For the naysayers: “The earlier one goes back the more Protestant they seem”.
Here is the entire quote from Dominic Foo:
The Protestant Consensus of the Fathers, Doctors and Saints
To be honest when I set out on my patristic quote spam, I was merely gathering material for my photo album in preparation for Reformation Day. My goal was a lot more modest: I merely wanted to show that Protestant claims were not unprecedented, that what we teach has always existed even if not enjoying a sort of overwhelming majority or broad consensus.
I have to say that now that I have properly dug into it I am surprised, really surprised. Protestant propositions and claims are not merely isolated one off remarks by the Fathers here and there but enjoys a sort of continuity and universality amongst the Fathers. Even when the essence of Protestant claims started to become obscured by later accretions, which reasoning, based on the immediate context, can be clearly understood and motivations, for contemporary concerns, clearly traced, the Protestant claims remains intact.
Whatever is distinctive about high church denominations, like the role of unwritten customs or adoration of images or even invocation of saints, can be clearly seen to be of later developments which came about as a result of much ecclesiastical struggle. The earlier one goes back the more Protestant they seem. I was honestly surprised to read long extensive iconoclastic arguments from Athanasius, the rejection of excessive veneration of saints from Basil and Chrysostom, and a "me and my Bible" approach from them which even I am uncomfortable with.
Officially my Protestant approach to Church History remains the same. If we believe that the Scriptures are perspicuous and clear, other people before us must have read the Scriptures in the same way as we have. While we cannot be the first to have read it that way, I don't however need to harmonise all that they have said. Now however, I am really a lot more confident of making the claims of a "Protestant Consensus" of the Fathers while being able to identify, explain, and argue against the faulty reasoning and premises invoked by the later Fathers and Doctors in aid of erroneous contemporary high church claims.
If you think Dominic Foo finds Protestant principles in Patristic literature, you should go read Timothy Kaufmann's web page, it's awesome.
ReplyDeleteI’ve seen it. I’m uncomfortable with his efforts to squeeze early church history into some of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.
DeleteTrue, yet it's very interesting. He really is well read in that era, and puts out highly detailed theories of his thoughts. It is all tied up coherently, but since it is prophecy, it is very difficult to "guarantee" if it's true or not. I particularly like his work on the pre Nicene era and how Rome developed, especially in the 4th century. He does an excellent job debunking his commenters, who see Roman Catholicism in ALL things Patristic, with sound research, and copious amounts of documentation. Good stuff. His work on Daniel & Revelation should be taken with a grain of salt, just like everyone else I read on these particular subjects dealing with prophecy.
ReplyDeleteI’ve liked some of his stuff a lot.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
///Can you then show me consistent and continuous teaching of double imputation and OSAS among the Church Fathers and medieval theologians, and understanding of justification as a one-time event constituting a forensic declaration?///
DeleteFirst of all, you're mischaracterizing what the early fathers meant when they talked about things like predestination and assurance. If you're going to question the doctrines, you should be careful to get them right.
///Even Alistair McGrath in his book on the history of the doctrine of justification admits that the doctrine of imputation and one-time forensic justification was a break from hundreds of previous years when justifiction was unanimously understood as a process. ///
1. It's "Alister", not "Alistair".
2. Perhaps he didn't read them carefully enough. Nathan Buszenitz ("Long Before Luther: Tracing the Heart of the Gospel From Christ to the Reformation") challenges McGrath, takes Chemnitz a step further, and traces "justification by faith alone" (and it's counterparts in Protestant doctrine) through both the biblical and patristic foundations of those doctrines.
///Likewise, numerous Church Fathers, as early as St. Justin Martyn, and St. Irenaeus, affirmed possibility of losing salvation and free will of man. ///
That's another discussion, but the biblical and the philosophical issues were the same then as now.
///So, in case of imputation, OSAS and one-time forensic justification a Protestant must refer to development of doctrine too, and in many cases with much weaker historical case that Catholics.///
Not so. as Buszenitz notes, the proper characterizations of these doctrines are clearly found in Scripture and echoed through the writings of the early church. The "development" that occured is the "development" that placed "the Church" and "the sacraments" in between Christ and those he justifies.
///Also, there are some things that the Fathers were simply wrong about ///
Of course. Which is why Sola Scriptura rightly claims that no other source of authority has the same authority as the Scriptures.
///I believe such is the case with veneration of images///
There is of course the second commandment. Art is fine. But once you start talking "veneration" then you are on a path that will take you to where someone for whom Scripture is not a final authority will go (such as the 8th century participants in Nicaea II (787).
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.