. I didn't get that sense from De Young's work. Maybe it's true others get that sense. It is true that the theological definitions of those words didn't appear until later - and were purposefully created apart from their standard or philosophical definitions in order to better explicate the doctrine - but it must have been known prior to explication. And Origen's view of the Trinity is, like Augustine, are examples of gnosticism not orthodoxy - really just classic examples of the numerical "Constant Creation of the Universe" of Iamblichus, like in the chart below.
....1....
...1.1...
..1.1.1..
And the above triadology of Origin certainly predates Christ by centuries - it isn't an orthodox understanding, but syncreticism.
I guess I haven't thought it out in the manner in which you're speaking--especially the nuance, which many protestants coming into the faith do not have in understanding the difference between 2nd temple and 1st temple Judaism. I did try and mention that others have had a good response to his ministry, and I do not mean to discredit him or to disrespect his priesthood. If he is open that his views are not the consensus publicly and if he is obedient to his bishop than I have no business speaking of those things. But my real hope here is not as much to take an aim at Fr. Stephen De Young, but to bring out the other side of things. Yes, there was much from second temple Judaism which informed the faith, but there was a reason for the parting of ways. When the names of God were being attributed to Jesus of Nazareth we are forced to confront the crucified Lord of Glory. And it is through the cross that the Fathers of the Church read the Old Testament. There is a way in which we know God which was not quite yet imaginable until the "Lord of Glory" hung upon a tree. There was a sort of scandal to it all. Where all people see is loss and death, here springs life. It's something which truly inspires a different reading of scripture and I can't imagine Paul's understanding of the spirit of the law determining that the gentiles did not need to be cricumsized for they were circumsized in their heart's.
Interesting that you’re grateful for your opponents humility after admitting that you , yourself, are being contentious. I’d almost think you’re a clone of Stephen DeYoung lol….you certain display the same spirit
I was grateful, because he tried to open conversation and not dismiss me and everything I said out right. My reading of De Young is different, but honestly my hope is not to try and be the enemy of anyone, but merely to speak truth when necessary. A monk on Mount Athos asked how one can bring others into the faith today, and he said to go down to where that person is and then slowly lead them gently upward (or something like this), and that's my goal.
It’s a beautiful goal. I’d love to possess the wisdom of the aesthetics. They seem to have boundless love for all men. There is an expression about saving souls (although it may not be Orthodox):which is, “we seek out the lost but we are wary of those who hide”. DeYoung targets, by his own admission, new comers to the Church. He claims to have an authoritative position. He’s not someone who should be approached with a cavalier attitude as though he were possibly lost or a bit mistaken or misguided. KJV 1jude : 23 and others save with fear pulling them out of the fire hating even the garments spotted by the flesh. I pray he gets saved. Honestly. I’ve begun to pray for his soul every day. Every day, I pray the mercy prayer for him. His soul….I love. His teachings….I abhor.
If DeYoung is expressing views that are not the consensus of the Orthodox Church then I wonder how he is in obedience to his Bishop. Seems odd. Who is his Bishop?
I don't know. It does seem odd. I think it's largely because it's something that is more obvious to a scholar of early and late-antique Christianity than it is to the average even priest. And because it at bottom is a hermeneutical issue that is quite hard to express unless you have studied hermeneutics. Both of these have been major interests of mine and I don't know, I have permission from my priest to blog and he said he thought I was on to something with De Young, but to actually effect anything, I'll have to do a more thorough or rather probably a second more carefully argued peace. I just don't like conflict, but can't stand falsehood.
Very good. I like Fr. De Young, but I am constantly annoyed by his podcasts and work--he never cites anything! He never provides concrete sources, especially in Lord of Spirits. What that leaves listeners with is the impression that his particular supernatural view of the world is consensus.
The proof you provide for your criticism of De Young in the section "Challenging De Young on the Three Hypostases" is not sufficient.
He doesn’t offer any proof and doesn’t sight sources. I’m simply recording the sense and use of word throughout history. He is arguing something patently untrue, not found in scripture, and contradictory to the use of the word by the fathers. You’re not catching the nuance which is hard to offer here accept to scholars, but all would agree. Philo is the only Jew—and in the first century, I’m aware of that uses word hypostasis and he uses it in a different sense than in nicea / Constantinople. The disciples and early church worshipped the father son and Holy Spirit but did not use the language hypostasis. Beyond that fr. Stephen de young offers no proof which is the problem I’m addressing along with the idea that Christ’s coming didnt change the Jewish understanding of God or Paul’s.
I think in many ways this is unfair. Yes, Jesus and the incarnarion is the key to understanding the OT but there seems to be a presupposition that time is strictly linear and that for some reason we can't also interpret Jesus through the OT. Do not Jesus and Gospels themselbes do this with constant reference and outright quotation to the OT? Also the whole thing about being skeptical of trinitarian Jews pre-incarnation (speaking strictly linearly) seems to ignore 2nd temple Jewish literature like the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, testament of the 12 patriarchy, etc which very clearly have some non-unitarian view of God. This was so common that later Rabbinical Judaism has to retcon all these Rabbis because they didn't hold to a unitarian view of God.
On the first point, It’s not we can’t interpret Jesus through reading what were once referred to as the scriptures—the Old Testament. We can. It’s that we can interpret the scriptures as being about Jesus of Nazareth. Of course the word was the name for something closely associated with God and the wisdom of God, but the historical incarnation opens up the scriptures to us as being about and fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth.
"But, if death's ministry by way of scriptures engraved in stones came with glory, so that the sons of Israel were unable to gaze on the face of Moses on account of his face's glory--which is being abolished--how shall the ministry of the spirit not come with more glory? For if there is glory to the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of vindication abounds much more in glory. For even that which was made glorious, compared to the glory that exceeds it, has not been made glorious in this degree. For, if by glory that which is being abolished--much more glory that which endures. Having such a hope, therefore, we venture considerable boldness, unlike Moses, who put a veil on his face so that the sons of Israel should not gaze intently toward the end of what is being abolished. Instead, their thoughts were coarsened. For right up to the present day that same veil remains drawn over the reading of the old covenant, it not being revealed that in the Anointed it is abolished. Rather, to this day, when Moses is being read a veil lies upon their heart; but whenever it turns to the Lord the veil is removed (2 Corinthians 3:7-16)."
On the second point about their being trinitarian Jews before Christs death, I’d respond that there appears to be everything from polytheism to monarchism with subsidiary deities or angels or principles like the logos . But there is no evidence of the Greek word hypostasis being used as we use it or as Fr. Stephen De Young uses it in his book Religion of the Apostles. That didn’t begin to happen until centuries after the ascension of Christ. Also, I do understand that rabbinic Judaism did reinvent Judaism, mostly in response to the ascension of Christianity as the official state religion after the parting of ways.
>> “Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of God not in the sense of contradicting, correcting, or even adding to the previous revelation, but by being God, in Person, whom all previous revelation was describing.”
>Thus, Fr. De Young would argue that the only revelation Christ provides us with is what was already known
That is not what Fr. De Young argued in that excerpt.
“…not in the sense of contradicting, correcting, or even adding to the previous revelation…” is tantamount to saying “and the words (of the Old Testament) became flesh and dwelt among us…”.
I quoted it. What does he argue? You’re placing a burden of proof on me that is stronger than him. He does not offer actual proof and contradicts what we see in the fathers. Again I will have to rewrite essay to offer a more detailed explanation, but he acts as if Christ coming in person fits into Jewish metaphysics and that is not only controversial but untrue and defeats the unique and earth shattering point—Christ coming in person, completely changes how scripture is read. As Paul says, before a veil lied over scripture like the veil Moses had to wear coming down mount sinai, but now with Christ we view scripture with faces unveiled.
Interesting. I have limited exposure to de Young, but something just really turned me off about Lord of Spirits. And I had people at my old parish insisting I needed to listen to the podcast to correct my still former Catholic understanding.
I also commend you for doing this charitably. You offer food for thought.
Thanks for this, well written and timely.
Excellent insights, offered as a corrective on patristic hermeneutics, not as an attack on Fr. Stephen himself.
I am, happily, no longer Orthodox, but I share with you the distaste for De Young/LoS/the whole literary/podcast universe that he and ASD have crafted together.
One small pushback or obligatorily pedantic comment: historical critical methodology does not assume that there is a single authorial intent, nor that this is the appropriate goal of the exegete: authorial intention remains unavailable to us. Instead, historical critics seek to establish the most likely original meaning of a text in the historical context as available to us from the data of the period (textual and archaeological).
What makes SDY/ASD/LoS et al. detrimental, in my opinion, is that it begins not from the data but from the theology they already espouse--as you correctly demonstrate here, *their* version of Orthodoxy, not Orthodoxy as it has traditionally been espoused/articulated/practiced--and then uses a thin veneer of historical-critical methods to try and shape the data to fit those concerns. That's eisegesis on an epic level, but the average listener to their podcast won't know the difference.
Well that’s why I was writing it. I think the reason I put single authorial intent had more to do with the application of it by fundamentalist Christians and that overall the tendency in using it is to see there being one correct reading of it. But your right to push back.
This is spot on. The fact that Our Lord is the cornerstone, the foundation, the entrance, to heaven; is never mentioned in the teachings of Stephen DeYoung who admits that during his life as a Protestant he was rebellious towards the Protestant teachings. DeYoung, in his bitterness towards Protestants, practically plagiarizes the words of Orthodox apologists and uses them against the Protestants because….well…he claims to have grudges against them. For one thing he claims to still be angry because they forbade him from playing D & D which forced him to play secretly?….? The contentious spirit within him seems to be a strong motivator. He contends with Catholics. He contends with Greek speaking Orthodox. He contends with pious Orthodox who “need to lighten up”. He cannot make One might surmise that he will not confess the Lord Jesus Christ as his foundation because he builds himself up on the sandy ground of hubris. He studied Torah ? So what. If a man professes to be an Orthodox Christian he must bow down to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Period. Afterwards the can talk about the Scriptures. A child or illiterate person can bow down to Christ and see heaven. A self proclaimed genius who is old and literate but who will not bow down simply will not see heaven.
I agree. From the moment I opened the first book of his I'd been recommended, I saw something was not right here. It was God is a God of War, and he was arguing none of the fathers doubted the historical accuracy of the old testament. And this simply wasn't the case, and then he goes on to try to present a reading of the Old Testament which fails to take into consideration Christ and how he is in the Old Testament and how his resurrection reveals the truth of the Old it's very problematic. Then with his book on the Religion of the Apostles he writes as one who has not even read the early Father's but only about second Temple Judaism and the reason he doesn't cite his sources, is because there are no sources which would back his unnuanced and grand claims. The problem in the end though is that he appeals to protestant converts to Orthodoxy because he essentially as much as he did not like protestantism still defined by it's desire to make the Old Testament to be read apart from and not through the lens of Christ, but according to literal historia. I have to admit I know less about him than you do probably because I've never desired to watch his podcast, etc..
So interesting. I watch all his podcasts and haven’t read his works. I do agree though with everything you’re saying. Lord have mercy. 🙏
What commentaries on Holy Scripture would you recommend?
Well I don’t know if I’ve read many commentaries as much as interpretations of scripture by the early church and the fathers. Bishop Dmitri Royster has some good commentaries. Gregory of nyssa’s life of Moses is a fantastic anogogical reading of Exodus which takes one up the mountain to the divine darkness. John Behr is great for understanding the hermeneutic approach to scripture by early Christians. I love also Maximus the confessor’s theological interpretation of scripture. Iraneous is good both for hermeneutics and interpretation. When reading scripture I’ve found looking at the Greek and multple translations to open up the text in a way our current translations do. Also though I don’t agree with David Bentley Hart on important passages his first translation of the New Testament is eye opening.
I'm not a big fan and don’t care to dig deep into internet drama, but I do think you mistake his claims at times. I'll give an example. For the issue about the knowledge of the hypostasis of the Godhead prior to, say Nicea, Fr. De Young doesn't give a specific quantity for hypostasis. Sources ranging from Philo to old Kabalah (which I may make a claim for the deep antiquity of the oral traditions of the Jews) do make claims of varied quantities of hypostasis in the Godhead - and this was an issue which became apparent in the early gnostic controversies. Quantities differed by sect, but a strict monadic monotheism doesn't hit the mark. The assertion of Fr. De Young ad I've heard it is merely that Paul would have been in a milieu where he'd have encountered notions of multiple hypostasis or persons of the Godhead and that it would not be alien to him. Overstating his claims makes a good strawman to tackle though. Otherwise I'd note your own historiographical assumptions are not necessarily superior - you provide a few counterexamples, but counterexamples are always plentiful and moÿre legwork would be required to appropriately develop a case for a consistent patristic historiography of the Old Testament. Thank you for a thought provoking read.
I understand what you are saying. I haven't tackled it completely and I suppose I should have clarified some things, but I wasn't trying to say that Paul didn't encounter a sense of "multiple persons or hypostasis". Philo does develop something like this with the Logos and powers of God, etc... but my major problem with de young is that the definition at the time of Paul of hypostasis and prsosopon (person in Greek) did not carry the same meaning as it did by the time the doctrine of the Trinity was affirmed at Nicaea or among the Cappadocians. The three hypostasis view of the Trinity wasn't established until Origen. Thus, even though the early church worshipped the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I think it's reductive to prescribe later definitions back upon a different time. For instance Philo sees the Powers of God as hypostasis, but there's a very different meaning to this sense of hypostasis than that which came later. The point I was trying was that Fr. De Young isn't doing the historical work necessary and is obscuring the difficulty of actually understanding how God was understood in second temple Judaism.
My main point though was that the scriptures as read by early Christians, was through the prism of the cross. Christ interpreted himself according to the scriptures and it was this interpretation of the Old Testament, of seeing Christ as the fulfillment of scripture and what scripture is most basically about, which encompasses a great deal of the Gospel and it is notable historically, as a shift in the way the scriptures are interpreted. No one before Christ, thought of the Incarnation and death and crucifixion of the Messiah, as being able to reveal who Christ was.
In De Young's work, thus, it makes it appear as if before Christ there was the full Trinity or understanding of God available, but this is not the case even as much as there were theophanies and God was present in history. This is because the incarnation and death and resurrection of Christ marks a new chapter in history. Moreover, without the incarnation, we would never end up with the possibility of crossing the distance between us and God to be deified. There would be no possibility of the analogy of being, etc...
Perhaps. I don't know. I didn't get that sense from De Young's work. Maybe it's true others get that sense. It is true that the theological definitions of those words didn't appear until later - and were purposefully created apart from their standard or philosophical definitions in order to better explicate the doctrine - but it must have been known prior to explication. And Origen's view of the Trinity is, like Augustine, are examples of gnosticism not orthodoxy - really just classic examples of the numerical "Constant Creation of the Universe" of Iamblichus, like in the chart below.
....1....
...1.1...
..1.1.1..
And the above triadology of Origin certainly predates Christ by centuries - it isn't an orthodox understanding, but syncreticism.
I'm not all that convinced by this.
I guess I haven't thought it out in the manner in which you're speaking--especially the nuance, which many protestants coming into the faith do not have in understanding the difference between 2nd temple and 1st temple Judaism. I did try and mention that others have had a good response to his ministry, and I do not mean to discredit him or to disrespect his priesthood. If he is open that his views are not the consensus publicly and if he is obedient to his bishop than I have no business speaking of those things. But my real hope here is not as much to take an aim at Fr. Stephen De Young, but to bring out the other side of things. Yes, there was much from second temple Judaism which informed the faith, but there was a reason for the parting of ways. When the names of God were being attributed to Jesus of Nazareth we are forced to confront the crucified Lord of Glory. And it is through the cross that the Fathers of the Church read the Old Testament. There is a way in which we know God which was not quite yet imaginable until the "Lord of Glory" hung upon a tree. There was a sort of scandal to it all. Where all people see is loss and death, here springs life. It's something which truly inspires a different reading of scripture and I can't imagine Paul's understanding of the spirit of the law determining that the gentiles did not need to be cricumsized for they were circumsized in their heart's.
Interesting that you’re grateful for your opponents humility after admitting that you , yourself, are being contentious. I’d almost think you’re a clone of Stephen DeYoung lol….you certain display the same spirit
I was grateful, because he tried to open conversation and not dismiss me and everything I said out right. My reading of De Young is different, but honestly my hope is not to try and be the enemy of anyone, but merely to speak truth when necessary. A monk on Mount Athos asked how one can bring others into the faith today, and he said to go down to where that person is and then slowly lead them gently upward (or something like this), and that's my goal.
It’s a beautiful goal. I’d love to possess the wisdom of the aesthetics. They seem to have boundless love for all men. There is an expression about saving souls (although it may not be Orthodox):which is, “we seek out the lost but we are wary of those who hide”. DeYoung targets, by his own admission, new comers to the Church. He claims to have an authoritative position. He’s not someone who should be approached with a cavalier attitude as though he were possibly lost or a bit mistaken or misguided. KJV 1jude : 23 and others save with fear pulling them out of the fire hating even the garments spotted by the flesh. I pray he gets saved. Honestly. I’ve begun to pray for his soul every day. Every day, I pray the mercy prayer for him. His soul….I love. His teachings….I abhor.
well put.
If DeYoung is expressing views that are not the consensus of the Orthodox Church then I wonder how he is in obedience to his Bishop. Seems odd. Who is his Bishop?
I don't know. It does seem odd. I think it's largely because it's something that is more obvious to a scholar of early and late-antique Christianity than it is to the average even priest. And because it at bottom is a hermeneutical issue that is quite hard to express unless you have studied hermeneutics. Both of these have been major interests of mine and I don't know, I have permission from my priest to blog and he said he thought I was on to something with De Young, but to actually effect anything, I'll have to do a more thorough or rather probably a second more carefully argued peace. I just don't like conflict, but can't stand falsehood.
Looking forward to your second piece. Such a blessing that you’re standing up for Truth.