Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Freedom and Kenosis: A Reading of Nicolas Berdyaev’s Philosophy of Freedom

100%
Dekert T.
Forum Philosophicum
|
2013
|
vol. 18
|
issue 2
191–205
EN
This article proposes to look at the concept of freedom formulated by Nicholas Berdyaev in his early work, Philosophy of Freedom, through the prism of kenotic Christology. The kenotic nature of the Incarnation of the Son of God, as it was described in the St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians and developed later by the Christian tradition, was connected with His renunciation of his own infinitude—adopting the “form of a servant” and embracing the limits of the human body. It was an absolutely free act of the divine Person, who revealed to man his own divine model and opened up for him the possibility of its implementation, i.e., the way to becoming a person. For Berdyaev, this possibility is conditioned by the ability to engage in a free act of kenosis, involving the renunciation of the compulsions of reason that have entangled us in natural forms of necessity and that reduce us to mere cogs in the machinery of nature. According to Berdyaev, this way of human kenosis is faith. The act of faith, understood as a rejection of the tendency to seek security through compelling evidence, constitutes a person in his/her uniqueness, and performatively realizes the similarity to God potentially present in every human.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

PROBLEM RELACJI POMIĘDZY SZATANEM A APOSTAZJĄ U IRENEUSZA Z LYONU

100%
Dekert T.
Studia Religiologica
|
2006
|
vol. 39
PL
The Problem of the Relation Between Satan and Apostasy in the Writings of St. Irenaeus of LyonIn the present article I am trying to analyze the relation between the figure of Satan and the category of apostasy which occurs in the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyon. Apart from the fact that the author of Adversus haereses refers to Satan as an „apostate” or „angel apostate”, he also refers to Satan as a „leader of apostasy” (¢ρcηγÕς τÁς ¢ποστασίας) or the „cause of apostasy” (causa abscessionis). At the same time, Irenaeus treats apostasy as something similar to an autonomous strength which has dominion over man. Such a use of the term ¢ποστασία became the basis of an interpretation which treated apostasy in Irenaeus’ writings as a specific type of synonym of Satan in the sense of a personification of evil. However, such interpretations do not seem to be correct for a number of reasons, to mention just the fact that expressions of the type „the leader of apostasy” suggest in a direct way that Satan and apostasy are two different things. A preliminary distinction between the two is provided by the Greek language itself (which was used by the bishop of Lyon), where the term ¢ποστασία denoting the state of apostasy and assuming the idea of apostasy (¢ποστάτης) is distinguished from the term ¢πόστασις signifying the very act of apostasy. Satan committed an act of apostasy which turned him into an apostate, thereby initiating the existence of the state of ¢ποσταία. Thus, in order to understand the very nature of the relation between Satan and the state of ¢ποστασία in Irenaeus’ writings, one should take a closer look at how he describes the very act of the diabolic ¢πόστασις. Most likely, Irenaeus’ conception of Satan as an apostate had in its background the Jewish myth concerning the rebellion of the angels, in which Satan is presented, on the one hand, as a rebel who wishes to take God’s place, and on the other, as an offender who opposes God’s laws relating to the natural order in the universe. On the basis of the apocryphal corps of the Books of Adam and Eve, the Bishop of Lyon develops the concept  of Satan’s envy in relation to man (caused by the fact that man was created in the image and likeness of God) as the nucleus of Satan’s ¢πόστασις. By envying man (and in this way, also God), he became an apostate of the Divine law which determined his permanent position as man’s subject in the hierarchy of creation. By contradicting this Divine law, he introduced profound chaos into the structure of the creation and by infecting man out of revenge with his own envy in relation to God, he had led to the situation in which man and the world became cut off from the Creator. This state of being cut off, shared by Satan and the people who through their own apostasy became Satan’s slaves, is what Irenaeus defines by the term ¢ποστασία.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Bogusław Górka, Jezus a chleb. Interpretacja inicjacyjna J 6, 1–71

100%
Dekert T.
Studia Religiologica
|
2009
|
vol. 42
PL
Recenzja:BOGUSŁAW GÓRKA, JEZUS A CHLEB. INTERPRETACJAINICJACYJNA J 6, 1–71, WAM, KRAKÓW 2010, SS. 186
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Marek Gnostyk, Kain i fałszerze prawdy. Wątek ojcostwa szatana w polemikach antyheretyckich II wieku

100%
Dekert T.
Vox Patrum
|
2012
|
vol. 57
115-135
EN
One of the polemical tools used by the 2nd century Christian authors in dis­putes with the heretics is to define them as „children of Satan” (or, in reverse, identifying Satan as their „father”). According to the author of this text, this is by no means empty invective, but polisemic category, whose polemical force re­quires decoding. The purpose of this paper is to hypothesize about its sources in the hermeneutic tradition and its importance as an “argument” used against ideological adversaries. The reconstruction of these dimensions will be made on the basis of the speech against Mark the Gnostic which was delivered by an un­known (probably Asiatic) presbyter and preserved in the first book of Adversus haereses (15.6) of Irenaeus of Lyons. In the opinion of the author of this paper, naming heretics as children of Satan has its source in the targumic and midrashic interpretation of Gen 4.1, according to which Cain was not the child of Adam but of the Satan-serpent. If this intuition is correct, the polemical force of this phrase would lie in the stock of the negative associations, anchored in the myth of Cain – fratricide, who shared murderous intent with his father, satan.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Współczesna literatura herezjologiczna – studium ciężkiego przypadku

100%
Dekert T.
Studia Religiologica
|
2007
|
vol. 40
PL
Recenzja:JEAN VAQUIÉ, OKULTYZM A WIARA KATOLICKA. PODSTAWOWE MOTYWY GNOSTYCKIE, TŁUM. ALEKSANDRA GONDEK, POLWEN, RADOM 2007, SS. 65 
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.