A Question on Fesko's Book and Early Church History

I received this question from an email correspondent on my Fesko review:

////////////////////////


> Hi Paul,
> Thanks for the review of the Fesko book.
> I have some questions about it, if
> you have time to answer.
> Does he go into much depth about belief in sola fide
> between the apostolic era and the Reformation?

Depends on what you mean by "in depth," he has about 13 pages on that era, starting from 100 AD. Given what you've studied on this issue, I'm inclined to say that it's not that "in depth" *for you*.

> How would you summarize his
> position on that issue?

On the early Church Fathers (100-600): He agrees with Berkof that the early church fathers are indefinite, incomplete, and sometimes self-contradictory and erroneous wrt their understanding of justification. But he notes that one can find a number of significant statements that show they had a basic understanding of justification by faith. He finds a clear affirmation of the centrality of faith. And he sees a major strand of justification where the meaning is forensic, non-imputation of sin, and imputation of righteousness. He also comments that to criticize them for not using Reformation language is problematic as a critique.

He then spends a few pages on Augustine and Pelagius, discusses that debate briefly, but notes that however helpful Augustine was dealing with Pelagianism, he had his own problems and jumbled justification and sanctification together, mainly due to his realism.

After 600: He then finds this problem, the mixing of justification and sanctification, in many of the statements on justification after Augustine due to nominalism and 5 other features. He discusses Aquinas and Scotus (finding early hints of a use covenantal categories in the later, though still problematic as to the *nature* of justification) specifically in the section after semi-Pelagianism and Later Augustinianism. He finds the beginnings of a more forensic and Reformational understanding in those like Bradwardine and Rimini. That takes him into the section on the Reformation.

> Does he cite many primary documents or scholarship in
> support of his conclusions about sola fide in that timeframe?

Yes he does. He obviously pulls from the usual secondary sources, as well as some lesser known ones, but he cites directly (or refers directly to) primary sources from: Chrysostom, Clkement, Gregory of Nazanzus, Justin, Tertullian, Pelagius, Augustine, Aquinas, Bradwardine and Rimini. He cites the Epistle of Barnabas and the Synod of Orange too.

> My impression is that most books on justification through faith alone
> either
> ignore that issue or don't say enough about it. The chapter titles you
> listed seem promising, since they mention church history, Catholicism, and
> Orthodoxy. But I'm wondering what level of detail he goes into.

Since I think it's somewhat person relative how much "detail" one thinks one has gone into,. I hope the above has been somewhat helpful.

Since you didn't ask me about RCC and EO, I won't spend much time there, but he goes into much more detail in those chapters than he did from 100 - 1500 AD. His chapter on the RCC is over 40 pages I believe. Btw, I found him to be extremely charitable with all of his opponents. He was not given to rhetoric and polemics...well, maybe in one or two places he snuck in a jab, but that's not bad out of 400 pages!

> Just give me your general
> impressions, if you have time to do that.

As I am not nearly as well-read in matters of historical (or early historical to be more precise) theology as you are, I thought the information helpful for the purposes he needed.

Of course, I got the book for more reasons than early church history (!), and to that end my impressions are impressed. :-) I thought his dealings with the NPP particularly helpful and illumination, as well as his use of the to-age construct; but, that goes beyond your questions.

Providing Clarification for Reppert

In this post, Victor Reppert asked for some clarification. Ask and you shall receive.

Steve Hays gave some answers. He wrote,

"This is simpleminded. God would be just in damning everyone *because* everyone is a sinner. The justice of this counterfactual is indexed to a necessary condition. God would be just in saving everyone *if* Christ died for everyone. The justice of that counterfactual is indexed to a necessary condition. The justice of the outcome is not irrespective of other relevant factors.

If God damned the innocent, that would be unjust. If God saved sinners apart from penal substitution, that would be unjust."

This answers Reppert. I'd like to make a couple related observations, similar and complementing.

"How could God possibly be unjust?"

Not punish sin. Let the guilty go without punishment whatsoever.

"What could it turn out that God has done that could be identified as unjust, given the fact that God is the creator and we are creatures."

One example would be: After the Apostle Paul dies, faces judgment, God sends the Apostle Paul to hell.

One of the things you're not taking into account (well, there's many things not being taken into account, reading some of our systematics books on the decrees would help), is the Reformed emphasis on covenant theology and the corollary of federal headship theology.

Your questions are really just a spin off the old debate with voluntarists (and caricatures of reformed thought) regarding the question: God could send the Virgin Mary to hell. After all, his sovereignty is such that he does what he does, and its right no matter what.

The answer came back, "No." God is bound by his covenant. This covenant spans back to the decree to save some of the lost. The are also judged according to covenant conditions. The covenant of works.

You also mentioned that Calvinist exegetes "trivialize Scripture." I'd love to see your analysis of "Calvinist exegetes" and how they trivialize scriptural claims. Which ones did you have in mind? Page numbers?

From The Mailbag

A few atheists sites have been lauding this "letter" to God:




i) I didn't know atheists wished Hitler and Jeffery Dahmer were still walking around among us.

ii) Perhaps this will help: No one "dies". You're just leaving your earthly stage of life. You will live forever (see Q/A. 19). So, don't worry, no one ceases to exist. Where you exist is another matter altogether.

From The Mailbag

This post continues a conversation from Founders. First, let's bring the readers here up-t0-date.

Mike Rucker wrote,

i'm not a fan of calvinism. it leads to what i determined were untenable conclusions. and, taken down to similarly ultimate terminii, so does arminianism

So, what you're saying, I take it, Mike, is that you have determined what is acceptable and unacceptable on the basis of what exactly? When I read statements like this, be it from Calvinists or nonCalvinists, I read the same thing I hear from High Church Roman Catholics who argue against Protestantism. They have an aprioristic idea of what is acceptable and unacceptable, so they say "Protestantism can't be true because if it is then..." We get this from the Orthodox too. In Orthodoxy, Christology controls everything. An exegetical conclusion is ruled out of bounds, even if it comes by way of sound exegetical thinking, on the basis that if true x is the result and x is unacceptable due to Orthodox tradition.

the lesson that we seem incapable of learning is that the answers are along a continuum, and do not reside at opposite ends.

So, I take it that binary logic escapes you?

did God intentionally make finding ultimate answers akin to nailing jello to a wall?

That's cute, but the question I have for you, Mike is this: Can you substantiate your position exegetically?

calvinism is no better - and no worse - than arminianism. and vice versa.

These are assertions in lieu of arguments.

God is no more sovereign than the free will man exercises. and vice versa.

Another assertion in lieu of an argument. We can figure this out easily. Where does the Bible define "free will" in libertarian terms? Please posit a theory of agent action and causality that you have derived from Scripture.

we want it to fit in a nice orderly outline here in the west - because that's how we do things.

Notice that on the one hand you're denying binary logic in your post and yet on the other, you are positing a binary difference between Eastern and Western thinking.

It's also fallacious. Christianity arose not from the West, but from the East. The "literal" method of the School of Antioch, from which the Grammatical Historical Method arose later comes not from "the West" but from the East. If you know of another way of interpreting the Bible, what's your alternative? Allegory?

All human beings employ logical thinking. We recognize truth and falsity, contradiction, etc. We are created in God's image, so we do this because we reflect God's mind in these ways. It's a basic presupposition, one you are taking for granted every time you form a sentence. Since logic is one of God's attributes, then we should certainly think that His revelation would be intelligible and that the propositions in the Bible can be linked together in a systematic, logical fashion.

Mike's reply was deleted by Tom Ascol per the rules he has for Founders. Mike has emailed me and wishes to continue this discussion. I am continuing it here, since he posted his comments publicly.

gee... now i know how samson must have felt.

can someone bring me the jawbone of an ass?

hey mike - looks like you've already got one - right under your nose!

ha, ha, ha, yeah, what a funny guy.


where to start, where to start. how about this: after millions of men have wrestled with these arguments for thousands of years, i do not have the pride nor the patience to explain to you that i have managed to figure it all out.

the corollary statement is this: you haven't either.

and it's a bit of humility that we need in nearly all circles today - from the water cooler, to the political arena, to the pulpit, to the ivory towers. however, i don't want it to be the old, 'agree to disagree' deal. i want us, this time, to use that old AA adage, 'take what we need and leave the rest.'

This is cute, but it doesn't tell us anything about truth. Is your position that truth cannot be known? If so, how do you know this? Wouldn't that be a truth statement?

gene said,
So, what you're saying, I take it, Mike, is that you have determined what is acceptable and unacceptable on the basis of what exactly?

i think that's an excellent starting point for all of us to look at. as i near the half-century mark on this third rock from the sun (yeah, i know, i know, i only look 25 - thanks), some things seem to almost have what you all would call a 'ring of (absolute) truth' about them. one of them is this: no matter how much you tell your kids how they should live, they won't assimilate all those lessons until they get out from under your wing and start living life. at that point, they can begin to put their walk to your talk, so to speak. in a nutshell: words only take them so far.
what i determine is acceptable and unacceptable, gene, in the juicy matters of life, is based on one main thing: the God Who i believe has been at work in my life. his characteristics. his persistence. his never-give-up-on-me-ism. and his intelligence and grace to allow me to have kids so i can see in my relationship with them a vivid picture of what his relationship with me is.

i think some guy said we could even call God, 'Father'. lots to learn in that little paradigm shift

How do you know what God is like, Mike? How do you know about His persistence? How do you know anything about him? Are you saying you're relying on your own autonomous intuitions? How do you measure your experience? What role does the Bible have in your understanding of God?

Mike, you said that you have determined what constitutes an acceptable/unacceptable consequence if Calvinism is true. On what basis? Shouldn't we let God determine what is unacceptable or acceptable? What I'm reading here is that you have come to this conclusion based on your own autonomous thinking, not anything the Bible says. Can you give us a nonarbitrary warrant for your intuitions? If not, how does your thinking differ, in principle, from that of the Village Atheist?

gene said,
When I read statements like this...etc. An exegetical conclusion is ruled out of bounds...etc.

exegesis is fun, but please - always wear a condom. gene, how many times do we need to parse the same verbs and arrive at the same pre-determined conclusions, only to find them again at odds with the guy across the aisle who is finishing up his own parsimony of the same verbs and arriving at his own pre-determined conclusions? like hawkeye said, "we looked in the back of your bible, frank - the devil did it." we know where those roads lead by now, i'm almost positive.

with calvinism, you always reach the point in the logic where God becomes somehow culpable for men spending eternity in hell. with arminianism, you always reach the point where it looks like Jesus didn't, in the end, really have to die because everyone could be saved.

1. Grammatical-Historical exegesis doesn't select for a particular interpretation of Scripture.

2. If you believe Calvinists are coming to Scripture with certain aprioristic ideas about God, then it's up to you to demonstrate this assertion.

3. Arminians do admit to using their ideas about the love of God and libertarian freedom.

4. If the Bible taught, as you say, that God is somehow culpable for men spending eternity in hell, wouldn't you be obligated to believe it?

it's just like on jeopardy: we already HAVE the answers.

perhaps our problem has been we've been using the wrong QUESTIONS.

What questions should we be asking? What's your alternative to exegeting Scripture?

gene said,
So, I take it that binary logic escapes you?

ha! let it never be said that i didn't always defend God's incredible sense of humor. no, gene, i've only spent my life in 1s and 0s as a Georgia Tech grad and an IT professional (but don't try this at home...). it's almost like He knew - maybe He did, after all, i mean, He's God, right? - that i would try that same approach with the Bible, and the deeper questions of life, and He was just going to sit back and laugh like hell watching me, well, like i said before, try my darndest to nail jello to the wall.

1. You said that "answers range along a continuum." That struck me and at least one other in the combox as a denial of binary logic. Is it your position that truth can contradict itself?

2. You're comparing, I gather, the Bible to "jello on the wall." This is an assertion if lieu of an argument.

3. Reading your post, it strikes me that you're mirror-reading. The Bible isn't the problem, it's your thinking process that's appropriately labeled "jello on the wall."

which brings me to another of gene's points:

That's cute, but the question I have for you, Mike is this: Can you substantiate your position exegetically?

i not only can substantiate your position, gene, i can substantiate mine, too, and just about everyone's. that's what makes this so dangblasted irritating... (i hear God laughing at me again...)

Then, by all means, Mike, present us with an exegetical argument for your position.

gene said,

These are assertions in lieu of arguments.

maybe, but they are simply the final words of someone who has walked both paths, and learned all the arguments, and learned that, in the end, God really didn't intend for us to do all this arguing.

Somehow, I don't think you've "learned all the arguments" at all, considering that, on your blog, you've accused people of "bibliolatry." It seems to me, Mike, that you're operating with a double standard, namely, you think people are being "judgmental" and believing things that you find "unacceptable," and you are sitting in judgment over them based on your own autonomous thinking. How is that not irrational?

I offered,
God is no more sovereign than the free will man exercises. and vice versa.
to which gene said,
Another assertion in lieu of an argument.

two weeks ago i was taking my kids to school on a rainy morning. we came around a curve just in time to see a car coming the opposite direction leave the road and go airborne. we pulled over as fast as we could, and ran back to see what shape the car and driver were in. the car had wound up in a clearing, the driver was ok. i walked back up to where the car had left the road. she sideswiped a lone tree that pushed her back up on the shoulder and kept her car from rolling over and down the embankment, where she no doubt would have been killed. driving 40 or 45 mph, it was just a matter of milliseconds that could have placed her either ahead of, or after, that tree.

i heard God say, "see how it all works? that free will and sovereignty thing?"

i said, "uh...i'm not sure."

he said, "don't tell anyone, but neither am I... but here's the thing: somehow, together, we get where I want us to go."

i said, "right."

1. Mike, when you're hearing voices, I suggest it's not God's voice you're hearing. You may need to visit a specialist for some medication. I used to live in Midtown Atlanta myself, I've seen my share of mental illness there. So, I'll ask you, since you deny the clarity of the Bible, how would you know it is God speaking if God did speak to you?

2. This story does nothing to illustrate your point. Please argue your statement: God is no more sovereign than the free will man exercises. and vice versa. You could begin simply by defining terms like "free will."

gene continued,
Notice that on the one hand you're denying binary logic in your post and yet on the other, you are positing a binary difference between Eastern and Western thinking.

i'm not denying anything.

I'm following your own argument. Earlier you said that answers range along a continuum. That's a denial of binary logic. Yet later, you posit a binary difference between Eastern and Western thinking.

the point i'm trying to make is that, here in the west, we have met our enemy and he is us. look at politics and congress and talk radio and the presidential race. we have reached the end of the road, where we have once and for all finally split into two camps who each intend to sit there like brats until the other side comes across the aisle.

How do "politics and congress and talk radio and the presidential race" have any bearing on theological truth?

we've answered all the easy questions on life's test by now. it's essay questions from here on, gene. the bible will give us guidance, God will give us wisdom, but the answer we pick today may be different a year from now. on everything. yes, everything.

So, in the end, you have only your own autonomous reasoning process to guide you. Sorry, Mike, you can chase your Cartesian demons all day. I'll take Scripture over that any day. If that's biblioatry, I'm guilty as charged.