Apologia for Gregory Thaumaturgus
Responding to COG Writer’s Fanciful Objections
Source
Introduction
In the great words of Gregory, “neither in that period have I heard any other compose or utter anything in private, or deliver in public any laudatory or controversial orations, with the exception of those admirable men who have embraced the noble study of philosophy, and who care less for beauty of language and elegance of expression. For, attaching only a secondary importance to the words, they aim, with all exactness, at investigating and making known the things themselves, precisely as they are severally constituted” (Oration to Origen Argument 1). In like manner to this address and in my experience of Gregory, I too feel that Gregory, a disciple of Origen, is one of these admirable men who pursue truth at the expense of being fixated on mere words, and even rhetorical polemics. I have read both the undisputed and disputed writings of Gregory that renders me convinced of his apostolic succession, philosophical radiance, and mystical authority. In my time with reading about this man, and reading his works of wisdom and education, I cannot deem him any less than apostolic inspiration; in fact, I have read certain things from his literature that have reflected my views, whether in part or in totality.
However, whether Gregory’s profile is extremely awesome or not, there will always be pawns of the Devil, or un-Christlike cynics that throw mud in the face of goodness and truth. While it is not wrong to be skeptical, it is not in synonymity with being radically prejudiced or even cynical. A skeptic is someone who questions without doubting, and a cynic is someone who doubts without questioning. In my intentional search for Gregory Thuamaturgus (aka the Wonderworker), I came across a YT video that denounced this great man, and even slandered him as a satanic prophet, because of their radical dogmatism, misguided eschatological views, and their misuse of Pauline literature. I chose to ignore it and move on from such an offensive take; however, I came across a website that slandered this great man as well. Because of this double occurrence and my love for Gregorius, I decided to respond to whatever nonsense or ill informed rhetoric was propagated as truth. And surely, the ill informed rhetoric did not come to surprise me when I read it in-depth. It is a shame that these kinds of Christians exist and have nothing better to do but to slander other denominations over one great man, and assert their own as having apostolic dominance — though a delusion — to reaffirm their faith against good principle. I present to you my review of their ill informed website.
Marian Vision & the Trinity
The writer behind this blog has a certain prejudice against Marian apparitions due to its similarity with their research of Fatima, which doesn’t demonstrate on whether the apparition is demonic or not. The blog makes accusations such as: “Gregory was also a factor in the Marian cults that began to rise up around that time. His writings teach praise and excessive devotion to the ‘Holy Virgin,’ including the blasphemous teaching that Mary ‘blotted out’ Eve’s ‘transgressions’.” First of all, when the blogger says “his writings”, he likely means the homilies which are disputed writings. Second, homilies tend to employ rhetorical language, which appears in the homilies as being reverent and even excessive. Lastly, Mary, assuming you believe in the virgin birth, is the main reason why Christ, the Incarnate Word, was able to deliver evildoers from their sins. If I am being honest, I did not find this reference of Mary blotting out Eve’s transgressions since the blogger doesn’t cite their sources well. The same blogger then addresses one of the homilies: “The Bible does not teach that Mary led an “incorruptible life.” The Bible teaches that all have sinned (Romans 3:23), except Jesus (Hebrews 4:14–15).” Again, the author of the Homily is employing excessive and non-literal language, as is evidenced here: “For she was called Mary, and that, by interpretation, means illumination. And what shines more brightly than the light of virginity?” (Second Homily). Does Pontic Gregory actually think there’s actual light from her virginity? Of course not! And Gregory calls her an “ever-blooming paradise of incorruptibility,” because he explains that she is “the ever-flowing fountain, wherein the water of life sprang and produced the Lord’s incarnate manifestation”. In other words, she is the vehicle to which the Incarnate Word came from; that is not to say that He did not exist prior to Mary (cf. John 1:1).
The writer also assumes that the doctrine of the Trinity was derived from Gregory’s vision of Mary and John; however, Gregory expressed Trinitarian notions before said event: “For as He is Himself the Truth, and the Wisdom, and the Power of the Father of the universe, and He is besides in Him, and is truly and entirely made one with Him, it cannot be that, either through forgetfulness or unwisdom, or any manner of infirmity, such as marks one dissociated from Him, He shall either fail in the power to praise Him, or, while having the power, shall willingly neglect (a supposition which it is not lawful, surely, to indulge) to praise the Father. For He alone is able most perfectly to fulfil the whole meed of honor which is proper to Him, inasmuch as the Father of all things has made Him one with Himself, and through Him all but completes the circle of His own being objectively, and honours Him with a power in all respects equal to His own, even as also He is honoured; which position He first and alone of all creatures that exist has had assigned Him, this Only-begotten of the Father, who is in Him, and who is God the Word” (Oration to Origen 4). The blogger says that the Bible does not teach a “holy Trinity”; however, this is based on the assumption of what the Bible does and doesn’t teach. The Bible may not explicitly teach the Trinity, but the Trinity has an inferred, “phantom” presence in the New Testament, unlike the dogma of inerrancy, which is neither taught nor inferred in the New Testament scriptures, especially when Paul taught that the mosaic customs were human traditions and principles of the world, and Hebrews argues that the old covenant was not without error, yet its regulations were in need of reform, meaning there were indeed errors (cf. Colossians 2:14–22; Hebrews 8:6–7; 9:6–10). Before anyone attempts to doubt the scriptural citations, I explain in detail why Paul did not believe in textual inerrancy here (as was custom in the Early Church).
Paganism & Immortal Soul
It seems this blogger doesn’t seem to fathom that Christianity was always Hellenistic, even since its emergence among Jesus, Paul, and the apostles. Christianity is not a monolithic continuation of mosaic Judaism, but it is a refined amalgamation of ideas; Paul quoted the Greek poets (e.g. Acts 17:28, 1 Corinthians 15:33, & Titus 1:12), reinterpreted Hebrew scripture via Hellenistic allegory (e.g. 1 Corinthians 9:9–10, Galatians 3:16, & 4:21–25), and held an ontological distinction between soul and spirit (cf. 1st Thessalonians 5:23). 2nd Peter 2:4 taught the concept of Tartarus, which is a Greek concept, and Jude appeals to Jewish books composed during the Hellenistic period (cf. 1:9, 14–15). And Paul and Hebrews use Platonic language when they say the law is a shadow of good things, that is, the realities themselves (cf. Colossians 2:16–17; Hebrews 10:1). So then, simply rendering Gregory as some defiled pagan that corrupted the apostolic churches is nothing more than wishful ignorance fueled by deluded prejudice against apostolic denominations, and fueled by a pathological relationship with the Bible.
The blogger then cites a work dubiously attributed to Pontic Gregory, which is called “On the Soul”. While it is possible that Gregory held that the soul is ontologically immortal, this does not mean that such a teaching is anti-scriptural as there are certain passages that infer it, and would make no sense if it did not. In 1st Peter 4:6, Jesus preaches the gospel to the dead, which is not feasible if there are no conscious souls to perceive the message. Some might dispute with the meaning of “dead”, but the passage states: “For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged akin to [kata] men in the flesh, but live akin to [kata] God in the spirit.” The author of 1st Peter distinguishes between those who are alive (i.e. men in the flesh) and those who are dead, which renders the non-literal usage of “dead” unlikely (if not impossible). The souls in Hades cannot be judged like men in the flesh if they cannot perceive the Gospel message. In another passage, Paul says in Philippians 2:10–11: “Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…,” which means that those who are under the earth (i.e. an allusion to Hades) are in reference to conscious souls. But some might dispute that this could be in reference to demonic spirits, so in another passage, Paul confirms, “Therefore it says, ‘When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth” (Ephesians 4:8–9). In Paul’s reinterpretation of the psalm, he infers that Christ traversed “under the earth” to liberate imprisoned spirits, who are the conscious souls ensnared in Hades. 1st Peter 3:19–20 also confirms a similar teaching that Christ went to make proclamation to the imprisoned spirits. In a final attempt for the blogger to refute the ontological immortality of the soul, the book of Ezekiel is quoted where it says “the soul that sins will die”. However, the term ‘Nephesh’ in Hebrew, often translated as ‘soul’, actually means ‘person’. The concept of an immortal soul is a later concept expressed in the parable of Jesus, the author of 1st Peter, and Paul himself. The author of Ezekiel had no concept of the soul losing its continuance after death, nor is this teaching relevant today concerning Christian doctrine since the fate of humans in Ezekiel is physical death, not an eternal hell or total annihilation of being.
The Lawless Man & Ecclesiastical Authority
The blogger then attributes to Gregory the label of the lawless man found in 2nd Thessalonians, which is a dubious claim. The prophecy of the lawless man, assuming Paul wrote this, was likely the Roman Emperor who defiled and desolated the Jewish Temple. Our Lord said that we will do greater works even than Himself, and rebuked the Pharisees for accusing Him of doing demonic miracles, which is very reminiscent of the blogger accusing Gregory of demonic miracles (cf. John 14:12 & Matthew 12:24–26). This blogger claims to follow the Scriptures, and yet, commits the same sin of the Pharisees. Biblicists are filled with nothing but irony. If the Early Church could not preserve the teachings of the apostles past the second century, but were unanimously or predominantly in error, and if the great figures of the Church were demonically inspired, then there is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit ever guided the Church, but rather He failed to guide from antiquity to modernity; thus, Christianity is a greater failure than any other religion if this blogger’s estimate were to be hypothetically factual, even if the Bible is supposedly inerrant since Christians today cannot even agree on the age of the earth, the continuation of the charisms, the deity of Christ, the structure of an ecclesia, the meaning of the Passion of Christ, and even the eschatological view of the apostles.
I would rather not quote in detail what the blogger has said, as it can be a bit redundant. Instead, I am merely responding to certain themes and objections that the blogger is spouting arbitrarily due to prejudice against certain dogmas. But I would like to end this post with certain passages from the patristic writers concerning their praise of Gregory:
“All hail to you in God, most excellent and reverend Sir, son Gregory, from Origen. A natural quickness of understanding is fitted, as you are well aware, if it be diligently exercised, to produce a work which may bring its owner so far as is possible, if I may so express myself, to the consummation of the art the which he desires to practice, and your natural aptitude is sufficient to make you a consummate Roman lawyer and a Greek philosopher too of the most famous schools” (Origen to Gregory).
“But where shall I rank the great Gregory, and the words uttered by him? Shall we not place among Apostles and Prophets a man who walked by the same Spirit as they; [ 2 Corinthians 12:18 ] who never through all his days diverged from the footprints of the saints; who maintained, as long as he lived, the exact principles of evangelical citizenship?…Thus not a practice, not a word, not a mystic rite has been added to the Church besides what he bequeathed to it” (On the Holy Spirit 29 by St. Basil the Great).
“Gregory, Bishop of Pontus, was first in the world in philosophy and outstanding in eloquence; but afterwards greater and more outstanding in his miracles, to the extent that — as the faith of our history relates — among the other signs of his extraordinary merits, through his prayers and supplications a mountain is said to have moved and a lake to have dried up” (On contempt for the world and secular philosophy, lines 371–377 by Eucherius of Lyons).
