Repository index

This paper was my MA thesis, and its topic is the reception of the teaching of the Church Fathers concerning the baptism in the 1559 edition of John Calvin’s Institutes. In this thesis, I try to unfold some of the factors that determined the way Calvin used the writings of the Church Fathers in formulating his doctrine of baptism. After presenting the patristic quotations related to the ‘theoretical’ theology of baptism, I will present the quotations and references that are related rather to the practice of baptism. Here I analyse the references regarding the doctrine of baptism coming from the Donatists, the problematic of emergency baptism and women’s right to baptize. Finally, I will present the references from Inst IV 16, dealing with infant baptism. In the last chapter of this study, I will try to summarize the conclusions of the research. I hope the reader will have a clearer image on Calvin’s use of the Church Fathers’ theological heritage on baptism in the Institutes.

I invite the reader to take a journey into the theological world of two little treatises written by one of the most interesting ecclesiastical figures of the fifth century coming from the Antiochene tradition: Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus.

In Jeremiah 28, there is a dispute between the prophets Jeremiah and Hananiah over the (il)legitimacy of prophecies of salvation concerning Judah and prophecies of judgement regarding Babylon. On the eve of Jerusalem’s fall to the Babylonians, the prophet Jeremiah, who proclaims judgement on Judah at the hands of Babylon, appears to be the true, genuine, canonical voice of God. While this text does not preclude the eventual authenticity of prophecies of salvation in the event that they are proven valid by being fulfilled, it nevertheless is rather strange that the book of Jeremiah ends with a collection of prophecies against the Chaldaeans. The anti-Babylonian statements in Jeremiah 50-51 are ascribed to the very same prophet who had once dismissed Hananiah for uttering similarly worded – and presumably uninspired – invectives before the people of Jerusalem.

A Magyar Patrisztikai Társaság Elnöksége 2017-ben a Társaság XVII. éves konferenciájának vezértémáját a reformáció 500. évfordulója alkalmából az egyházatyák munkásságának kora újkori hatásában, recepciójában adta meg, a reformáció és az ellenreformáció korára egyaránt vonatkozóan. A témakiírás több szempontból is érdekes és fontos, de a patrisztikus kutatások horizontjáról mindenekelőtt azért, mert felhívja a figyelmet arra a jelentős szerepre, amelyet az   ókeresztény   szerzők   (elsősorban   a   latin   nyelvűek,   mint   Tertullianus,   Jeromos,   vagy Ágoston, de  a  keleti   atyák   is,   mint   például  Baszileiosz,  vagy   Aranyszájú   János)   művei játszottak a reformátorok  műveltségében, teológiájuk, gondolkodásuk  alakulásában,  és  az ennek szélesebb kontextusaként jelen lévő humanista műveltségben és filológiai-könyvkiadói gyakorlatban.

A dolgozat a történeti Jézus-kutatás „legújabb” eredményeit ismerteti röviden, illetve olyan Jézus-portrékat próbálok számba venni, amelyek sokszor kedvezőnek, máskor „meredeknek” hangzanak még a szabadelvűnek mondott „unitárius fül” számára is. Célom pedig az, hogy inkább a magam számára igyekszem egy kis világosságot gyújtani e vitatott és ellentmondásos Jézus-kutatás területén.

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it sets the historical context in which Aphrahat wrote his Demonstrations and deals with the interesting relationship between his writings, ‘against the Jews’ and the Sassanian persecution of Christians. It also treats his refutation of the Jewish charges. Secondly, it addresses his ‘unique’ view of christology which is not in line with the Nicene decision concerning one aspect yet at the same time it is congruent with it. The paper also tries to point out that his view on christology was ‘unique’ but not exceptional in the Early Church.