Justin Martyr
- Thread starter Coram Deo
- Start date
- Status
Justin does not leave us with a systematic theology. He does give us apologies. From his writing we learn that he was converted from various forms of philosophy that he tried and found wanting. He does seem to ascribe more to the role and preparation of philosophy for the Greeks, however, if I remember correctly he thought that the truth they had, had somehow been derived from Moses. He is helpful for a very early Christian example of interpretation of the NT fulfilling the OT.
As I read many of the church fathers they express themselves with regard to the will in ways that as a Calvinist, hundreds of years later, I would not do. However, we must be very sensitive not to judge the early fathers but the precision of later scholastic terminology or we end up with very few Christians!
As a disclaimer, however, it has been a little while since I read Justin, so if you come out with some outrageous quote I will reconsider. I do not recall him being used in patristic studies as an example of a seminal or proto-Pelagian.
As I read many of the church fathers they express themselves with regard to the will in ways that as a Calvinist, hundreds of years later, I would not do. However, we must be very sensitive not to judge the early fathers but the precision of later scholastic terminology or we end up with very few Christians!
As a disclaimer, however, it has been a little while since I read Justin, so if you come out with some outrageous quote I will reconsider. I do not recall him being used in patristic studies as an example of a seminal or proto-Pelagian.
Mathetes
Puritan Board Freshman
I just finished reading Dialogue With Trypho, and I think it's difficult to determine. The nature of the will and predestination doesn't seem to be the focus of his arguments. He does mention "free will" a few times, but never elaborates as to whether it's with a libertarian or compatibilist framework.
Such labels are anachronistic. I said "No" simply because the man lived before the Church could meet and examine the doctrine. I truly believe that some of the men who held what would be considered heretical views after them would have been Godly enough to submit to and learn from their Brothers on the meaning of Scripture. I can't say that I'm positive Martyr would have changed his views but I want to grant him the charity that he might have.
Try these:
Chapter 1 Section 3. - Justin
Chapter 2 Section 4. - Justin
Chapter 3 Section 4. - Justin
Chapter 4 Section 3. - Justin
BTW: Even if he was not a thorough going Calvinist that does not mean he was an Arminian.
Chapter 1 Section 3. - Justin
Chapter 2 Section 4. - Justin
Chapter 3 Section 4. - Justin
Chapter 4 Section 3. - Justin
BTW: Even if he was not a thorough going Calvinist that does not mean he was an Arminian.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Justin Marytr did not have 2000 years of theological thinking behind him as we do. He was a Gentile with a background in philosophy, a worldview which he then brought to the Scriptures. Hence, he came up with some pretty weird theology from our perspective as heirs of a long Christian tradition. For example, Justin believed that the great philosophers before him (like Socrates) were "Christians before Christ". This was because of his "logos" doctrine, that Christ existed in the Philosophers as human reason. Moreover, like all the early church fathers he taught baptismal regeneration (First Apology 61). Something Roman Catholics love to throw at Protestants.
What is critical to understand about Justin is the context in which he wrote. He was defending Christianity against Judaism, and the Paganism of the empire. The latter included a fatalism of the Stoics. Hence, in reaction he tends to make statements about free will that are contrary to biblical predestination. The same goes for Irenaeus after Justin. Indeed, none of the Fathers until Augustine really got God's sovereignty and predestination.
Augustine is really the first to properly deal with the issue of predestination and God's sovereignty head on. And in response, someone like Vincent of Lerins (in his Commonitory) argued against Augustine's ideas precisely because they were new. In other words he put tradition over Scripture.
What is critical to understand about Justin is the context in which he wrote. He was defending Christianity against Judaism, and the Paganism of the empire. The latter included a fatalism of the Stoics. Hence, in reaction he tends to make statements about free will that are contrary to biblical predestination. The same goes for Irenaeus after Justin. Indeed, none of the Fathers until Augustine really got God's sovereignty and predestination.
Augustine is really the first to properly deal with the issue of predestination and God's sovereignty head on. And in response, someone like Vincent of Lerins (in his Commonitory) argued against Augustine's ideas precisely because they were new. In other words he put tradition over Scripture.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Jean Daillé, A Treatise Concerning the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies Existing at This Day in Religion (1856 ed.), p. 277:
Dieter Schneider
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think the question is anachronistic. It reminds me of John Gill who claims that Cyprian was a five-point Calvinist! What we should be asking is not whether men know the doctrines of grace but the grace of the doctrines.
One also ought to distinguish between Arminianism (e.g. John Wesley) and Pelagianism (Charles Finney). What proof can be cited for such a ridiculous assumption about Justin Martyr?
One also ought to distinguish between Arminianism (e.g. John Wesley) and Pelagianism (Charles Finney). What proof can be cited for such a ridiculous assumption about Justin Martyr?
- Status